Kasparov: McCain strikes fear into Putinists

Tue, 03/04/2008 - 12:47pm

Alexey SAZONOV/AFP/Getty Images

Russian chessmaster turned opposition leader (and FP contributor) Garry Kasparov doesn't seem too broken up about Dmitry Medvedev's landslide election victory in his latest Wall Street Journal column, but then again, his attention may have been elsewhere:

It is election season again and the interest of the Russian people in the candidates has been high. There has been regular TV coverage, including debates. There is a tangible atmosphere of impending change. The election to which I'm referring is the U.S. presidential race. There is far more curiosity here in the Hillary/Obama debates than in the shuffling that is taking place in the Kremlin.

Kasparov laments that Russia has fallen off the radar screen in American politics and that none of the candidates are calling to eject Russia's government from the G7. He also makes his candidate preferences pretty clear:

The Russian ruling elite is rooting for Hillary Clinton, who represents a known and predictable entity compared to Barack Obama. John McCain has been outspoken on behalf of democratic rights abroad, including Russia. Regardless of the doubts about Mr. McCain's conservative credentials at home, the thought of him in the White House strikes fear into authoritarian leaders everywhere.

Given Kasparov's overall political leanings, it's not shocking that he's a McCain man. The senator from Arizona has indeed been strident in criticizing Medvedev's coronation as a "tragedy of history." But Kasparov's assertion that Clinton is somehow the Kremlin's pick is a little bizarre. If anything, Clinton has gone somewhat overboard in attacking Russia on the campaign trail, saying that Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a soul" and immediately dismissing his successor as a puppet before completely mangling his name. Kasparov seems unsure about Barack Obama -- who also talks a big game on Russia -- describing him as an "unknown quantity."

Personally, I'm inclined to put this one in the "things that won't change" category. The Russian menace plays well on the campaign trail, but the two countries have enough issues of mutual concern that the next U.S. president will have to deal with Medvedev and Putin, even while lamenting Russia's democratic backsliding. I can't see any of the current candidates disturbing the status quo to create the kind of change Kasparov is hoping for.

Joshua Keating | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

COULD a candidate create the

by cigrainger on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 1:55pm

COULD a candidate create the kind of change Kasparov is hoping for? I think it would be a bit arrogant of a candidate to think that they can change Russia's domestic politics. If anything, pressing them may make the current men in power cling harder to that power.

Until there is enough popular support to go beyond the status quo, nobody is changing Russian politics from the outside. Not even America.

The kind of change

by sashenka on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 2:04pm

I'm a little confused as to what exactly you expect, or want, the next administration to change or not change. From the first several paragraphs it appears that your primary issue is with Kasparov's assumption that McCain's tough talk is stronger than his Democratic opponents' and that any of the candidates have a bite to match their bark. The problem that I see here is that your entire line of argument appears to rest on the assumption that a president who's going to bark - and bite - tough on Russia is what is needed to stop democratic backsliding.

In my mind, this is little different than arguing for the same kind of hostile attitude FP hawks want the US government to take to deal with countries who aren't doing things the American way. Don't like what Iran's doing - get tough. Pakistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Serbia, Russia - the same. It continues to amaze me the number of people who subscribe to these notions despite decades of their complete inability to change anything (at least for the better). Indeed, in places like Russia and Iran, nationalism - particularly of the anti-imperialist/anti-American kind - is used to shore up authoritarian governments, infringe civil rights, and crack down on liberal dissent. Meanwhile, these countries have no problem going around US attempts at exclusion to the club.

I would indeed argue that the kind of approach profered by Obama - where gains are made by talking, not by shunning, those whom we want to change, is what is necessary to engender real, serious change in countries like Russia and Iran. While Medvedev's individual policy leanings are still little but speculation, the parallel changes in leadership in Russia and the US offer both countries a new opportunity, and indeed a responsibility, to forge new relations and cooperate on major international conflicts and threats. It can be hoped that through these new relationships, the US might again regain its ability to influence the political development of the many who have rejected its failed leadership in the last decade (or more). Democracy, particularly substantive, liberal democracy, cannot be foisted upon a country or its people by isolating them. In that sense, I think the US and its new president certainly have the ability to foment change, both in Russia, and around the world (this time, for the good). I would even say that with one candidate more than others, we could be in for more change than many have imagined possible.

Clarification

by Joshua Keating on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 2:48pm

Hey Shashenka,
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating any sort of major shift in U.S. policy toward Russia and certainly not any sort of "regime change" actions. I'm merely pointing out that Kasparov is hoping that the new U.S. president will take concrete steps to isolate Putin/Medvedev and I don't think he's likely to get his wish.

Cheers,
Josh

Right - my point was that

by sashenka on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 2:57pm

Right - my point was that your article seemed to associate isolation by the US (and its elected President) with achieving change and stopping democratic backsliding. My second point was that if Obama were elected and he engaged in the kind of outreach and diplomacy he's talked about so much, then it is likely that we would see substantial change and would be the best bet to reduce the power of people like Putin and Medvedev in Russia and other similar countries.

Perhaps...

by Joshua Keating on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 3:25pm

But it's not as if it's been U.S. policy under Bush to isolate Putin the way it has with Iran, Cuba, etc. I have no doubt that President Obama would meet and talk with Medvedev (as would President Clinton and yes, President McCain) but that isn't really much of a change.
As for your first point that isolation and hostility won't bring democracy to Russia, I couldn't agree with you more.

Kasparov, in general...

by oli@dal.ca on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 3:47pm

The general inanity of his latest column aside, I'm continually surprised that Kasparov continues to get as much play as he does in the Western media given his almost complete irrelevancy within Russia. I understand he's the most westernized voice speaking out against Putin et al., but I never find the man has much of particular value to say, nor are his blanket condemnations of the Kremlin ever replaced with any substantive analysis. So he's neither politically relevant nor one of the better observers of Russian politics - what then? I remember reading David Remnick's profile of him a few months ago and finding it rather depressing....

Goals and means

by Mig Greengard on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 7:21pm

Kasparov is interested in results, not rhetoric (or parties), as he has made clear many times. McCain has actually supported action such as removing Russia from the G7. He also actively supported the launch of The Other Russia in 2006. Kasparov wasn't referring to Hillary's campaign trail comments on Putin, which, like most such comments, often have little to do with reality. There is no reason for Putin/Medvedev to believe her policies will differ substantially from those of her husband and the cautiousness she has demonstrated in the Senate.

Every politician will fill the air. The question is will he or she back it up and do so consistently. Kasparov has more faith in McCain doing this because he has demonstrated it in a track record on relevant issues. And Obama, as he says in the article, is an unknown quantity. He gets some benefit of the doubt, especially since if he acted hypocritically on these matters from the start it would be disastrous.

The goal isn't to isolate Putin/Russia in the Castro sense at all. The main goal of soliciting pressure from (slash shaming) western leaders is to put pressure on the Kremlin leadership/oligarchs, who keep all their money in the West. Good relations with the G7 nations is critical to their fortunes. Having grown up in the USSR, Kasparov also takes seriously the concept of promoting democracy abroad and of the United States as a proverbial beacon of freedom; the way Reagan was seen by many (including Kasparov and most of his family) behind the Iron Curtain. It's not just words if you've lived it in that way. Kasparov is distraught about the way Bush II has made a mockery of those ideals by talking about promoting democracy in his speeches and then ignoring what is happening in Russia under his buddy Putin.

The idea is that since the Putin clan couldn't care less about ideology or anything but money, they will do whatever it takes to keep that money flowing and safe. If that means lightening up on the crackdowns and the media, they would do it. If the US and EU said they would begin to treat Russia like China and Belarus as a consequence of the demolition of Russian democracy, it would get results. That would mean much more scrutiny of financial dealings of all kinds, more limitations on visas (not so easy to visit the billions in real estate Putin's oligarchs hold in Kensington and elsewhere), and a a coherent energy policy that recognizes Europe shouldn't be supporting a dictatorial regime. Again, trade with Russia, do business with Russia, but stop providing its authoritarian leaders with democratic credentials they don't remotely deserve.

We're glad most people disagree with the above comment that Kasparov has nothing interesting to say! You "get play" in the media by being powerful, prominent, or right. Kasparov isn't powerful. He's prominent by virtue of his chess career and his visibility on the streets as a true opposition figure. Risk buys credibility for your cause and beliefs, and deservedly so. You don't risk time in prison just to gain attention, at least not if you're already rich and famous.

Kasparov has also been consistently right. The western media coverage of Putin's Russia three years ago was tremendously more favorable than it is today. "Managed democracy," "Russian-style democracy," all these other stupid terms for "anything but a democracy" were all the rage. Things in Russia weren't better than than they are now. The difference is Kasparov and a few others ranting about it and marching about it. He brought dozens of reporters along with him on our Marches of Dissent and introduced them to the hundreds of activists who are living under intense pressure day to day only because they'd like free and fair elections.

Garry isn't an economic analyst. He's essentially a street politician. His "substantive analysis" in the WSJ has been to present some of the dozens of individual cases of persecution and harassment against our activists and civil liberties in Russia. Examples matter because people matter. Larisa Arap, Yury Chervochkin, Anna Politkovskaya, now Maxim Reznik. Kasparov has used the bully pulpit to bring these names and the facts to light. Every WSJ article has contained a litany of recent events documenting the fall of democracy in Putin's Russia. It's usually far more illuminating than a bunch of talking heads with little current experience in Russia swapping theories about 'the Russian soul' and other such silliness.

As a side note, Remnick's New Yorker profile of Garry was as much or more about David as anyone else. It reflected his life in Russia in the USSR days and the changes made in the Yeltsin years. He's also something of a fatalist, which is understandable because things truly are depressing, but that's a luxury you can't afford if you have to get up every day in Russia to try and work for change in an apathetic and oppressive environment. The other problem is comparing Russia 2000, or even 1996, with 2004 and today. People in the west always want to go on about things being better now than under Brezhnev or even Stalin, as if that's making Putin look good in comparison. Things have gotten worse and they are getting worse, that's what matters. Remnick was much more open to this fact the other night on Charlie Rose, btw.

Mig Greengard
Editor, theotherrussia.org