| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
America Makes its Choice
// The upcoming election in Russia was acknowledged to be non-democratic through US fault
US House Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearing called “Russia on the Eve of National Elections” on Tuesday. Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA), who presided over the hearing, stated that Russia practically missed its “chance of a breakthrough after a thousand years of no democracy”. Besides, many participants of the hearing said it is partially the fault of the U.S. which carries out an overtly anti-Russia policy and professes double standards. Kommersant’s correspondent Dmitry Sidorov brings the details from the session hall in Washington.
Statement of Prosecution
Members of the Russian embassy in Washington were among the first to appear in the session hall of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The diplomats sat in a compact group and prepared to take notes, surrounded by journalists and students who filled the room.
Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA), who presided over the hearing, delivered the opening speech, making the Russians write a lot. The speech was not very diplomatic. Lantos said that Russia practically missed its “chance of a breakthrough after a thousand years of no democracy”, and blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin personally. Apparently, Lantos stored up quite many claims to the Russian leader. For instance, the congressman accused Putin of power centralization, creating an authoritarian state, false charges against businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, putting kibosh on the opposition and independent mass media, using oil and gas for intimidating neighbor states, irresponsible behavior in relation to Iran, and obstructing the UN resolution on Kosovo’s independence.
At last, Lantos confessed he loves Russian civilization and culture. He added that he remembers how the Soviet Army liberated him in 1945 from a Nazi camp in Hungary and remembers to whom he owes his survival.
Deputy Chairperson Ileana Rose-Lehtinen echoed Lantos’ statements. She completed the list of accusations against Putin by “mysterious explosions of houses in Moscow” and “invasion of Chechnya”, along with “a sort of re-privatization which transferred the wealth into the hands of the Russian Government, if not Putin himself” and the refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi to Great Britain.
By the way, the last point made Rose-Lehtinen introduce the resolution #154 to Congress, in which she asks the US president and the Secretary of State to urge Putin to fully cooperate with the British authorities in the Litvinenko case investigation. However, a source in the Congress said the resolution has small chances to pass through the Congress.
Statement of Defense
Most participants of the hearing sided with Lantos and Rose-Lehtinen on the whole. However, they gave different explanations of Moscow’s behavior. Thus, Lantos thinks that Russia’s natural resources are the main cause of the problem. “High oil price lets Putin behave as he pleases, both at home and abroad,” said the congressman. By the way, he assured politicians in Washington just a while ago that Moscow’s policy would become better balanced as soon as the Russian authorities get sated with the financial fruit of high prices of energy resources. Apparently, Lantos thinks so no longer.
However, Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman believes that the U.S. administration is largely to blame for Russia’s actions. “We lecture the former Communists in Moscow that it is unlawful or at least bad to sell their natural gas demanding the market price for it,” he said, wondering why the U.S. is trying to impose on Russia a pattern for building its relations with neighbor states.
“We reflexively take anti-Russia position,” the congressman said. He believes it is mostly due to the fact that “the majority of US foreign policy establishment formed in the Soviet era, when they dealt with developing a strategy to surround, weaken, and humiliate Russia”. Sherman also mentioned the policy of double standards professed by Washington. “We support territorial integrity in relation to Transdniestria in Moldova and Abkhazia in Georgia, but we stand for self-determination of Kosovo in Serbia. Some might say we are inexplicably inconsistent, but I would say we are very consistent: we take anti-Russia position in all these three conflicts. The U.S. deprives Russia of a right to have any legitimate interests outside its own territory, even in its ethnically-similar former republics,” said the congressman.
International Organizations and Human Rights Subcommittee’s Deputy Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) also spoke in defense of Moscow: “Russians have all grounds to be displeased with the U.S. and our actions ever since the fall of communism.” He supported his statement by mentioning the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a foreign trade restriction against Russia which is still in force, while the U.S. lifted all foreign trade restrictions off China. “There are no opposition parties in China, no protest rallies on the streets, no freedom of religion, and they are among the major violators of human rights. Nonetheless, we grant them the most favorable trade terms, but do not relieve Russia of Jackson-Vanik, although Russians work much better than Chinese in all those spheres,” wondered Rohrabacher.
Verdict
Anyway, no one questioned the statement that Russia’s upcoming elections cannot be called democratic. “They cannot be called honest. When one person controls everything, there is no sense in speaking of pluralism,” said Leon Aron, Washington Institute’s leading expert who also attended the hearing.
Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution and former Deputy Secretary of State for Russian affairs, agreed. He believes the main changes in Russia in the last five months prove that “Putin might remain the country’s chief leader even if he has a different position, for instance that of prime minister”.
Andrei Piontkovsky, Hudson Institute expert in Washington, thinks the Kremlin will not need to market the successor in 2008 to the people. “Voters will swallow anything. Putin just needs to reach agreement with his close associates, 5-10 guys from the ‘St. Pete gang’,” the expert said.
Congressman Howard Berman, member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is of similar opinion. He suggested using a new term – ‘anointed’ – instead of ‘successor’. “Whom Putin anoints, he will come,” said Berman.
Leon Aron eventually acknowledged “the U.S. now has no levers of pressure on Russia”. However, experts think there is something which can be changed, still. For instance, Talbott said the administration should provide more opportunities to work in the U.S. for transparent Russian companies. He named LUKOIL, “quietly cooperating with ConocoPhillips”. Meanwhile, Aron believes that Washington should clearly explain to Putin that there is a line which the latter should not cross. “Otherwise he will have to deal with grave difficulties,” promised Aron.
Dmitry Sidorov
All the Article in Russian as of Nov. 01, 2007
|
|
|
