()
Speak up, for the neighbors’ sake
Mark Brzezinski International Herald Tribune
SUNDAY, MARCH 12, 2006
_WASHINGTON_
( INGTON&sort=swishrank)
Last summer, the Council of Europe issued a report urging Russia to
cease treating “neighboring and other countries in the region as zones
of special influence.” The report urged Russia to “constructively
contribute to resolution of open issues and cease with activities”
that “undermine the countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
President George W. Bush should give President Vladimir Putin the
message that Russia’s own integration into the world, a highly
desirable objective, is jeopardized if at the same time the Kremlin
has a policy of undercutting democratic development along its borders.
It’s unlikely that there’s a master plan guiding Russia’s actions
toward her neighbors. Instead, Russia’s actions are driven variably by
ambition, nostalgia, confusion, misinterpretation, irritation and
resentment.
And Russia’s policy toward the former Soviet republics is manifested
in different ways and produces different results. Baltic leaders and
Ukraine claim that Russia uses energy to assert leverage, by having
Russian concerns acquire key elements of their energy sectors.
President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine has been clear about the goal
of Ukraine’s membership in the European Union. But he realizes the
vital importance of not estranging Russia and has taken steps to
develop dialogue with the Kremlin, even after Russia shut off gas
supplies on Jan. 1. By contrast, Belarus remains a dependency where
democracy demonstrations in the lead-up to the March 19 presidential
election have been brutally crushed.
In the Caucasus and Moldova, Russia has tried to readjust the
orientation of her neighbors, but with little success. In 2002, Russia
told Georgia to end its political and security relationship with NATO,
and urged Georgia to accept Russian bases for the long- term. In
Central Asia, dictators who previously resisted closer cooperation
with Moscow have been encouraged by the Kremlin to be heavy-handed
with any signs of religious revival. Only Russia and China endorsed
the Uzbekistan government’s killing of hundreds of demonstrators in
Andijon last summer.
There are signs that Russia is adjusting to new realities. Russia
accommodated itself to Georgian central control over Adzharia, and
Russian and Georgian authorities agreed to a plan for the withdrawal
of Russian troops from Georgia. But Russian troops may be redeployed
to Armenia, which would alarm Azerbaijan.
It’s in Russia’s interest, and in America’s, for there to be greater
trust and cooperation between Russia and her neighbors. The United
States should strive to help Russia to understand that Washington is
not trying to transform the region into a zone of American control
through “color revolutions” – and that instead, what’s been happening
there is part of a process Europe has been going through for more than
50 years.
At the same time, Russia’s neighbors need reassurance that the United
States is committed to their independence, integrity and
stability. The lack of Western reaction to Russian meddling made some
new democracies worry that their sovereignty is entirely subordinate
to other key U.S. interests with Russia.
In the near-term, the Belarus presidential election on March 19
provides an important test. Belarus is one of the most repressive
former Soviet republics. Last week, the police beat and detained
Alexander Kozulin, an opposition presidential candidate. Symbolizing
solidarity with the opposition, Bush met recently with the widows of
two Belarussian leaders who were murdered by Alexander Lukashenko’s
government. But as Western governments develop a strategy in the event
that international monitors report electoral fraud, it must be
remembered that Lukashenko’s major financial and political sponsor is
Putin.
In the long term, the West might consider a more dynamic vision of its
relationship with a democratic Russia. As the Russia task force of the
Council on Foreign Relations recommends: “Western leaders should also
diversify their political contacts within Russia. It’s not enough to
meet with representatives of ‘civil society.’ Open and routine contact
with opposition political figures and organizations carry a more
potent message.” Doing so would give credibility and consistency to
Bush’s freedom agenda.
(Mark Brzezinski, a Washington attorney, was director of Russian and
Eurasian affairs on the National Security Council in the Clinton
administration.)