Watch out for Falling Glass

Submitted by John on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 1:23pm. Tags:

Foreign Affairs

Superb commentary at Cato by Patrick Basham on US relations with Russia at this crucial time.

Says Basham:

Washington's desire to lash out economically and diplomatically at Russian misbehaviour in the Caucasus is trumping rational thinking on the future of a vital strategic relationship.

Washington's fundamental error is to mislabel Russia as a democratic country in the 1990s that suddenly turned undemocratic during the past decade....Russia has never been democratic in the liberal, Western sense. Rather, in zigzag fashion the Russian political system has been slowly transitioning away from totalitarianism towards a democratic system.

'Why did Russia go wrong?' is the wrong question. The awkward question Americans should be asking, not of the Russians, but of themselves, is, 'What can the West do to encourage and to sustain Russia's political transition?'

The Bush administration needs to avoid a holier-than-thou attitude in these matters.

He goes on to contrast DC's impatience with Russian democratization with the seemingly endless patience it has with blatantly undemocratic countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and others.

Economic development is the catalyst for Russia's long-term political maturation, as it has proven to be in most countries. Hence, the best way to foster Russian democracy and, consequently, calm Moscow's approach to international relations, is not to threaten Moscow but, less dramatically and more realistically, to help foster economic growth in Russia.

The larger irony is that the world's greatest liberal democracy is itself becoming increasingly illiberal. Both domestically and internationally, there is a need to refocus on a broader definition of democracy than American politicians are comfortable employing in public, especially when lecturing their Russian counterparts.

In practice, a myriad of economic and personal freedoms form integral pillars of a strong and stable liberal democracy. Simply put, political freedom is not sustainable without the foundations supplied by economic and personal freedom.

Yet, American liberal democracy is in the process of being replaced by a bully-like Nanny State.

We need prudence and to offer a helping hand that helps Russia help itself. And a strategic economic relationship that helps bring them into the fold rather than confrontational and cartoonish rhetoric and actions that get them paranoid and circling the wagons is how our government can truly serve its people here. I don't want to live in a heightened security state and I won't have it.

Let's not help create a monster and then wonder where it came from.

We have the ability to bridge gaps rather than creates gaps in the bridge.

The impatience, myopia and chest thumping of neo-cons and yellow-bellied, xenophobic simpletons will no doubt make it difficult for them to warm up to this approach because they'd rather stay in the comfortable one-dimensional world of nationalistic grand standing and soap box-ish pseudo-righteousness. I know. But this isn't about national greatness, WW2 mindsets or even Cold War mindsets. This about encouraging a sense of reassuredness in the Russian government and in turn to the Russian people that we are not a threat to them nor are their former blocs. It serves nobody's interest that has to live under either government's whims to make the Russians feel justified in circling the wagons, emboldening its control and preventing its own economic growth and liberalization and hence continued work toward social and political freedom. We need a wiser course of action that acknowledges that what we do affects how others think and think of us.

It's hypocritical of our government to claim anything and everything happening all over the world....no matter how remote...is a direct possible affront on American interests and justification for any course of action it chooses and then turn around and find it completely off the wall and preposterous when Russia reacts to contentious developments just beyond its own borders: Georgia wants in NATO, Georgia and Russia don't get along. It's other blocs are in the same boat, we're arming them (US Missile Deal in Poland...hello??) Do I feel Russia should feel as paranoid and isolated as it does? No....because they don't have my perspective. But that's not the issue. The issue is that I can easily see how they WOULD feel this way when viewed from their POV. And that's what matters here. Are we serving up fodder that emboldens Russia toward a self-fulfilled prophecy?

The Russians do not think the U.S. is sincere. Rather, they believe the critique of Russia's actions is merely an instrument of American foreign policy.

Absent a belated U-turn, American foreign policy – conducted by those living in an democratic glass house – will continue to throw ever-larger political stones in Russia's direction. Policymakers in Washington shall discover that this course of action damages not only the stones' intended target, but also the stone thrower, herself.

And claims that this is all a veneer for "kum bay a" weakness and naivete are making a grave, grave error in judgment. Strength through prudence and a sound, wise and global perspective will trump strength through primal brute force in this matter....if given the chance.
--

John's blog
Login or register to post comments

I can't agree (#111534)

by Kierkegaard on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 2:50pm

I think Washington's 'desire to lash out' at Russia is due to a belated realization that the they have been hoodwinked for the past 7 years into allowing the revival of the their Cold War adversary. The 'naivety' has already taken place.

Russia may be a necessary partner for Europe and Central Asia; it is, however, neither economically nor geopolitically a partner of ours.

(

)

Revival of our Cold War adversary? (#111917)

by Bill White on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 1:47pm

Are you suggesting we should have salted their fields as Rome did to Carthage? Sell all Russian children into slavery?

Russia's "revival" was entirely predictable and preferable to the alternative since avoiding a complete Russian internal implosion is part of the price we must pay to keep ex-Soviet nukes off the black market (or at least keep those numbers lower).

An utterly failed Russian state would be far worse for us than what we face now.

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

(

| parent )

Germany and Japan (#111933)

by Kierkegaard on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 2:57pm

provide us with better examples. Even China is slightly more trustworthy as a working partner.

(

| parent )

The USSR never handed over their sword in defeat (#111934)

by Spartacvs on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 3:13pm

unlike Germany and Japan. They merely retired from the battlefield as they did in 1917, to concentrate on domestic matters only to eventually return stronger than they had been before. Also don't be shocked if the Chinese live up to their reputation for inscrutability in dealings with the West, much more than might the Russians.

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

(

| parent )

A propos (#111550)

by John on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 3:20pm

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda with Russia.

Like I always say: Everything and all actions have context.

What our government does and does NOT do matters.

(

| parent )

Misdiagnosis of the problem, IMO, on your part (#111543)

by John on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 3:08pm

Even though you may be right that our government was wrong about Russia all these years...and I'm going back to the early 90s...but that was error in judgment by the DC consensus since the fall of communism.

The problem is that you make it sound intentional on Russia's part or that it was a ruse. I don't see it that way. Our government and others perhaps expected too much too fast.

Nevertheless, the realization that Russia is not where we want them to be by now in terms of liberal democratic, economic and social progress is no reason to adopt policies that threaten its further development. Our government's judging of the situation 'til recently is not a justification to take an approach that will simply bring about more of we in the West are frowning upon.

(

| parent )

The middle way (#111771)

by catchy on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 1:15am

the realization that Russia is not where we want them to be by now in terms of liberal democratic, economic and social progress is no reason to adopt policies that threaten its further development

You write as if you failed to notice that Russia was self-consciously moving in the opposite direction of liberalization. Russia is run by an old-style autocratic Russian nationalist regime.

But I don't think it's accurate to describe Russia under Putin as a "revival" of our old "Cold War adversary". In addition to having a much weaker economy, Russia today has no ideological appeal and nothing like communism to export.

It's a semi-revival of a much less potent adversary that is just as likely to foster closer ties among western powers (cf. Poland) as it is to undermine them.

(

| parent )

Believe me, catchy, I get your point (#111887)

by John on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 12:11pm

I'm not trying to make Putin or his government out to be some innocent victim. Not at all.

My point is that looking back, it's clear that many courses of action taken by us and the West in general were perhaps not...shall we say...the best actions for encouraging Russia toward integration with Western Europe on social, economic and political levels. In a sense, by fooling ourselves perhaps into thinking a Western liberal democracy for Russia was a hop, skip and jump away from the disintegration of communism, we didn't fully engage Russia in a way conducive to bringing them around like Poland or the Czechs, for example.

It's not hard to look back at Western posture toward Russia since the early 90s and get a sense of "ha-ha, we won, you lost. Now you can keep that tail between your legs and drudge on over here or you'll be all alone."

Add in the way we came in and starting embracing its former blocs into military alliances and such we see an recipe for instilling shame, indignation, paranoia and nationalism.

Could we have done differently? I don't know. I'd like to think so.

But what we do now? I'm not sure. But feeding these feelings and subsequent negative posturing doesn't seem to be the right way. We're giving Russian officials a threat to rally against.

(

| parent )

It is now a common perception (#111616)

by Kierkegaard on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 6:02pm

among pundits across the spectrum that since his assumption of near-dictatorial power with the retirement of Yeltsin, Putin has done nothing 'unintentionally.' Liberals and conservatives, hawks and doves alike agree on his strategy. Where they differ in their views is what our response should be. But the facts on the ground are clear. Putin has moved deliberately to turn Russia from a feeble faux-democracy into an oligarchy ruled utterly by himself, and has instituted the same sort of gangster-style petro-kleptocracy that characterizes the countries of the Gulf region. Now he is invading a neighbor and threatening others with nuclear attack. It's worth pointing out that not even Iran has couched its threats against Israel in such flagrant terms.

Readjusting our attitude toward a rogue state requires the same hard, clear-thinking calculations we were as a society reluctantly forced to make after WWII with a principal ally. It's a question of sooner or later--not whether.

(

| parent )

"I looked him in the eye and saw blah blah blah" (#111774)

by tomsyl on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 2:17am

goes down as one of the dumbest things Bush has said. I've seen Putin's eyes, too; even on TV they have the icy glitter of the guy who stood in the shadows and asked questions while the torturers plied their trade in the Lubyanka basement. Cold, merciless, like an intelligent reptile. He's an expert in sambo, a Russian martial art that involves judo throws, wrestling moves, and kicks with no goal other than permanently crippling your opponent. I'd say more, but he's also a great long-range shot with a Dragunov.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

(

| parent )

Plus you're presumably scared (#111790)

by Kierkegaard on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 7:19am

of nukes ;)

(

| parent )

To be fair (#111623)

by HankP on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 6:18pm

it wasn't Putin who was doing the threatening, it was one of his generals. And we all know that generals don't always speak for politicians, right?

Russia is a competitor, but not yet a threat (or at least, not any more of a threat than any other nuclear power). If we hadn't spent the last eight years pushing Iran into their arms, things might be different. As it is, I'm guessing we can do about as much about their relations with Georgia as they can about our relations with Haiti.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

So I take it (#111524)

by HankP on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 2:29pm

that you're not voting for McCain, since his statements seem to be in direct opposition to what you consider wise foreign policy (and much of which I agree with, BTW).

I blame it all on the Internet

(

)

You have a greater of voting for McCain than I do (#111540)

by John on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 3:01pm

and always have....and that's not saying very much.

That's always been abundantly clear...or so I thought.

(

| parent )

Recent Diaries