As Moscow oppresses, Berkeley stands by
Russia’s ambitions should have all of us worried
By Tommy Owens
From the March 2007 Print Edition
One of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, Winston S. Churchill, once remarked, “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
One can easily see parallels between this 1939 Churchill quotation and the state of Vladimir Putin’s Russia today. U.S.-Russia relations are currently murky. Russia was one of the first countries to send its condolences for September 11, yet has been criticized for supporting anti-American regimes. One aspect of our foreign relations, however, is clear: Putin is pursuing a path of increasing Russian power at home and abroad.
It is inaccurate to brand Russia as an anti-American state. Moscow does not directly challenge American power, American interests, or her allies. “Counter-American” is a more accurate term to describe Putin’s stance towards Washington. Given the retreat of U.S. popularity around the world following the war in Iraq, Russia seems to be “filling the vacuum” of influence and power. One of the most visible results of counter-Americanism is Moscow’s relations with its neighboring pro-American Eastern European states.
The largest company in Russia, Gazprom, announced it would increase natural gas prices by 300 percent on its neighbor Belarus. Minsk refused and cried foul. A negotiated settlement on the price increase was reached. Nevertheless, Moscow delivered an ultimatum to Minsk: If you’re not with us or under us, it will cost you. Belarus now pays $100 per barrel of natural gasoline, instead of the $44 it paid just a year ago. Think of that the next time you complain about “the pinch at the pump.” The European Union, which imports 25 percent of its natural gas from Russia, should take notice of this extortion. It could be next.
Belarus is not the only country suffering from Russian intrigue. Three former Soviet states have blamed Moscow for unfairly meddling in their affairs. Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are crying foul. They argue Moscow is strong-arming them with domestic political pressures, perhaps in order to bully them away from attempted NATO membership or greater cooperation with the United States and Western Europe.
This situation alone is disturbing. But coupled with the deaths of two prominent journalists and Putin critics, Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya, the situation now appears to be grave. Though there is no direct evidence to prove Putin’s personal involvement in either murder, there still remains a strong implication of Russian misdeeds. Even if Putin were found responsible, Russian citizens would not learn about it: the three major Russian television networks, through takeovers and tax audits, are run by individuals loyal to the Kremlin.
After the presidency of Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999), much of the democratic structural foundation (press freedoms, an unmolested domestic opposition, regional autonomy) in Russia has decayed. Putin is consolidating his influence and power in Moscow in order to gain credibility and authority for his ambitious projects abroad. Be they in Caracas, Pyongyang, Beijing, or Tehran, Putin’s allies are growing in both strength and number.
A clear example of this is Moscow’s foot-dragging with regard to Pyongyang’s nuclear program. A strong North Korea and a mildly hostile China, in the eyes of counter-American Moscow, could threaten American allies such as Japan, South Korea, and India in Southeast Asia. Moreover, a nuclear-armed Iran extending a Shi’ite Crescent across the Middle East would be further hinder the American goal of ensuring a more liberal, democratic future for the region.
Moscow’s actions are not a big issue in Berkeley, but they should be. Russia’s growing defiance is of enormous importance — an issue that the “worldly,” pseudo-intellectual left has completely disregarded. Why are there no protests against Russian imperialism, Putin’s domestic tactics, or his government’s support of regimes that violate human rights?
Surely the average Berkeley leftist cares about such issues. Yet he is not willing to march naked in a protest or live in a tree to attract attention to this cause. If Bush invades Iraq, he is considered an imperialist. But if Putin strangles Eastern Europe and grabs allies from Caracas to Pyongyang, what should we call him? Where are the campus Russian groups on the issue? Where is the Berkeley City Council on this tyranny? Our UC officials?
I am unclear as to why a faux scandal like that surrounding Scooter Libby receives more media attention and political posturing than the deaths of two Russian opposition journalists.
It can be said that the left quietly approves of some, but not all, of Putin’s new powers. It sees the collapse of the Soviet Union, America’s bitter rival, as the beginning of a U.S.-led hegemony around the world, a vision that frightens them. It is a frequent talking point among leftists that we are unrivaled in our power and influence around the world (as if that were undesirable given our enemies).
It should be a conservative rejoinder that we should never attempt to restore world “superpower-balance” on the backs of dead journalists, intimidated neighbors, or emboldened tyrannical regimes.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot