Fwd: NSF: Dealing with Two Russias

[George Thompson]

George aka ElExtremo1312 aka P.K.

Colleagues: Many of you have asked for a good update on the state of affairs in Russia. My good friend Bill Courtney co-authored this excellent analysis of the “Two Russias”, which is reprinted with his approval.   Dealing with Two Russias By DENIS CORBOY, WILLIAM COURTNEY and KENNETH YALOWITZ International Herald Tribune January 24, 2013 TWO Russias are emerging — one seeking freedom and prosperity, the other focused on patriotism and populism. In the first, people can travel abroad, buy and sell their homes and keep money securely in banks. In the other Russia, President Vladimir Putin stifles dissent, alleges NATO missile defense threats, and seeks to ensnare former Soviet neighbors in an unequal Eurasian union. A new diplomacy that deals effectively with both Russias is essential. The first Russia is modernizing. In 2011 it had the world’s sixth-largest economy by purchasing power parity. Gross national income per capita was approximately $20,000, akin to European Union members Poland and Hungary. Wealthier people often own foreign property or send children abroad for study. In some areas Russia cooperates with the West. It facilitates supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan, backs selected sanctions on Iran’s illicit nuclear program and launches rockets to the international space station. And Russia concluded a new strategic arms treaty with America. The second Russia is retrograde. It is returning to a more statist and authoritarian past, away from ideals of civil liberties and the rule of law. The Soviet Union is not about to reappear, but democracy-building groups are under assault, dissidents are thrown into psychiatric hospitals and justice is politically rigged. Russia ranks 142 out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders. The West should employ differing strategies in dealing with each of the two Russias, recognizing that “patriotic” forces are in power for now, but that they are increasingly alienating the urbanized and educated. Modernizing elites value a growing economy and globalizing ties. Thus the West should encourage Russia to abide by the rules of the World Trade Organization, which should increase the competitiveness of Russia’s economy. A recent U.S. accord on intellectual property rights will help ensure that Russia benefits from its high-tech sectors. In the Arctic Council, Moscow is cooperating to seek economic opportunity while protecting the environment. At the same time, Russia’s energy competitiveness is declining because of governmental interference. Offering more leeway for Western investment and technology to develop challenging deposits would help Russia regain export momentum. In this, the bold Exxon Mobil venture with Rosneft for Arctic exploration will be a bellweather. Diplomacy with the second Russia should be guided by the West’s long-term interest in internal liberalization and fair treatment of others. The West should revive tenets of human rights diplomacy from the Soviet era, such as speaking out publicly against repression and raising individual cases of injustice at high levels. The West has been too quiet about systematic human rights abuses in the North Caucasus. But outsiders can do little to advance reform in Russia except through personal interaction and Internet communication. The Kremlin ended U.S.A.I.D. programs, though the E.U.-Russia civil society forum remains helpful. Courageous foreign-funded groups such as Golos, which monitors elections, face harassment or closure. Cooperation on nuclear security is impeded; Moscow cancelled the Nunn-Lugar program. Internationally, Russia struggles to retain its identity as a great power, even though it is being eclipsed by more dynamic areas of the world such as East Asia. But stubborn support for the Assad regime in Syria has tarnished the prestige of Russia, and intimidation of neighbors leaves it without friends or allies. While not easy, the West has taken steps to counter retrograde Russia. In December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned against efforts to “re-Sovietize” its neighborhood by forcing a Eurasian economic union. The West has also encouraged Georgia to improve ties with Russia while helping it deter a reprise of the 2008 invasion. The West aids Caspian energy producers by backing multiple export routes to Turkey, Black Sea ports and China. Retrograde Russia can be its own worst enemy. Last month at an E.U. summit, Putin lambasted as “uncivilized” proposals that would treat Russian ownership of energy assets in the E.U. the same way as property of other energy producers. A law to ban adoption by Americans of Russian children, many of them orphans with special needs, caused dismay. It was meant as a riposte to a recent U.S. law, the Sergei Magnitsky act, which prohibits entrance into the United States and use of its banking system by Russians who commit gross violations of human rights. On this front, fewer Western summits with Putin, and E.U. steps akin to the Magnitsky act, merit consideration. Dual track diplomacy, embodying pragmatic but principled approaches, would foster cooperation with Russia on common interests while lifting the spirits of those who seek democracy and respect for human rights. Denis Corboy, a visiting senior research fellow at Kings College, London, served as European Commission ambassador to Armenia and Georgia. William Courtneywas U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia, and special assistant to the president for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. Kenneth Yalowitz served as U.S. ambassador to Belarus and Georgia.       Read this article, and others, on NationalSecurityForum.org Unsubscribe shepd...@aol.com from this list | Forward to a friend | Update your profile Our mailing address is: National Security Forum 4175 Powderkeg Cir Reno, NV 89519 Add us to your address book Copyright (C) 2010 National Security Forum All rights reserved.

[George Thompson]

George aka ElExtremo1312 aka P.K.

---

War Is Like Rust

By Victor Davis Hanson · January 31, 2013

War seems to come out of nowhere, like rust that suddenly pops up on iron after a storm.
Throughout history, we have seen that war can sometimes be avoided or postponed, or its effects mitigated -- usually through a balance of power, alliances and deterrence rather than supranational collective agencies. But it never seems to go away entirely.
Just as otherwise lawful suburbanites might slug it out over silly driveway boundaries, or trivial road rage can escalate into shooting violence, so nations and factions can whip themselves up to go to war -- consider 1861, 1914 or 1939. Often, the pretexts for starting a war are not real shortages of land, food or fuel, but rather perceptions -- like fear, honor and perceived self-interest.
To the ancient Greek philosophers Heraclitus and Plato, war was the father of us all, while peace was a brief parenthesis in the human experience. In the past, Americans of both parties seemed to accept that tragic fact.
After the Second World War, the United States, at great expense in blood and treasure, and often at existential danger, took on the role of protecting the free world from global communism. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, both Democratic and Republican administrations ensured the free commerce, travel and communications essential for the globalization boom.
Such peacekeeping assumed that there would always pop up a Manuel Noriega, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who would threaten the regional or international order. In response, the United States -- often clumsily, with mixed results, and to international criticism -- would either contain or eliminate the threat. Names changed, but the evil of the each age remained -- and as a result of U.S. vigilance the world largely prospered.
Such a bipartisan activist policy is coming to close with the new "lead from behind" policy of the Obama administration. Perhaps America now believes that the United Nations has a better record of preventing or stopping wars -- or that the history of the United States suggests we have more often caused rather than solved problems, or that with pressing social needs at home, we can no longer afford an activist profile abroad at a time of near financial insolvency.
Yet the reasons for our new isolationism, analogous to early 1914 or 1939, do not matter, only the reality that lots of bad actors now believe that the United States cannot or will not impede their agendas -- and that no one else will in our absence. Americans are rightly tired of the Afghan and Iraq wars. Yet we left no monitoring force in Iraq and are winding down precipitously in Afghanistan, and thus have no guarantees that our decade-long struggle for postwar consensual government will survive in either place.
Much of North Africa is beginning to resemble Somalia. Our tag-along strategy in Libya resulted in sheer chaos, with an American ambassador and three others killed in Benghazi. The Muslim Brotherhood, headed by anti-Semite Mohamed Morsi, has turned Egypt into a failed state. Islamists killed dozens of Western hostages in Algeria. The French are unilaterally trying to prevent an Islamist takeover of Mali. Meanwhile, 60,000 died in Syria, with thousands more fatalities to come.
The common theme? Middle East authoritarians and Islamists expect that the United States will probably lecture a lot about peace and do very little about war.
China and Japan appear to be on the verge of a shooting incident over unimportant disputed islands that nonetheless seem very important in terms of national prestige. A more muscular government in Tokyo and an expanding Japanese navy suggest that the Japanese are running out of patience with Chinese bullying.
Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan all have the wealth and expertise to become nuclear to deter Chinese aggression, but so far they have not -- only because of their reliance on a previously engaged and military omnipotent United States.
A near-starving North Korea, when not threatening South Korea, periodically announces that it is pointing a test missile at Japan or the United States. Few believe that the present sanctions will stop Iran's trajectory toward a nuclear bomb. The more the Argentine economy tanks, the more its government talks about the "Malvinas" -- replaying the preliminaries that led to the 1982 Falklands Islands war.
In the last four years, tired of Iraq and Afghanistan, and facing crushing debt, we have outsourced collective action, deterrence and peacekeeping to the Arab League, the French, the British, the Afghan and Iraqi security forces and the United Nations. Does America now believe that our weaker allies, polite outreach, occasional obeisance and apology, euphemism, good intentions -- or simple neglect -- will defuse tensions that seem to be leading to conflict the world over?
Perhaps, but there is no evidence in either human nature or our recorded past to believe such a rosy prognosis.