Michael McFaul is a Hoover fellow and professor of political science at Stanford
University.
STANFORD -- In May 1988, President Reagan traveled to Moscow for a summit with
Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev. When he became president, Reagan had called
the Soviet Union the "evil empire," but at the time of his historic trip its leader
was a personal friend. Reagan didn't allow his friendship with Gorbachev to overshadow
his human rights agenda. Speaking in Helsinki two days before entering the Soviet
Union, Reagan proclaimed: "There is no true international security without respect
for human rights.... The greatest creative and moral force in this new world,
the greatest hope for survival and success,
for peace and happiness, is human freedom."
In Moscow, Reagan echoed this theme at a luncheon at the American ambassador's
residence with nearly 100 Soviet human rights activists. Reagan ordered that the
ambassador's finest silverware and linens be used to symbolically underscore his
respect for the activists, the same as he would accord to Gorbachev.
Reagan's dual-track diplomacy produced results. A few years later, many of his
lunch guests occupied positions of authority in a democratizing Russia, a change
that had national security implications. Although Russia still possessed thousands
of nuclear weapons, its intention to use them against the United States greatly
diminished as democratic and market institutions took hold there.
Like Gorbachev and Reagan in 1988, presidents Vladimir V. Putin and Bush
have a budding friendship, one that has fostered U.S.-Russian cooperation on important
strategic matters like anti-terrorism. Yet, there's a disturbing difference. Some
of the same people who attended Reagan's luncheon are again fighting for basic
human rights and democratic practices in Russia -- and Bush seems indifferent
to their fate.
Putin's backsliding on democracy can no longer be ignored. The Russian leader
has overseen a war in Chechnya marked by summary executions, rape, indiscriminate
bombing of villages and the inhumane treatment of prisoners of war.
The two largest national television networks do Putin's bidding, and his
government and its surrogates have now wrested control of NTV, Russia's third-largest
TV network and the only station truly critical of Putin. Print journalists reporting
the "wrong" news about Chechnya have been either intimidated, arrested or pushed
into exile. Oleg Panfilov, head of the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations,
says, "The number of criminal cases opened against journalists in three
years of Vladimir Putin's rule is more than the number during the entire 10 years
of BorisYeltsin's regime."
There is more unnerving evidence of Putin's slide toward authoritarianism. The
State Security Service, whose budget is dramatically rising, increasingly harasses
human rights activists, environmental leaders and religious groups. Recently,
the Russian government expelled the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe from Chechnya, terminated its agreement with the U.S. Peace Corps
and refused reentry into Russia to American Irene Stevenson, director of
the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center in Moscow. The government has even interfered
in electoral politics, removing opposition candidates from the ballot and preventing
incumbents from seeking reelection in various regions of the country.
Putin didn't personally orchestrate all these democratic rollbacks, but he also
has done nothing to reverse them. The battle over democracy within Russia will
largely be won or lost internally. Fortunately, in poll after poll, Russians continue
to value democratic ideals and practices. But the Bush administration cannot continue
to sit on the sidelines.
Amazingly, it has proposed drastic cuts in the amount of democratic assistance
earmarked for Russia next year on the ground -- ironic in light of recent evidence
-- that Russian democracy is firmly enough established.
Bush's stance is perplexing. His new national security doctrine declares
the promotion of liberty abroad a U.S. priority. Tell that to Russian human rights
activists, who feel alienated by the lack of U.S. encouragement.
But democratic activists in Russia need more than words of support. They
also need continued U.S. financial and technical help. At a minimum, budgets for
democracy assistance, already minuscule, cannot be reduced further. Cutting assistance
now, moreover, would send a terrible message about U.S. staying power, not
only to democrats in Russia but to those in Afghanistan, Iraq and Uzbekistan.
Congress also has a role to play. Last year, the House and Senate overwhelmingly
approved, and Bush signed into law, the Russian Democracy Act, which establishes
a minimum for democratic assistance to Russia. Budget cutters in the administration
have found creative ways to meet these minimal thresholds by calling programs
like high school exchanges "democracy assistance." This sleight of hand must not
become law.
Furthermore, in a major report on U.S.-Russian relations a few years ago, Rep.
Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) called for increased engagement "of the Russian
people, not just the Russian government." Now more than ever, Cox and the
other authors of this congressional study need to reaffirm their recommendations.
Bush and his foreign team certainly have their hands full. Yet, they cannot allow
past victories to slip away while pursuing new ones. A return of dictatorship
in Russia, a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons, would present a
much greater threat than the current set of tyrants now threatening U.S. security.
To maintain U.S. credibility on issues of democracy and to encourage those within
Russia dedicated to the cause of democracy, the Bush administration has to find
a way to work constructively with Putin without ignoring Russian society. A good
way to start might be a luncheon at the American ambassador's residence in Moscow.