From Russia, With Hypocrisy

As Bush and Putin meet in St. Petersburg for the G-8 summit, there's a lot of talk in the US media about Russia's backsliding on democracy. Of course, Russia isn't on a path to democracy. Putin has reasserted state control over Russian television, jailed a leading oligarch and may well try to alter the Russian constitution so he can remain President for a third term beginning in 2008. But as scholars and writers with a sense of history have argued -- including (my husband) Stephen Cohen in a recent cover story in The Nation and Anatol Lieven in a Los Angeles Times op-ed -- de-democratization began not under Putin but under Boris Yeltsin. As Lieven explains, "The 'democracy' that Putin has allegedly overthrown was, in fact, not a real democracy at all, but a pseudo-democracy ruled over by corrupt and brutal oligarchical clans." Furthermore, he notes, " During the 1990s, the administration of Boris Yeltsin, under the sway of oligarchs and the liberal elites, rigged elections, repressed the opposition and launched a bloody and unnecessary war in Chechnya--all with the support of Washington."

But don't ask that champion of democracy, civil liberties and human rights Dick Cheney to get his history right. Instead, in May, Cheney used his shotgun approach and traveled through the former Soviet Union hectoring Russia's government for its anti-democratic ways. As William Fisher noted at the time, in a sharp commentary on Truthout.com, it was "truly grotesque" that Cheney would be "lecturing anyone about democracy and human rights." As Fisher, who worked for the US State Department and USAID for thirty years, put it, " [Cheney} has dishonored these core American values in his own country...Could there be anyone less credible on subjects like democratic reform and open government?"

Instead of counter-productive lectures, perhaps we should listen more carefully to former Russian dissidents like Boris Kagarlitsky. I've known Kagarlitsky for more than twenty five years. He is a man of integrity, a man of the democratic left, who was imprisoned in the Brezhnev years for samizdat literature and speaking his mind. In May, I asked him what he made of U.S. criticism of Russia's political landscape. Here is Boris's brief and sharp reply.

"Russia doesn't look like a model democracy, but United States under current administration doesn't look so either. Every time American government spoke about exporting democracy somewhere this ended up in disaster, whether it was in Vietnam or in Latin America. We will solve our problems ourselves without George Bush or Dick Cheney. And people who organise elections in Siberia don't need lectures from those who organized elections in Florida... All these technologies are internationally known." Boris Kagarlitsky

Comments (21)

1. Little contradictory, Ms vanden Heuvel, isn't it?....

   video | posted July 10, 2006 (July 17, 2006 issue) -----The New American Cold War----Stephen F. Cohen

   Your husband argues that we're sliding into a "New Cold War" with authoritarian Russia...yet you say the present US Admin is too "buddy-buddy" with them!?!??!

   Posted by Mask at 07/14/2006 @ 4:39pm

2. Mask:

   Where in this post does Vanden Heuvel claim that that Bush, et. al. are "too 'buddy-buddy' with them'"?

   Posted by pmv at 07/14/2006 @ 4:53pm

3. Posted by PMV 07/14/2006 @ 4:53pm: Where in this post does Vanden Heuvel claim that that Bush, et. al. are "too 'buddy-buddy' with them'"?

   It doesn't. But Zorro doesn't care. He just makes stuff up.

   Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 5:23pm

4. .

   Hypocrisy From KVH

   As Lieven explains, "The 'democracy' that Putin has allegedly overthrown was, in fact, not a real democracy at all, but a pseudo-democracy ruled over by corrupt and brutal oligarchical clans." Furthermore, he notes, " During the 1990s, the administration of Boris Yeltsin, under the sway of oligarchs and the liberal elites, rigged elections, repressed the opposition and launched a bloody and unnecessary war in Chechnya--all with the support of Washington."

   Katrina should first of all admit that the fall of the Soviet Union came as a blow and deep regret to her and her husband.

   Furthermore, to see the undemocratic rot already under Yeltsin is like saying, the communist Gulags and tyranny were already present in a modest way under Lenin. The main purpose of that emphasis is to shift the blame from Stalin under whom the Soviet murder machine found its full expression.

   Cohen and Katrina want to shif the blame from Putin to Yeltsin who indeed allowed the oligarchs to steal Russia blind and to compromise her democracy. But under Yeltsin she was nevertheless still moving to wards openness, toward an uncontrolled press, toward a free market, toward an honest legal system. That has now gone into reverse. Under Putin we are seeing the rise of a Russian autocracy with an elected Tsar. The one positive aspect under Putin is that the economic decline has reversed into a substantial recovery, largely due to the rise in oil prices.

   Russia, under both the tsars and the commissars was ever a dangerous, reactionary empire. That Putin should now be allowed Western sympahty as he fashions a benign police state which will again dominate the countries the Soviet Union used to control is crazy. Those neighboring states need our support now and the confidence to resist Russian encroachment. That is most certainly in our interest, just as abetting Putin in his desire recreate that empire is not.

   .

   Posted by nacl at 07/14/2006 @ 6:31pm

5. You know its a little wierd that the Nation has seen fit to comment on the situation with Israel.

   All they can do is talk about Russia? Dan Rather? and what Al Gore is wearing???

   Maybe they are confused about which stance to take

   Posted by CPT at 07/14/2006 @ 9:32pm

6. Posted by CPT 07/14/2006 @ 9:32pm

   Try http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/editors4 [thenation.com]

   Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 9:44pm

7. NACL - Please tell us that you're joking about Katrina and her husband regretting the fall of the Soviet Union. Please. You can't be so blindly, willfully ignorant. ... sorry, of course you can.

   And where is this Western sympathy being offered to Putin?

   Posted by Fishbite at 07/14/2006 @ 10:13pm

8. The history of democracy and dictatorship is a tide that rises with the levels of power. Whoever is in charge, whether they be the citizens of a nation, (hardly ever), or it's leaders. In the end Power, Hate and Greed will corrupt any society. And soon its voices will signify nothing.

   Just look at our country and its distorted logic for its own dictatorship. The World is catching up to us, or we to them. In the end, there is no end, until we actually annihilate ourselves. Until then, the tide rises and fall with each new plan.

   Posted by bohdan yuri at 07/14/2006 @ 10:43pm

9. ahh, but we know from an un-impeachable source that Putin has a "good soul". (pun intended)

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2006 @ 05:13am

10. If you right wingers could ever get it into your head that the struggle between U.S. and Russia has nothing to do with "democracy vs. totalitarianism", that it's all simply about consolidating power and extending influence and that spreading democracy is an excuse not an end then it might just be possible to have an honnest debate over foreign policy. Since the right can not acknowlege that simple truth without surrendering the illusory high ground they've managed to capture in the popular imagination and prefers to cling stubbornly to the propaganda, promulgated incessantly by the Bushco bully pulpit, that we are a disinterested, magnanimous, benign influence in the world fighting for "truth,justice and the American way", until then there can never be any meaningfull discussion.

    In short NACL, all of your carefully constructed arguments are built brick by brick on a foundation of lies. If you could just see that you'd see how assinine is the argument that WE should be extending our influence into the former Soviet satellites where WE have no linguistic, cultural, historical or societal bonds, no common interest and above all no geographical proximity. How do you expect that to succeed when one hundred and fifty years of meddling in the affairs of our immediate neighbors in latin America have produced nothing but animosity, mistrust, left wing back-lash and in many, many cases, economic and political chaos and humanitarian disaster from Argentina to Chile, from Nicarauga to Guatemala and from Columbia to Cuba and Venezuela ?

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/15/2006 @ 11:48am

11. Posted by FREIHEIT 07/15/2006 @ 12:41am: And I get the impression KvH doesn't like Cheney

    That puts her right in the mainstream. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't like Cheney.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 07/15/2006 @ 3:44pm

12. Or Bush

    Posted by orwell2005 at 07/15/2006 @ 3:44pm

13. Or Rummy

    Posted by orwell2005 at 07/15/2006 @ 3:44pm

14. NACL, what established democratic institutions are there to rot? The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia not only without its previous governing party but also without its previous governing framework.

    Sure an onlooker can criticize Putin for paying more attention to shoring up his power than to building democracy in his country, but he's not the only President in the G8 that you can say that about.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/15/2006 @ 6:00pm

15. The most insightful comment on the position of the US in criticizing Russia's faltering democracy probably came from President George W Bush, when he said, "I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," (CNN, 15 July 2006).

    Naturally, with his current fight against freedom of the press in the US, he can't raise the US as an example, so he has to use Iraq.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/15/2006 @ 6:10pm

16. .

    BRUCEMCF 07/15 @ 6:00pm

    NACL, what established democratic institutions are there to rot? The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia not only without its previous governing party but also without its previous governing framework.

    That Russia had to begin afresh, almost from scratch, is not in dispute. But so had Poland, so too Hungary, etc. Granted, those countries had already been dangling their feet in aspects of western institutions for a time before taking the full plunge, while Russia had almost no transition. She also was burdened by the most distant and distorted memory of a non-communist existence. For 70 years she had told herself that Western capitalism was corrupt, lawless and avaricious. Thus, when Russia took the plunge, that is how her entrepreneurs behaved: like robber barons who believed, whatever you can get away with is fair and square. The country bought that as the inevitable and unavoidable alternative to Soviet totalitarianism. It was the victim of its own propaganda. Putin now justifies himself as the necessary antidote.

    But that too is baloney. The necessary antidote was the Duma regulating the sale of state property and creating a legal system that enforced anti-trust laws, and an independent judiciary.

    Instead the a parliament, the media, the open market have been hog tied, muzzled and lamed.

    Sure an onlooker can criticize Putin for paying more attention to shoring up his power than to building democracy in his country, but he's not the only President in the G8 that you can say that about.

    There is no equating Russia to the US with respect to a functioning democracy, an effective legal system, a free press. Such a comparison is perverse and dishonest. .

    Posted by nacl at 07/16/2006 @ 01:36am

17. .

    RED NECKERSON 07/15 @ 11:48am

    the struggle between U.S. and Russia has nothing to do with "democracy vs. totalitarianism", that it's all simply about consolidating power and extending influence and that spreading democracy is an excuse not an end then it might just be possible to have an honnest debate over foreign policy. Since the right can not acknowlege that simple truth without surrendering the illusory high ground they've managed to capture in the popular imagination and prefers to cling stubbornly to the propaganda, promulgated incessantly by the Bushco bully pulpit, that we are a disinterested, magnanimous, benign influence in the world fighting for "truth,justice and the American way", until then there can never be any meaningfull discussion.

    Of course America is out for itself. Of course she is pushing her interests. She was in it for herselves when fighting the Nazis and the Japs, when transforming a shattered Europe and Japan into healthy political and economic societies. That was in her enlightened self-interest, as was helping the Pacific Rim to wealth and democracy. None of that was illusory or piddling.

    We did what we did because we believed it was good for us, BUT also because it was good for the world. Our efforts have been largely benign because we saw our interests in a richer and freer world.

    Since 1945 the US has been the dominant military, economic, financial, and technological power. In that time the world has been without major wars. Instead it has known the most tremendous increase in population, from 2 billion to 6 billion, and an exponential explosion in health, literacy, wealth. Most everyone's standard of living has risen substantially. Because of us human rights means something real on all the continents. In all the millennia this globe has never known such a far flung improvement in human happiness - as in those six decades of US supremacy.

    The Cold War most certainly was a fight against totalitarianism. If you don't think so read Solzhenitsyn. The US most certainly held and yet holds the high ground as a place where freedom of speech, religious toleration, an independent judiciary and parliamentary democracy operate for real. If you don't think so try Cuba or North Korea.

    In short NACL, all of your carefully constructed arguments are built brick by brick on a foundation of lies.

    Your cavils are the malice and blindness of a fanatic.

    If you could just see that you'd see how asinine is the argument that WE should be extending our influence into the former Soviet satellites where WE have no linguistic, cultural, historical or societal bonds, no common interest and above all no geographical proximity. How do you expect that to succeed when one hundred and fifty years of meddling in the affairs of our immediate neighbors in Latin America have produced nothing but animosity, mistrust, left wing back-lash and in many, many cases, economic and political chaos and humanitarian disaster from Argentina to Chile, from Nicarauga to Guatemala and from Columbia to Cuba and Venezuela ?

    We had no cultural, historical or geographic bonds with Japan or the Pacific Rim either, yet our influence there has been positive.

    Why not support former Soviet Republics that were Russia's captives and now are independent? Because we are so distant culturally and geographically they have far less to fear from Uncle Sam than from the Russian bear which for centuries squeezed them within either a tsarist or communist empire. Why are you against imperialist oppression everywhere except where Russian imperialism is concerned?

    As to Latin America, there it was not what we did, but what we did not do that can be faulted. We tolerated corrupt police states (as you wanted us to tolerate the fascist Baath) so long as they did not undermine us in the Cold War. Now in fact, almost all are democracies. They are however filled with anti-Gringo blowhards for whom being resentful and political is easier than working and making something of themselves and their compadres.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 07/16/2006 @ 02:11am

18. Well, the hypocricy flys again with Bush. Bush has rounded up Muslims like cattle and tortured them. He lied to get into Iraq. He spies on Americans. He most likely has an "enemies list" and spies on them as well. He makes his own laws. He has had a separate government from the 3 branches running behind our back. Someone please get it right. The US is a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. In other words: it is individual rights over the state unless it is in the interest of the common good. Bush has violated that as well. Only the President has the power to do these things. The VP does not. Thanks for your post, Maude

    Posted by Maude at 07/16/2006 @ 08:43am

19. Posted by NACL 07/16/2006 @ 02:11am: As to Latin America, there it was not what we did, but what we did not do that can be faulted. We tolerated corrupt police states

    Really Salty? That's all we did. We merely "tolerated" corrupt police states?

    I know that this is outside your WWII area of experise, but if you really believe that the US merely passively tolerated the right wing police states in Latin America, you are far more delusional than I had realized.

    Perhaps there is too much salt in your diet? Some researchers speculate that this can lead to various brain disorders.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 07/16/2006 @ 3:57pm

20. NACL, when you say "There is no equating Russia to the US with respect to a functioning democracy, an effective legal system, a free press. Such a comparison is perverse and dishonest." ...

    Don't you think it is dishonest to characterize my remark as equating Russia and the US? To remined, what I said was, " Sure an onlooker can criticize Putin for paying more attention to shoring up his power than to building democracy in his country, but he's not the only President in the G8 that you can say that about." ... that was clearly not equating status but rather equating actions of the chief executives concerned. Obviously not even George Bush's incessant efforts to undermine our historical legacy could put him in the same position of authority as Putin. And while there appears to be a similar morality in terms of willingness to do anything that increases Presidential power, nobody could conceivably portray Bush as being anywhere near as competent as Putin in power politics.

    Regarding, "That Russia had to begin afresh, almost from scratch, is not in dispute. But so had Poland, so too Hungary, etc."

    Again, you ignore the substance. Poland had a government that it had to reform. Hungary had a government that it had to reform. Russia was very close to having to build a government from scratch. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the government was the government of the Soviet Union, not the government of Russia. On collapse, Russia had to do far more than transition its government from being the implementer of the decisions of the governing party ... it also had to create governing institutions, very nearly from the ground up.

    Combine that with the lack of the external check provided in much of Eastern Europe by the process of applying for membership in the EU, and there is no reason to be surprised that Russia is far more authoritarian than other former members of COMECON.

    The real problem here is that the present administration has squandered any moral authority the US may have had to lecture anyone regarding establishing democracy.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/16/2006 @ 10:01pm

21. .

    BRUCEMCF 07/16 @ 10:01pm

    Don't you think it is dishonest to characterize my remark as equating Russia and the US? To remined, what I said was, " Sure an onlooker can criticize Putin for paying more attention to shoring up his power than to building democracy in his country, but he's not the only President in the G8 that you can say that about." ... that was clearly not equating status but rather equating actions of the chief executives concerned.

    You also said:

    Naturally, with his current fight against freedom of the press in the US, he can't raise the US as an example, so he has to use Iraq.

    You have the insolence to sneer that Bush has destroyed, freedom of the press. Then you claim we have no right to criticize Russia and Putin, because Bush is destroying democracy and assuming autocratic power, just like Putin. You conclusion is, that I'm "dishonest" and unfair to you.

    You go on to describe Putin's power grab as "competence," when in fact it is criminal.

    The real problem here is that the present administration has squandered any moral authority the US may have had to lecture anyone regarding establishing democracy.

    You are no judge of anyone's moral authority. You are a double jointed ideologue who with the greatest of ease turns white to black and black to white.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 07/17/2006 @ 1:24pm