Will ‘Dima’s Law’ Lead to a New Cold War?

Will ‘Dima’s Law’ Lead to a New Cold War?

Will ‘Dima’s Law’ Lead to a New Cold War?

For Americans who understand the importance of a cooperative U.S.-Russia relationship, 2012 was a disturbing year.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina&rsq uo;s column here.

For Americans who understand the importance of a cooperative US-Russia relationship, 2012 was a disturbing year. The attempted “reset” in relations—launched by the Obama administration in 2009—proved a failure, as Washington continued to develop unneeded missile defense installations near Russia’s border, Russia passed legislation imperiling the status of US-funded nongovernmental organizations working in the country and the bloody civil wars in Libya and Syria created new misunderstandings and diplomatic vitriol between Moscow and Washington.

Until now, very few US observers have had the foresight to warn of what we may now be witnessing—the onset of a new Cold War. My husband, Stephen F. Cohen, is one of the few: In articles in The Nation since the 1990s—see more recently his March 2012 article, “America’s Failed Bipartisan Russia Policy,” and his 2010 paperback, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives—he has repeatedly warned that unless US policy toward post-Soviet Russia changed, we risked plunging into a new Cold War.

That possibility emerged clearly last month when, in the space of a few weeks, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin both signed punitive bills into law: the United States’ Magnitsky Act and Russia’s adoption ban, or “Dima’s Law.” Both leaders signed with reluctance, but neither president proved willing to defy nearly unanimous legislatures bent on passing unwise legislation. As Russia experts Vladimir Sobell, Edward Lozansky and Cohen warned at TheNation.com, “The ‘Magnitsky Act’ violates the rule of law, contradicts American values and undermines US national security.” Framed by its supporters as a human rights bill that would punish officials implicated in the prison death of a Russian attorney, the law is actually more sweeping, a requirement that the executive branch punish individual Russians based on unproven allegations, without any due process.

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x