The U.S. today rejected Russian proposals for new European security architecture, dismissing the notion of regional spheres of influence. But a senior adviser to President Obama insisted that the administration remains committed both to promoting democracy and engaging the Kremlin.
“We are continuing the enterprise we began at the end of the Cold War to expand the zone of democracy and stability across Europe,” said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Paris.
“We object to any spheres of influence in Europe in which one country seeks to control another’s future,” she said, insisting that, “NATO must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become a member and can meet the requirements of membership.”
Stressing the Obama administration’s commitment to Europe, she said that the OSCE’s capacity to promote human rights should be strengthened and called for a “Crisis Prevention Mechanism” to allow the OSCE to deliver rapid humanitarian aid and impartial monitoring.
In an interview today, she lamented the “unfortunate trends” in democracy and human rights, and noting the country’s demographic crisis. “It is in Russia’s interest to be more open and more tolerant of dissent,” she said, and to continue to expand its free market, to join the WTO and pursue a strategy of modernization.
The Kremlin – alongside Central Asian autocrats – has made a concerted effort to undermine the OSCE’s ability to promote democracy and human rights.
Michael McFaul, special assistant to Obama and senior director for Russian affairs at the National Security Council, shrugged off Congressional criticism of Vladislav Surkov, deputy chairman of the Russian presidential administration.
McFaul and Surkov are co-chairs of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission’s Civil Society Working Group was held in Washington on January 27. Surkov has been attacked as “one of the masterminds behind Russia’s authoritarian course.”
The former Stanford professor defended the bilateral commission, which includes a forum for dialog between U.S. and Russian NGOs.
But “it’s wrong to think that this is our only way that we can engage on fostering the development of civil society and democracy in Russia,” McFaul insisted. “[T]here are many other mechanisms, means, presidential statements, meetings of our presidents, where we can express our disagreement and our concern about human rights issues, corruption issues, the whole list of issues we have, and we do that rather militantly,” he told RFE/RL.
Russian democrats understand the need for a twin-track approach, writes Vladimir Kara-Murza, Washington bureau chief of the RTVi television network. While insisting that the administration’s “re-set” policy will be seen as a re-treat by the Kremlin, he commends President Obama for doing “something no U.S. president has done in over a decade”- meeting with the regime’s political opponents, including leaders of the democratic Solidarity movement.
“With this gesture,” he writes, “Mr. Obama acknowledged what some “realists” too often seem to forget—that Russia is not limited to the regime in the Kremlin.”
The reassertion of U.S. commitment to supporting democracy in Russia and rejection of the Kremlin’s insistence on privileged spheres of influence coincided with a political stand-off in Moscow. President Dmitri Medvedev’s suggestion that the country needs political reform was peremptorily dismissed by Premier Vladimir Putin.
“We should continually think about perfecting Russia’s political system. But we must act…in this area with extreme caution,” Putin said. “The political system must not wobble like runny jelly with every touch”.
Some 57 percent of Russians believe their country needs democracy, a recent survey by the independent Levada Center reveals, but only 9 percent see any evidence of democracy emerging.
“Everybody understands that political reform is needed” for social stability and trust in government, says Valeria Kasamara, a political scientist at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics.
But Medvedev has failed to deliver on his commitment to modernize the system. “Even if they only want to have a shop-window brand of democracy, they should at least put some democratic goods in the window,” notes Kasamara.
Recent Comments