The Washington Times - 07.22.2002

"Insight on the News" Magazine

Symposium: Is Russia Making Progress Toward Becoming a Democratic Republic?

YES: Russia can't be expected to transform itself into a perfect democracy overnight.
By Rep. Curt Weldon 

America truly is a remarkable place. So remarkable that we often take for granted the abundant resources that make our country a haven for freedom and democracy. Despite the tremendous freedoms and prosperity that our nation enjoys, we continue to face significant challenges. These challenges include the continuing threat of terrorism, mounting energy problems, underfunded scientific research and a lack of educational opportunities. To continue our nation's growth and success, we must look for new and innovative ways to meet our goals. 
As our nation moves forward with the war on terrorism, we have been forced to rethink our role in the world and our dealings with the coalition forces that are involved. Americans are well aware that we have had to deal with some less than perfect nations to achieve our goals. 

Clearly, one of America's closest allies in the war against terrorism is Russia. From the Russians' early support of our actions taken in the Middle East — providing access to a previous Soviet military base in Tashkent, Uzbekistan — to intelligence information that they continue to provide, their help has proved to be invaluable. If the war has taught us anything, it is that we cannot afford to go it alone. 

But opponents and isolationists are quick to fault Russia. They are skeptical of our relationship and ignore the benefits that we would gain from full engagement. These cynics warn that Russia's young democracy is a farce and that we should approach any coexistence with extreme caution. They point out that the press truly is not free, economic reforms are not taking shape quick enough and lack of government reform protects corrupt oligarchs and thieves. 

While some of these criticisms may have merit, the United States should not be so quick to judge. After nearly 230 years, the American experiment still is under constant refinement. It took a horrific war for the United States to end the horrible slave trade. Women were prevented from voting in this country until 1920. However, are we somehow to believe that after nearly 75 years of repressive communist rule, Russia is supposed to rise from the ashes and become a perfect country? 

Before we dismiss Russia, let's first examine some facts of how the democratic process is improving. 


Elections and participation: Healthy democracies demand participation. Russian voter turnout in recent elections indicates a healthy dose of necessary involvement. During the last presidential election nearly 69 percent of eligible Russians went to the polls. Compare that to American turnout that barely cleared 51 percent in the 2000 presidential election. 

Freedom of the press: The unfortunate takeover of Russia's largest privately owned media group this year was a disappointing step backward for the press and freedom of speech. Recent auctions to private firms, however, send an encouraging signal that an independent media is not a lost cause. 

Economic factors: Following the Russian financial crisis of 1998, it appears the largest hurdle of transition from a planned economy to a free-market economy has been cleared. Gross domestic product steadily is increasing, inflation remains low and disciplined government spending has kept budget deficits incredibly low. 

Legal reforms: Russia's judiciary is the least developed of the three branches of government, but recent legal improvements are encouraging. Trial-by-jury has been introduced in certain criminal cases and Russia has adopted a new system to expand judicial powers. Fully developed law enforcement and legal systems not only will rid Russia of corruption that has stifled progress, but it also will boost confidence of international investors that have been hesitant to invest in Russia.
Reforms take time, but her leaders are making progress. However, turning our back on Russia now will do little to improve the situation and may disturb a potential security and defense alliance. And keeping Russia at arm's length will prevent us from reaching our economic and life-improvement goals. 

The end of the Soviet Union was followed by optimistic predictions of an unprecedented level of cooperation between the two countries. Unfortunately, a dark period emerged in our relationship thanks to misguided American policies and rampant Russian corruption. 

Touting a foreign policy based more on personality than politics, the United States turned a blind eye while Russia equipped our adversaries. We failed to impose sanctions after we caught Russia selling sensitive weapons and technologies to rogue nations 16 times. The previous administration was preoccupied with shielding Boris Yeltsin and his corrupt syndicate rather than exposing his cronies who siphoned off billions of dollars in foreign aid. 

The Bush administration has studied the mistakes of the past and understands that the status quo toward Russia must change. The administration's more cautious approach of reaching out to Russia is making remarkable progress. 

Like the age-old problem of the college graduate unable to find a job in his field of study due to a lack of experience, Russia finds herself in a similar situation. How can Russia be expected to look, act and feel like a democracy if the world's leading democracy is unwilling to show this relatively new democracy the ropes? 

The fact is, Russia is moving in the right direction. President Vladimir Putin consistently signals his willingness to change. He clearly wants to stop proliferation, strengthen the country's legal system, crack down on corruption and reform the business community. With these encouraging changes, we must step in and give our assistance where needed and take advantage of existing opportunities. 

To move the debate forward, a team of leading Russian experts and I worked to formulate a comprehensive proposal leading to opportunities that would expand and improve our relationship. In the proposal, we specifically identified 11 areas of cooperation that exist between closely aligned countries. Suggestions included programs that seek closer ties in the areas of defense and security, economic development, energy and natural-resource programs, judicial and legal reform, local government reform, agricultural development, cultural and education programs, environmental cooperation, health care, science and technology, space exploration and aeronautics. 

While aggressively seeking cooperation in all these areas would foster a better relationship, clearly our most pressing and immediate needs lie in defense and security, energy, economic development and science and technology. 

With regard to defense and security, we must focus on moving Russian scientific efforts away from defense work to nonmilitary production. Scientists should participate in non-weapons work that benefits the Russian economy and the advancement of science and technology. One area may include codevelopment of programs such as the Russian-American Observation Satellite program. Reinvigorating this research and development program would yield a space-based sensor that consists of co-orbiting U.S. and Russian satellites for simultaneous observations of defense and environmental concerns. 

Russia also should be a key player in joint development of a missile-defense program. The world's leader in missile-defense technology — as well as the possessor of their own missile-defense system — Russia recently has completed work on its S-500 missile-defense system. Lacking proper resources to complete construction of the S-500, cooperation drastically could cut the time it would take to protect both nations. 

Technology transfers and missiles are not the only things threatening our national security. Since the war on terrorism mainly has focused on nations in the Middle East, the United States has reexamined its dependence on oil from that part of the world. Russia, currently the world's second-largest oil producer, could fill the void as the United States moves away from Middle Eastern oil. Bilateral energy cooperation can provide mutual benefits by contributing to economic development as well as a shrinking role for countries that threaten our national security. 

Solving our energy issues unfortunately does not end with shoring up a supply of petroleum. Increasing nuclear-production capabilities also is an avenue we must explore. Because both countries are confronted with the issue of spent nuclear fuel, Russian and American scientists should work on programs designed to find useful products that can be produced from such materials. The advantages would be twofold. Transparent efforts such as this could rid the environment of hazardous material while expanding our energy-generation capabilities — a winning combination for scientists, the environment and proliferation watchdogs. 

Maturing democracies can only survive with a healthy economy. Therefore, the United States should play a role in boosting Russia's stature as an economic power. We first must remove the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the 1974 Trade Act and help foster a sense of normal trade relations between our two countries. Another initiative would be to facilitate Russia's accession into the World Trade Organization so it could become a significant participant in the global economy. The United States also must consider restructuring Russia's London and Paris Club debt. This heavy debt burden is nearly equal to Russia's expenditure on the judiciary and law enforcement. 

Increasing funds to these programs only will hasten needed reforms. We also could help revitalize the entrepreneurial spirit by stressing the importance of upholding contractual agreements as a way to continue outside investment, as well as giving new businesspersons a greater incentive to flex their capitalist muscle. 

Cooperative programs have existed between our two countries for many years and have proved very successful. It is crucial that we work to increase this level of cooperation. If we let the skeptics win the debate by turning our back on Russia, we will be doing ourselves a great disservice. Not only will we repeat the mistakes of the past, but we would provide an incentive for Russia to strengthen alliances with countries such as China and Iran. Worse, we would be turning our back on a young and fragile democracy that could provide another level of security for world peace. As was proved in the past, Russia's problems today are the world's problems tomorrow. 

Simply put, America needs to expand her horizons and rid the world of terrorism. If we have the courage to work with a democracy that still is experiencing growing pains, these challenges can not only be met but exceeded. 

Weldon, a Republican, represents Pennsylvania's Seventh District. He chairs the House Armed Services subcommittee on Military Research and Development and also serves on the House Science Committee. 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insight on the News - Symposium 
Issue: 07/22/02 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NO: Recent events suggest that Russia is sliding back toward authoritarianism.
By David Satter 

Despite Vladimir Putin's turn to the West in foreign policy, Russia is not becoming a law-based, free-market democracy. Instead, it is moving toward authoritarianism, a tendency that is likely to increase as Russia's economic recovery continues to falter. 
Russia is a relatively free country. Russians can travel abroad, speak openly and demonstrate in public. Against the background of Russian history, this is no small accomplishment. To become a truly democratic society, however, Russia needs the rule of law, a free press and fair elections. In Russia, these institutions have been weakened to the point that they nearly are nonfunctional. 

The rule of law presumes that individuals have equal rights and equal protection, but in Russia the only "rights" are the privileges of the stronger. 

On Dec. 12, 1997, the official car of Putin, who at the time was a high-ranking Kremlin official, crossed the median strip of the Minsk Highway outside of Moscow and crashed into a car carrying a family. Five-year-old Denis Lapshin was killed. According to eyewitnesses, in the aftermath of the crash plainclothesmen not only removed Denis' body from the area without the permission of his relatives but tried to alter the accident scene to make it look as if Putin's car had not been responsible. Despite years of effort by Denis' grandfather, Putin's driver, Boris Zykov, never was brought to justice. The case of Denis Lapshin was one of many in which persons were killed because of the reckless driving habits of Russian officials, their relatives or their chauffeurs. But there was no justice in those cases either. 

Virtually every medium or small business in Russia is forced to pay protection money to gangsters. There has been no progress in breaking the hold of these criminal gangs, although they do not hide their activities and the identities of the leading gangsters are well-known. At the same time, law enforcement has had little success in convicting those responsible for any of the country's hundreds of contract murders. This particularly is true of the most famous cases, which involved Dmitri Kholodov, a reporter for the newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets; Vladislaw Listyev, one of Russia's best-known television personalities; and Galina Starovoitova, a leader of the democratic movement during perestroika and a member of the State Duma. In these cases — and many others where powerful interests were believed to be involved — investigators constantly were changed, relevant witnesses not interrogated and the progress of the investigation hampered by high-level interference. 

Besides the lack of the protection of the law, Russia is not making progress toward democracy because it is deprived of a free press. On June 7, the property of the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, a powerful critic of the war in Chechnya, was seized by bailiffs of a Moscow court to satisfy a libel judgment of $500,000 in a case brought by the financial institution Mezhprombank, which the paper accused of participation in the Bank of New York money-laundering scandal. The fine, equivalent to the paper's yearly turnover, dwarfed the largest previous libel judgments against Russian media outlets (about $5,000) and led to speculation that it was the result of a political decision to close the paper. 

The action against Novaya Gazeta came shortly after the sale of Obshchaya Gazeta, the only other independent Russian newspaper, to Vyacheslav Leibman, a 33-year-old St. Petersburg businessman who promptly fired its entire staff and suspended publication until the fall. The threatened loss of Russia's two most fearless newspapers comes after the removal of management at the country's only independent television stations, NTV and TV-6, both of which fell victim to pressure from state-owned energy companies that had ties to the stations. 

The result is that the Russian media now are completely controlled by the Kremlin and allied financial interests, and there is little chance that courageous reporting such as that of Novaya Gazeta on the 1999 apartment bombings or of Obshchaya Gazeta on atrocities committed by the Russian army in Chechnya will be repeated in the Russian press. 

Perhaps the most worrisome sign that Russia is not moving in the direction of democracy, however, is a lack of commitment to free elections. 

Presidential elections are two years away, but in two recent regional elections there were unmistakable signs that the results were fixed. In April in Ingushetia, the region bordering Chechnya, the Kremlin-backed candidate Murat Zyazikov, a former Federal Security Service (FSB) general, received 53 percent of the vote to defeat Alikhan Amirkhanov, who was supported by Ingushetia's popular former president, Ruslan Aushev, a strong critic of the war in Chechnya. In the first round of voting, Amirkhanov outpolled Zyazikov 32 percent to 19 percent, but during the second round all polling places were placed under tight police and FSB control. There was widespread bribery, and ballot-box stuffing, and observers were ordered out of polling places at gunpoint. 

There were equally disturbing irregularities in the May election of the new governor of the Smolensk region. In that instance Gen. Viktor Maslov, the head of the FSB in the region, was elected over the sitting governor, Alexander Prokhorov, who was supported by the communists. Days before the election, gunmen ambushed the car carrying Anatoly Makarenko, Prokhorov's deputy, wounding his bodyguard and killing his chauffeur. Makarenko said that Maslov was behind the attack. The ambush followed the burnings of two dachas belonging to members of Prokhorov's election staff, the beating of the son of his lawyer and the explosion of a bomb in his election headquarters. 

The use of violent tactics in these two recent provincial elections is important because post-communist Russia has a history of falsified election results. There were credible reports of falsification in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections and in the vote on the new constitution in 1993. The falsification in the vote on the constitution was sufficient to have changed the outcome. The presidential elections in 2000 also were heavily influenced by the beginning of the Second Chechen War that many believe was launched to guarantee the election of Putin, Boris Yeltsin's hand-picked successor. 

Given this tradition, the tactics used in the elections in Ingushetia and Smolensk raise serious doubts about the next presidential elections, which are scheduled for 2004. 

Despite a tripling in oil prices and the beneficial effects of the devaluation of the ruble, production in almost half of Russia's regions continues to decline and the economy as a whole is stagnant. The loss of Russia's great power status has removed a source of psychological compensation for a beleaguered population, and one result is that the question of how state property was divided during the privatization once again is being widely discussed. 

In a recent article in the Moscow News, political analyst Nikolai Trofimov wrote that in the corridors of the State Duma it is being predicted more and more frequently that the government is preparing to "go after business." The methods being suggested range from the confiscation of the property of "unprincipled capitalists" and its "fair" redistribution to the introduction of tough financial controls over companies. 

Insofar as the Yeltsin entourage chose Putin specifically to assure that the corrupt Yeltsin-era distribution of property was left untouched, this would represent a dramatic reversal, but a reversal of which the present Putin-FSB leadership would be fully capable. Persons who made their careers in the Russian secret police are able to play any role. Many high-ranking KGB officials who persecuted dissidents and free-thinkers under the Soviet regime, for example, went to work for the security services of economic oligarchs after the Soviet Union fell. 

Trofimov predicted that the Putin leadership now might be ready to put pressure on 10 percent of the population to calm the remaining 90 percent, thus taking advantage of the class antagonism of the broad mass of the population. 

The lack of the rule of law, the limits on press freedom and the fragility of the electoral system all pose a threat to Russia's future as a democracy. This is all the more true because Russia faces the problems of an obsolescent infrastructure, the loss of its once-formidable scientific and research potential and a population that is falling at the rate of 800,000 a year. 

At a recent seminar in Moscow, Tatyana Zaslavskaya, Russia's leading scholar in the field of economic sociology, outlined three possible scenarios for Russia's future. The first was "authoritarian-coercive." According to this scenario Russia would witness a drastic strengthening of the authority of the state and the security services, the introduction of strict control over the market economy and a shift to repressive practices. 

The second scenario, described as "conservative statist," envisaged the preservation of a free market and democratic practices in the form of a facade behind which the state would strengthen its control over all aspects of social life. 

The third scenario, "semi-criminal oligarchic," would reproduce the Yeltsin-era system of interlocking business and criminal elites. 

Zaslavskaya first achieved fame in 1983 when contents of a paper that she gave at a closed seminar attended by Mikhail Gorbachev were leaked, revealing to the world that radical changes in the Soviet system were under serious consideration. At the recent seminar where she unveiled her three scenarios for the future, Zaslavskaya was asked about the possibility of a liberal-democratic evolution for Russia. She said that such a scenario was supported by some groups in Russian society but, unfortunately, these groups had no representation in the power elites. As a result, the realization of a liberal-democratic alternative for Russia was "extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future." 

Satter, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, is visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and author of the forthcoming title, Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State (Yale University Press).