No Justice for Russian Journalists

It was a quintessentially cold night in Moscow when Anna Politkovskaya arrived back at her flat with her shopping on October 7, 2006. As she took the elevator down for the last bag of groceries, she was confronted by a gunman who shot her twice in the chest and once in the head. She died instantly. Ms. Politkovskaya’s murder sparked worldwide outrage because she was a prominent journalist and an outspoken critic of Vladmir Putin, the Russian government and its polices in Chechynya. Her death has come to personify the long, lamentable list of journalists killed in Russia, whose murders remain unsolved.

It is estimated that over 300 journalists have died or disappeared in Russia since 1993 as a result of their work.  This figure is all the more shocking when we consider that the impune murder of journalists is acknowledged as a sign that a country does not observe the fundamental right to freedom of speech and is the reason that Russia is ranked by the CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists) as the third-deadliest country in the world for journalists. Despite the fact that current Russian President Dimitri Medvedev came to power last year promising to end the legal nihilism that peremeates the country’s judicial system, the Russian government’s unwillingness to prosecute many of the cases has persisted. While justice lags, the murders continue unabated, as demonstrated by the murder this year of Stanislav Markelov, and Natalia Estemriova.

The international community has reacted in typically futile fashion. The EU keeps its mouth closed for fear that Russian criticism will adversely affect its gas supply, something Ukraine experienced last winter. Meanwhile, the Obama adminstration is eager to reset relations with Russia and is therefore reluctant to make demands, given that it needs Russia’s cooperation on Iran and nuclear proliferation. On a trip to Russia last month, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was pushed by Russian journalists to make a statement on the Russian Government’s refusal to comprehensively investigate the murders of their colleagues. Clinton responded by commenting that the situation “is a matter of grave concern”.

Yet it is clear that merely paying lip service to human rights groups will not be enough to end this wanton wave of violence. It is high time that the U.S. and the E.U. pressurized Russia into taking action on this matter. Medvedev, Putin and co. must realize that while they may not be pulling the trigger, they are ultimately responsible for the failures of the justice system. Although the days of Gulags and communist repression are long gone in Russia, blood remains on the hands of those in the Kremlin.

Michael Collins, November 2009

michael.mc.collins@gmail.com

---

BRIC House: Putin Edition

This week, Vladimir Putin was generous enough to provide me with a wealth of blog fodder in an interview with Japanese media (linked below).

Putin addressed two issues of major concern to U.S. foreign policy (before going on to suggest that he might have to become president again): the North Korean nuclear standoff and the European Missile defense shield.

North Korean Nuclear Standoff

Recently, North Korea conducted another missile test, launching a “satellite” into space via ballistic missile (with the quotes questioning both the existence of the satellite and the intent of it should it exist).  The nation, which has abandoned the six-party talks regarding its nuclear ambitions, is now planning yet another test (according to South Korea).

These tests violate UN mandates that bar North Korea from ballistic missile activity, and as such have received rebuke from the international community.  In response, Pyongyang threatens more missile tests, unless the UN will apologize for their rebuke of the initial missile test.  Round and round we go…

Putin has weighed in on the issue, declaring that everyone needs to calm down and return to the table so that we can work it out.  Coincidentally, this rosy position is shared with the U.S. administration.

The international community is right to try to bring North Korea back to the table.  Just as no one seems to consider the alternative, which would bring about a difference of opinion between the U.S., Russia, and China on necessary responses, it is also a slight blow to the legitimacy of the UN when its members continue to allow UN resolutions to be ignored.

The U.S. and the rest of the UN parties take a slightly harder-line approach, and intend to impose further sanctions on North Korea if it continues to stay away from the negotiating table while flouting international regulations.

European Missile Defense Shield

At the same time, Putin has presented the Obama administration with an “out” regarding the missile shield in Poland: make a new deal on nuclear proliferation, and we will allow the shield.

This, of course, makes sense for Russia, as it benefits from having the U.S. limit nuclear defense spending because Russia could not keep up.

But such a plan is also consistent with the ethos of the Obama administration, where a nuclear arms deal is seen as a positive step toward Russian reconciliation and long-term stability.

It seems that this change in policy could be a great opportunity for the administration, and do a lot to bring about the positive change in the temperament and attitude in foreign relations that Obama has pledged to provide in the long run.

*****

If you are interested in the entire interview, it is available here:

BRIC Countries Gain Stature

Hello Everyone!  It’s good to be back in the game.  I have been largely severed from the internet world from several weeks as I traveled across Europe and Northern Africa.  I have returned to London, but am still in limbo as I prepare to return to the states.  Still, I wanted to make sure this week’s edition of the BRIC Roundup got to press! Of course, much has occurred in the past weeks in these nations.

The overarching story of the BRIC nations in the past weeks has been one of steadily increasing importance in international affairs as the economic crisis is re-leveling to some degree the playing field.  The G20 conference here in London a few weeks ago emphasized this point as it agreed to flood money into the IMF and reorient policy around the World Bank.

These organs are set up with the express aim of preventing crises throughout the world by monitoring dangerous economic policies in all countries; and these aims will be furthered by Brazil’s suggestion that developing countries gain more control over the fund.  It is a measure of the growing influence of Brazil in particular that it is paying into the fund to help other countries and able to take a larger role in demanding policy innovation.

Meanwhile China is making the first moves to bring its strategic asset fund, derived from its foreign reserves, out of its short hibernation.  China is hoping, of course, that the financial crisis is bottoming out, and its returns will therefore be great at current investment prices.  While this strategy is risky, it underscores the country’s relative economic power to be able to spend at all, and reinforces the international clout that China holds that such expenditures have a significant worrying effect on some Western policymakers.

Of course, the BRIC Roundup is not the only one to notice the emerging importance of countries such as Brazil.  For example, Israel’s El Al Airlines has begun direct flights this week to Brazil, strengthening Brazil’s international cache, at the same time that the International Olympic Committee has sent positive messages considering Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Olympic Games.

In a more foreboding sense, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted this week that Iran and China have made "quite disturbing" gains in Latin America, and President Ahmadinejad is planning ot visit Brazil just this week.  The U.S. might do well to encourage these emerging countries to become stronger allies.

Thus, the overarching story of the BRIC countries in the past week weeks has indeed been such a resurgence of growth–in stature, importance, and influence—despite the tough economic times.  Do you have any thoughts concerning how the U.S. should respond to the changing international scene?  Besides involvement with the G20 summit in London, the U.S. has seemed relatively muted in the past few weeks regarding international affairs, as the emphasis has been placed squarely on domestic matters.  Should more be done, or is the current focus on domestic affairs correct?  Sound off in the comments!

To Develop or Defend? And What Exactly Are We Defending?

President Obama isn’t letting go of the Bush administration’s obsession with defense spending.

Over the past month and a half, we’ve seen our new President alternate between faltering new kid on the block to strong, progressive policy maverick. His foreign policy agenda, especially with respect to foreign aid, fall somewhere in between his dual personalities of tired novice and bold social entrepreneur.

One recent development that has many international aid and foreign policy experts alarmed is Obama’s apparent continuation of sky-high defense spending. A recent article from Foreign Policy magazine reveals the economic downturn has not precluded a quickening arms race, and neither has Obama’s election into office. The magazine claims Obama has released budget figures that allocate a whopping 534 billion for the Department of Defense; Obama’s pentagon budget reportedly falls 1.9 percent above last year’s figures, adjusting for inflation. The United State’s defense expenditures still violently exceed those of China, India, Russia, and Iran, and greatly exceed funding allocation for development agencies such as USAID.

So how does this relate to foreign aid?

In the past decade, the Bush administration utilized the military to conduct many foreign assistance missions, a dangerously inadequate model for aid distribution. For instance, the Bush Administration’s Commander Emergency Response Program authorized the military to provide humanitarian relief to citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq, blurring the distinction between aid workers and army officers. The 2006 National Defense Authorization act contained provisions spearheading joint Pentagon-State Department development missions. Similar military/aid ventures have been conducted in Africa as well.

It is up to Obama to dismantle this misguided, militaristic approach to foreign aid that alienates, incenses, and demoralizes civilians, not to mention fails to establish strong civil societies and solid infrastructure. According to Emira Woods, of Foreign Policy In Focus, allowing for such a fine line between humanitarian assistance and military meddling can create serious complications. While some argue that military presence ensures a peaceful and secure environment in which other goals of economic development, health, education and democracy can be met, Woods warns that “making military force a higher priority than development and diplomacy creates an imbalance that can encourage irresponsible regimes to use U.S. source military might to oppress their own people.”  For further articulation of this debate with regards to AFRICOM, or U.S. Africa Command, check out this transcript from a January episode of “Straight Talk Africa.”

President Obama ran on a platform which championed diplomacy and development as stronger, smarter tools than defense.  But if the numbers don’t match the rhetoric, where’s the change?

Russian “Reset”

One of the ancillary benefits of bringing in a new administration is the opportunity to press a metaphorical reset button on all issues.  Despite coming under fire from some of the old guard for keeping a lot of things pretty much the same, the new administration has decided in its relations with Russia to drop the metaphorical part of this reset button.

A little gimmicky?  Sure–but the sentiment is much needed.  The waning days of the past administration brought mounting tensions between the two nations that have been slowly dividing them, moving Russia into an increasingly contrarian relationship with the West.  Plus, at least Clinton didn’t give them DVDs (or a Marine One model helicopter, for that matter)!

The BBC here provides a great rundown of the issues that stand on the table.

The biggest issue has of course been the missile shield in Poland that I have blogged about before (a few times).  The President and Secretary Clinton have proposed what sounds like a pretty logical plan to squirm out of this conflict.  The U.S. wants the missile shield to protect Europe against Iranian missile attacks.  The Russians do not want any more missiles within range of their border.  The Russians have influence within Iran.  Putting these pieces together, why not have Russia use its influence to stop Iran’s nuclear process in exchange for the US stopping its missile shield?  This is a great concept, but, as the BBC notes, it is unclear if it will work in practice.

The literal reset button may be a bit hokey, but a reevaluation of the issues that are redividing east and west is desperately necessary.  Looking at this BBC list of issues, I think that there is definite hope that some progress might be made to close the divide.

Obama Administration Makes Iran A Priority

The past ten days or so have been a busy period for news on the future of US-Iranian relations.  Here’s a brief summary of what’s been happening:

The New York Times reported on March 2nd that President Obama has sent a letter to Russian President Dimitry Medvedev.  This letter offered the possibility of an exchange: in return for Russia’s help in pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, the United States will not continue to pursue its missile defense system in Eastern Europe.  American officials have since clarified that this letter was not offering a deal as much as it was explaining that the U.S.’s need for missile defense would be decreased by a diminished chance of a nuclear Iran.

The letter was a subject of discussion in Secretary of State Clinton’s meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday, March 6th.  Russian officials are apparently open to cooperation and some have even suggested that Russia’s delayed delivery of the long-range S-300 missiles that it has sold to Iran are a gesture of goodwill toward the Obama administration.

Secretary of State Clinton has also recently suggested that Iranian officials will be invited to a conference on Afghanistan that will be taking place at the end of this month.  This would be the first face-to-face meeting of American and Iranian officials since Obama’s election.  Iran has not yet stated whether or not it will be attending the United States and Iran share many common interests in Afghanistan and there is hope that these common interests could be the starting point for a constructive dialogue.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan has also offered to work to ease the tension between the U.S. and Iran.  Babacan met with Secretary Clinton on Saturday, March 7th and will be attending an Economic Cooperation Organization meeting in Tehran later this week.  Turkey will not be acting as a mediator, as it recently did for Israel and Syria, but will rather be working to promote a “better understanding” between the two countries, according to Babacan.

The Obama administration has also finally announced the appointment of Dennis Ross as “Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia”, a position that will include advising on dealings with Iran.  Many, myself included, have expressed varying degrees of doubt about whether or not Ross is the right person for the job.  Omid Memarian of the Huffington Post, however, has an interesting take in the appointment.  He notes, “Clearly, the appointment of Dennis Ross has more of a domestic consumption for the administration than an actual affect on what Obama’s approach towards Iran” and observes that two other officials, William Burns and Lee Hamilton, will likely play roles any Iran policy.

The Obama administration is clearly making relations with Iran one of its top priorities.  Those hoping for a Nixon-China-style détente will probably be disappointed, but it is encouraging to see that the administration is using a variety of diplomatic methods to tackle this important issue.

Russia’s Response? Drink It All In! (+ Other News)

When the world’s economy is in decline and your nation, run by a network of cartoonish oligarchs, is flexing its muscles more than Arnold Schwarzenegger–and you are Russian–there is always a solid response available: more vodka please!

What better way to pacify your people than to keep them drunk?  Apparently the Russian government is fully aware of the benefits of alcohol as a substitute for actual social and political progress, and as a result has prescribed a dramatic reduction in the tax on vodka in these troubled times.

Part of this tax is aimed at curbing the growing trend for Russians to circumvent the tax altogether by making their own alcohols and buying contraband alcohol, a game of (dare I say?) Russian roulette with each bottle that has resulted in “dozens” of deaths across the state.

Now I will not delve deep into psycho-analysis on this point, but I think that there are a few obvious polite “suggestions” that might be made to a government that needs to keep its people drunk to be happy.

Edit (1/27/09): Maybe getting them drunk will also help them to not notice you are killing off your political enemies too.  This is getting ridiculous.

——

Another story out of Russia of particular interest to me (because of my current residence in London) is the purchase of the Evening Standard by russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev.  Anyone else have £1 lying around to buy a major newspaper?

Though I bring it up mainly to draw your attention to it, I think it is an interesting occurrence when major media outlets became controlled by foreign actors.  People talk about the “fourth branch of government” in the United States (particularly the press), and how exactly would this branch stand up if its editorial policy were to become influenced by another state?

Of course, though the principle still stands, this probably wouldn’t be such a big deal if the purchaser were not from the Russian oligarchical class of former KGB agents.  Those of us inclined to see a pattern in Russia’s recent behavior might hop on the conspiracy theory bandwagon and view the cynical motives for such a move.

In my experience here in London, it seems that such editorial controls would be useful–and not frowned upon.  There are several major papers competing for circulation in the UK and particularly in London, and everyone will be able to tell you which one leans which direction.  In perusing their papers, it seems that the idea of “objectivity” is not so heavily valued here as it is in the states; papers have an ideological perspective, and they don’t care if their slang terms for the opposing party and relative placement of opponents’ arguments at the end of each article expose this.

In addition, Londoners are big on public transportation: I met a woman from the states who has lived here for three years and–because its more convenient–does not own a car.  This leads to a large opportunity for newspapers, as everyone on the way to work seems to be perusing the day’s news in one form or another.  Evening Standard booths stand guard outside of every tube station, offering free umbrellas with purchase when it is raining or free coffee mugs or something of that sort–the exact thing to be sure that thousands of Londoners every day will read each paper in circulation.

The purchase of the Evening Standard could just be a business decision–but it makes for a better blog to think about the alternatives!

—–

The final piece of news that I want to highlight this week is the introduction of national healthcare in China.  Interestingly, China has gone for the Massachusetts approach (home state of my college, Boston College), providing basic insurance coverage (rather than a state-administered health program as in western Europe) to all Chinese people.  The administration they plan to set up sounds a lot more like the Commonwealth Connector than the UK’s National Health Service.

This turn of events will prove an interesting experiment for those wishing that the same be done for the U.S.  One of Mitt Romney’s killer flops was his disavowal of the system he put in place in MA; and while it is true that Massachusetts has seen rising enrollment that has exceeded the prescribed budget (and put the state in a squeeze in these tough times), people seem to the happy with the idea.  It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

BRIC Roundup – January, 2009

There isn’t much new major news coming out of the BRIC countries this week, so instead, I will give you a quick roundup of some of the stories that have been developing through the weeks:

Russia is continuing its expansion of influence over its neighboring countries in whatever way possible.  As we have documented through the weeks, it is clear that the conflict in Georgia, the continuing spat over the missile shield in Poland, and the energy dispute in Ukraine are all part and parcel of the same effort of Russia to bring itself back into global prominence.  This week, Russia has promised Kyrgystan a $300 million loan and a welcoming-back into the fold if the former satellite country will close its U.S. military bases that are being used to support the war in Afghanistan.

It is interesting to ponder whether these moves are actually tactically relevant, or whether they are more psychological stabilizing to the Russian mind.  To be sure, it is probably a bit of both.  Russia may be looking well into the future at impending conflicts over energy and hoping to create a sort of barricade of large countries around it; at the same time, it seems in large part that the motivation is psychological, as Russia feels increasingly separated and ideologically differentiated from the countries that surround it, and needs to carve its own niche.

India continues to wrestle with Pakistan over the Mumbai crisis, and not much has changed.  India has supplied what it believes to be proof of the attacker’s origins, which Pakistan has accepted–but denied any accountability.  It also appears (according to Reuters in that article) that the U.S. has backed away its pressure and involvement in the situation, without which India is losing some steam.  This let-down of international pressure is what I warned against allowing a few weeks ago, and despite my provocations it has occurred.  Tomorrow’s-President Obama will be put in a tough situation to respond to Pakistan having missed the opportunity to make reasonable demands that will not be seen as hostile.

In lighter news, a fantastic movie, Slumdog Millionaire, won the Golden Globe for best picture and stands an almost sure-bet to receive an Oscar nomination.  The movie tells the story of an Indian boy growing up in various areas of India (including Bombay/Mumbai) through his appearance on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”  I might speak more about it in the future, but in the meantime, go out and see it both for its interesting portrait of life in the lower classes of India and its cinematic magnificence.

Brazil is still taking the lead on the Doha development round.  This might be somewhat surprising given the current financial crisis, but it may be indicative of an important ideological difference from the incoming administration in the U.S–as we gear up for Keynesian deficit spending in the trillions and its potential corollary of protectionism, Brazil is still pushing free trade to the front of the agenda.  It could just be an opportunistic move by a developing country looking to rise out of the crisis in a much better position, but in any case, evidences a commitment that is interesting at the least.

Finally, China is participating in a program among the ASEAN countries of Southeast Asia to create a fund to ward off effects of the financial crisis.  This is interesting in part with its combination of other efforts to insulate itself from the effects of the crisis by pushing off effects onto other nations, as I wrote about here.  I’m not quite sure what to make of this move, but it is worthwhile to watch China’s movements in this crisis.  China is the largest creditor to the United States, assuring that both countries are linked inextricably while pursuing opposite goals.  How each country emerges from this crisis will be important to the other.

Such is the state of the BRIC world on this Monday, January 19, 2009.  There is an important story with significant impact on U.S. foreign policy and economic life in each nation, evidencing the importance of the study of these nations.  I’ll make sure to keep you updated in the coming weeks, so keep checking back every Monday at mid-day.

Blogging from the Californian Republic (Province of China)

Though I am soon to depart overseas to London to blog with a more international perspective, I report to you today live from the future Californian Republic of China.

For those of you not familiar with the coming establishment of this Chinese-operated province in what will-once-have-been-formerly the Western U.S., you can read more about the impending breakup of the United States as predicted by a prominent Russian professor and foreign minister here.

The Wall Street Journal describes the circulation of such theories in elite Russian circles, telling us a lot about the disposition of these circles toward the United States.  Can anything be done about this anti-Americanism?

If you’re curious to whom you should address your citizenship application or where you should plan your next vacation without needing a visa, make sure to check out the map of which nation will control your state.

Thinking ahead to the non-existent next election, Sarah Palin will be getting a much closer view of Russia.  However, if she were to use this newfound foreign experience when she runs for President, she would be doing so in Russia, and I doubt the potential for success in that strategy. Still, if she were to be successful, Russia, according to the map, would hold no control over my home state of California, which would effectively choose Chinese control over the potential of any more Sarah Palins coming around.

Otherwise notable is the reclamation of the southwestern territories minus California but plus the South by Mexico, though the Mexican officials might not be in the right state of mind to take full advantage of the seizure for some time.

Also, a large group of Mid-Westerners are going to have to end their dispute with Canada in a fairly embarrassing way.

—-[More after the fold]—-

Global Economic Crisis Hits Iran

It is becoming clear that Iran will not escape the growing global economic crisis unscathed. The LA Times reported on Friday that the Iranian government is seriously considering a $300 million bail-out to help companies that are suffering from the recent drops in oil and commodity prices. The Times reports:

According to a report Tuesday in the daily Kargozaaran, the chief of the Tehran Stock Exchange is pressing the government to put up cash to stop the collapse of the stock market, which has dropped to a five-year low since oil prices began plummeting this fall.

Iran is also struggling with rampant inflation. According to a report by Iran’s Central Bank inflation has risen 25% in the last twelve months and the cost of food and drinks rose 35% in September alone. This rise in the cost of living, combined with wide-spread unemployment, is particularly tough on Iran’s young people. A government report recently found that “a young college graduate had to work and save 40 years in order to be able to afford to buy a first home.”

Economic anxiety among Iranian citizens could play a major role in the upcoming Presidential election. Current President Mahmood Ahmadinejahd has been criticized for his handling of the economy, particularly since up until recently he claimed that Iran would not be affected by the global economic downturn. According to Mohammad Atrianfar, a senior adviser to former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejahd has consistently lied about Iran’s problems with exports, inflation, and employment. Anger over economic mismanagement could definitely hurt Ahmadinejahd at the polls.

Meanwhile, American and European officials are hoping that Iran’s economic troubles will force the regime to take the threat of economic sanctions more seriously. The threat of sanctions, however, is severely undermined by Russia’s opposition to sanctions and its position as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Without Russia’s support, it is almost certain that the Security Council will not be able to approve new sanctions against Iran. An op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times by Oded Eran, Giora Eiland, and Emily Landau offers an interesting solution: a three-way deal between the United States, Russia, and Iran. They propose that the United States should offer to drop its plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and increased scrutiny for Eastern European NATO candidates, in exchange for Russia support of stricter sanctions and its promise to stop providing Iran with conventional weapons. This deal would give the United States increased leverage that it need to negotiate with Iran and convince the regime to suspend its nuclear enrichment program. Iran would therefore be able to save itself from painful sanctions and rejoin the international community in exchange for putting its nuclear dreams on hold.

This is an interesting proposal but it fails to take in to account how wildly popular Iran’s nuclear program is among Iranians, who believe that they have a right to nuclear energy. If Ahmadinejahd, or indeed any politician, were to agree to such a deal, this could severely hurt their chances in the June election. Rather than asking Iran to completely stop its nuclear program , international pressure would be more effective if it held Iran accountable to the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency which has demanded more transparency to determine Iran’s nuclear motives.

As Iranian officials are wondering how to stabilize their faltering economy and American and European officials are wondering if the time is right for renewed economic pressure, one thing is clear: the ramifications of the economic downturn are being felt around the globe and Iran is no exception.