Those in this forum who cheer the Russian ban on JW's are letting their personal feelings get in the way of seeing the significance of undemocratic behavior. I submit the following brief article from Washington Post June 18, 2004
Veering From Reagan
By Michael McFaul
The writer is the Peter and Helen Bing senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution and an associate professor of political science at Stanford
University. He is co-author of "Power and Purpose: U.S. Policy Toward
Russia After the Cold War."
President Bush has tried to cast himself as the heir to Ronald Reagan's
legacy. If he truly wants to pursue the objectives and strategies that
Reagan embraced, then the wave of reflection on the late president's impact
on foreign affairs should offer some important lessons about how to correct
the current course.
Thousands of commentators last week credited Reagan with ending the Cold
War. Reagan most certainly contributed to this outcome. But his real goal
for the communist world, stated repeatedly and consistently throughout his
two terms, was to foster the ideas of liberty and democracy within the
Soviet empire. He understood the spread of these ideas to be the best
outcome for both the people living under tyranny and the countries in the
West that were threatened by these dictatorships. As he said in his final
year in office, "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."
Reagan's vision for the post-communist world has not been completed.
Liberal democracy has been consolidated in Eastern and Central Europe, the
Baltic states and parts of the Balkans. But dictators still rule in
Belarus, Central Asia and parts of the Caucasus, while the battle between
dictatorship and democracy continues in Russia, Ukraine, and parts of the
Balkans and Caucasus. Nowhere is this battle more important than in Russia,
because if that country eventually returns to autocratic rule, the rest of
the region will once again be threatened by an imperial Moscow.Bush shows little concern for Reagan's chief goal of 20 years ago. Reagan,
even while praising Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for introducing
political reforms in the Soviet Union, warned in a speech to students at
Moscow State University in 1988: "We should remember that reform that is
not institutionalized will always be insecure. Such freedom will always be
looking over its shoulder. A bird on a tether, no matter how long the rope,
can always be pulled back." Even at the height of goodwill between the
United States and the Soviet Union in 1988, Reagan was not afraid to
encourage Gorbachev to do more to help secure freedom.
Reagan was prophetic. Vladimir Putin has taken advantage of poorly
institutionalized reforms to roll back Russian democracy. Yet Bush seems
indifferent. Over the past four years, Putin has closed down all the
independent press of national significance, harassed and arrested human
rights activists, rigged elections, and continued to wage an inhumane war
in Chechnya. Yet Bush praises Putin as an ally in the fight against
terrorism and a man with a vision for Russia "in which democracy and
freedom and the rule of law thrive." Rather than speak the truth about
Russia's autocratic drift, Bush seems content to maintain his personal
relationship with Putin, even if it comes at the expense of his principles
-- not exactly Reagan's approach to foreign policy.
Reagan never changed his principles. But he did change strategies when he
decided that his current course was not working. In his first years in
office, Reagan shunned all contacts with the evil communists in the
Kremlin, believing that total confrontation was the best strategy for
pursuing his objective of regime change inside the Soviet Union. Soon after
George Shultz became secretary of state in 1982, however, Reagan changed
course and opted for a strategy of engagement. After Reagan discerned that
Gorbachev was a new kind of leader, he stepped up these efforts.
In contrast, Bush seems incapable of changing course and seizing
opportunities. Sept. 11 offered such an opportunity, yet ironically, the
agenda of engagement between the United States and Russia today is much
smaller and less ambitious than the one Reagan pursued with Gorbachev.
Together with Gorbachev, Reagan pushed for radical reductions in nuclear
weapons; Bush seems intent on developing new kinds of nuclear weapons and
therefore seeks no new agreement with the Russians. Reagan called for more
exchanges between Russians and Americans; Bush's budget cuts support for
such contact. Bush has even failed to retire some Cold War remnants such as
the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act (which rightly linked
Russia's trade status to Jewish emigration, a problem that no longer
exists), all because of disagreements with the Russians about chicken exports.
In short, there's not a lot of vision in Bush's Russia policy. A final and
most important lesson to remember from Reagan was that he and his
administration eventually engaged the Soviets on arms control, but never at
the cost of abandoning his agenda of human rights and democracy. Reagan
understood that the supposed trade-off between pursuing arms control (or,
if he were alive today, cooperating in the war on terrorism) and pushing
for human rights and democracy was false. As Shultz writes in his memoirs:
"We were determined not to allow the Soviets to focus our negotiations
simply on matters of arms control. So we continuously adhered to a broad
agenda: human rights, regional issues, arms control, and bilateral issues."
If Bush wants to cast his foreign policy as the continuation of Reagan's
legacy, he too must pursue a strategy of dual-track diplomacy. The United
States has strategic interests that require the Kremlin's cooperation, such
as the dismantling and control of Russia's nuclear arsenal, the integration
of Russia and Eurasia in international economic and security institutions,
and the development of energy resources and multiple pipelines in Eurasia
to reduce the West's dependence on oil from the Middle East. Yet a
president committed to advancing Reagan's legacy would pursue these
interests while promoting democracy and human rights in Russia and the
consolidation of sovereignty and democracy in the states bordering Russia.
*******
The ban on JW's is just a footnote to the potential tragedy that is unfolding in Russia. I look forward to the day when all religion rooted in Books that promote violent customs (The Bible & The Koran) are abandoned by an enlightened human race. But humans aren't ready to do that and it certainly cannot be done by legal or other governmental authorities. If the current trend in Russia continues the world will pay dearly in a new round of the distractions of world wars and needless suffering.