Russia's Opposition and Liz Cheney: Allies
in Confronting Obama
"There are two versions of the end of the Cold War: 'The Russian version and the real one,' rails Liz Cheney in the Wall Street Journal. And now President Obama has revealed himself as an advocate of the Russian version."
Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. It appears to some Russians that Cheney and her fellow critics on the American right have more in common with Russia's opposition than President Obama does.
Contrary to expectations,
Obama-mania hasn't taken hold in Russia. This was noted with some alarm by
American newspapers, as they commented on the outcome of the U.S. president’s
visit to our country. You bet. In other countries, masses of curious onlookers
lined the streets where the U.S. leader's motorcade passed. All the local radio
stations, newspapers and Internet forums gushed over the visit of the 44th
president of the United States. Local TV networks interrupted their entire
schedules to show every minute of the global megastar. But to the surprise of
American journalists, nothing like that happened in Russia. And by today’s
global standards, that's clearly an anomaly.
Reporters and political
scientists are divided over the reasons for this. Russia is out of touch with
global trends, is the conclusion of some newspaper reporters. But a more
insightful analysis suggested precisely the opposite hypothesis: It is the
kinship and fundamental similarity of the nature of political support for Obama
and Russian leaders. Roughly speaking, the never-failing Obama magic
"doesn’t work" in Russia, because Putin and Medvedev have their own
magic at work. "Would you like some tea?" - "No thank you, I have
my own."
Perhaps the best confirmation
of this theory was offered ... by Barack Obama himself, in his extremely
surprising Moscow speech to graduates of the New Economic School [watch video
below]. What he said was much more like recent statement by United Russia [Russia's
ruling party] than traditional American foreign policy rhetoric. The things that are backed by the Kremlin - and which were
explicitly opposed by the Bush Administration - are literally part of every thesis
in Obama’s speech.
"State sovereignty must
be the cornerstone of international order. … America will not seek to impose
any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose
which party or individual should run a country. … Just as all states should
have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders
that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia,
just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will
lead to anarchy. … Every country charts its own course." And then: "…
America seeks an international system … where we hold ourselves to the same
standards that we apply to other nations." [Editor's Note: Quotes are not
in the order that they were expressed in Obama's speech].
As I listened to
this, I had the impression that the U.S. president was reading aloud a famous
article byVladislav
Surkov, Paragraphsin Favor of Sovereign Democracy.
Surkov: "To
be on the side of the community of sovereign democracies (and the free market)
- is to be against any kind of global dictatorship (or monopoly). Maintaining
national sovereignty is a factor in any fair globalization and democratization
of global relations. These ideas emerge out of the concept of a just world
based on a community of free societies (sovereign democracies), and cooperation
and competition conducted according to reasonable rules."
Despite theories about
globalization, the concept of sovereignty remains the foundation of the global
order - and that's not the only point of U.S.-Russian convergence.
Obama: "…
the future doesn't belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or
bury missiles in the ground - the future belongs to young people with the
education and imagination to create." This is an almost verbatim quotation
from Surkov, where we read: "Cutting-edge science, moral
advantage, industrial dynamism, just laws, personal freedom, and everyday comforts appear
increasingly salient as symbols of power. It's not the military industrial complex that matters
most - but comprehensive competitiveness that is recognized as the chief means
of ensuring sovereignty."
Looking back at the history of the 20th
century, particularly Russian-American history,
one can see why Obama has been subject to such scathing criticism from the U.S.
right, which accuses him of "bowing before the Russians."
Obama: "The Cold War reached a conclusion because
of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of
Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be
peaceful."
There are two versions of the
end of the Cold War: "The Russian version and the real one," rails Liz Cheney in
the Wall Street Journal. And now President Obama has revealed
himself as an advocate of the Russian version. That’s true. Here’s what Surkov
said on the topic in 2006: "It would not be superfluous to note once
again: Russiaembraced democracy not by a'defeat in the Cold War,'but due to the
very essence of European
culture." And also: "Wedon't believe
we were defeated in the Cold War.
We believe
we defeated our own totalitarian system."
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Interestingly, it
turns out that the nostalgia for "Bushism," put into early retirement
by Obama, isn't peculiar to American
conservatives. No less grief in this regard can be found in Russia's opposition
media. In an article dedicated to the creation of a Russian-American working
group on questions of civil society, the Ezhidnevniy Journal complained
indignantly about Obama for the, "triumph of ‘realism,’ and
therejection of the principle of
support for democratic reforms and civil society in other countries."
The perfect reflection of
this indignance was a public denunciation written to President Medvedev by a
group of conscientious citizens. The pathos of the text: "there's no place
for slayers of liberty like Surkov amid the bright and promising affair of
Russian-American cooperation on the building of civil institutions."
Perhaps there's an element of rationality in this. But one would need to
clarify the point by adding that if this is the case, then there's no place for
people like Barack Obama. Or, in any event, people like his political adviser Michael McFaul, who
co-chairs the group on the American side (Surkov, as we know, is co-chair on
the Russian side).
Incidentally, the first thing
I would do if I were in the place of McFaul or Surkov, would be to create a
special subcommittee on which I would include, from the Russian side, the
authors of the letter to Medvedev, and from American - Liz Cheney and
likeminded authors from the Wall Street Journal. The "Other
Russia" and "Other America" would quickly find one another and
have much to say to the world.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
"Realism,"
in their words, has now almost become a mark of shame. For it turns out that
the "realism" of Obama has much more in common with the sovereign
democracy so hated by [Russia's] anti-regime fighters than the customary
slogans, accusations and promises of American leaders (and the Russian
opposition).
And that means that the
unique competitive advantage of our opposition media-missionaries no longer
works: in order for us and the Americans to understand one another and build a
normal relationship, it's not necessary to come to one - and only one - correct
point of view ("truthful," as Liz Cheney put it), printed in golden
letters on the pages of TheWall Street Journal. There is more
constructive and understandable language for communication than the mantras of
the "Ministry of Truth." In other words, the "Russian
version" of realism.
*Alexei Victorovich
Chadayev is a political scientist and member of the Public Chamber of the
Russian Federation
