World Russia Forum, Washington D.C. March 29 - 30, 2011

I attended the World Russia Forum in Washington D.C. last week.  The Forum, which is run by Ed Lozansky, commemoriated the 50th anniversay of Yuri Gagarin's voyage as the first man in space on April 12, 1961. This year's program included speakers Konstantin Kosachev, the Chairman of the Russian Duma's Committee on Foreign Affairs, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Perle, Duma deputy Dr. Sergei Markov, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Dr. Robert Legvold.

The first afternoon, Chairman Kosachev's spoke on the issues facing Russian- American relations and the refusal by his Congressional counterpart, Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, to meet with him.  He pointed out issues the Russian government would like to raise with the U.S. Government.  Richard Perle followed with an angry, shocking and finger waving diatribe against Russia and seemed to personally blame Mr. Kosachev for all. For some reason, he was very offended by Mr. Kosachev's comments, which came across as respectful in tone.

Mr. Perle said that the recent START missile treaty was a waste of time and a retreat to "Cold War" era thinking because the U.S. and Russia are no longer ideological enemies.  It was a neat rhetorical trick, considering he and his neocon cohorts have been accused of exactly that- trying to return the US to Cold War policies towards Russia.  Mr. Perle said he believes that reducing the number of nuclear weapons is a waste of time. But can a reasonable person argue that fewer nuclear weapons and reduced tensions is not worthwhile? There was no awareness on Perle's part that the aggressive neocon thinking and resulting American foreign policy during the Bush Administration was threatening to Russian security.  And that the tensions that resulted pushed us closer to a new "Cold War" than at any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  He also said that the Jackson- Vanik Amendment, which had been much discussed at the Forum, is not applicable to Russia.  Perle also decried the Khodorkovsky trial and imprisonment.  Khodorkovsky has been raised as a human rights issue, but Perle seems unaware that Khodorkovsky was on the radar screen of Lee Wolosky, the man who launched the hunt for international arms dealer Viktor Bout.  Wolosky felt 10 years ago that Khodorkovsky was a bigger threat to American security than Bout and accused him of the very crimes that he was convicted of last year.  So, Khodorkovsky is not Andre Sakharov.

Mr. Perle's speech, while provocative, was also embarassingly inappropriate.  I wondered (and I was not the only one) how someone with an obvious problem containing his temper in a public forum could rise to a high position in government, whatever his intellectual qualifications.

After Mr. Perle's turn at the podium, the audience was given the chance to ask him and Mr. Kosachev questions.  My question to Mr. Perle:  "American policy in the Caucasus is heavily influenced by the Republic of Georgia.  You have said that there are two sides to every issue, but the U.S. Government does not listen to the Republic of Abkhazia's positions.  How can the U.S. have an informed policy on this important region without input from one of the players?"

Mr. Perle replied that "we are talking to them."  This is false and I stated so.  Mr. Perle then said that "we know what they are thinking."  I think most know this is not a substitute for dilplomacy. His answer fell flat and Lozansky mercifully took the podium.   It was a surprising exchange to me because Mr. Perle seemed to be unaware of the situation in Abkhazia.  I expected him to reply with the position that his fellow neocon thinkier, Randy Scheunemann, and Senator John McCain have taken on Georgian territorial integrity, which conveniently and hypocritically ignores a very analogous situation in Kosovo.

There was a positive reaction from the audience to my question and several approached me to say that I had asked a question no one seemed to be asking and that Russians could not effectively raise because no one in Washington listens to them on the subject of the Caucasus.

Later that evening, I went to the Russian Embassy for a reception.  It was a pleasant evening with a lot of, Russian and American attendees of the Forum.  However, people were still talking about Perle's speech.  It is not hard to see how people like this can lead America down an aggressive and confrontational path towards Russia.  There is a double standard applied to Russia when compared to their statements on other nations. Fortunately is no longer the norm in American foreign policy.  Our policy is formulated based upon pragmatism, rather than the zero-sum, confrontational and ideologically rigid, neocon policies that soured our relations with Russia in the last decade. 

Georgia, the GOP and the South Ossetia Conflict

Few people in the United States have any idea of how our policy in the Caucasus has been determined.   Of course, many probably are not really aware of the region or its significance.  Last year in the midst of the conflict in South Ossetia, Senator John McCain announced that we "are all Georgians."  It is interesting how he came to that conclusion.  One of McCain's chief advisors during last year's Presidential campaign, Randy Scheunemann, is a specialist in foreign affairs.  He is also a registered foreign agent for the Republic of Georgia.  During the period 2004- 2008 alone, his firms were paid over $2,000,000 to advise and lobby the U.S. Government by and on behalf of Georgia.  He was also paid a reported $70,000 per month by the McCain for President campaign.  Nice work if you can find it.  Mr. Scheunemann is of the neo-conservative  school of thought.  His ideological brethren include Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith.  They tend to see the world in terms of good and evil, have a low tolerance for diplomacy, emphasize unilateral U.S. action and a readiness to use military force. They are some of the same individuals who argued forcefully for the American invasion in Iraq.

Georgia has been one of our government's most reliable military partners in Iraq. While many of our traditional allies refused to participate, Georgia's military contribution has been out of proportion to the size of their nation and their military.  In the meantime, the U.S. has lavished billions of dollars in aid. In the aftermath of the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, an additional $1 billion package was announced. Much of the money was spent on an increase in the military budget.  In the last decade alone, their military expenditures increased by more than 30 times according to some calculations.  At the same time that Western governments were encouraging South Ossetia and Abkhazia to disarm, they were providing the finances for Georgia to build up its military.  In 2007, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Georgia's rate of growth of military expenditures was the highest in the world.  It is pretty clear where the money came from, but what was the purpose?  Did they need it to defend themselves against impoverished Armenia?  Azerbaijan or Turkey with whom they have good relations?  Or was the point to reintegrate SouthOssetia and Abkhazia through forceful means?  The appearance is that the U.S. gained a partner in a war (Iraq) that most Western governments thought was unnecessary and irrelevant to the terrorist threat.  In return, the U.S. armed Georgia.  Georgia then used their rebuilt military for the attack in South Ossetia.

 I have spoken to many people from all walks of life in Russia and the near universal sentiment is that the U.S. was behind the attack.  It is known that there were US military advisors in Georgia shortly before the invasion. This can not help our image.

The Bush Administration wanted another partner for their ill-advised war in Iraq and got it.  The Georgians were then given money and used it to attack a near defenseless region that wants no part in being reintegrated into the Republic of Georgia.  If Russia gets a black eye in the process, so much the better by neocon reckoning.  It feels to an observer, like me, that the Bush Administration was playing a zero-sum game by proxy.  If it is good for Georgia, it must be bad for Russia.  If it is bad for Russia it must be good for the U.S.  I really dislike this.  I think a powerful, wealthy and stable Russia is in the best interests of the world.  I want to be clear that I bear no hostility towards the Georgian people and hope that they will enjoy stability and prosperity, too.

 We don't know exactly how much was spent on the Georgian military.  There is corruption in Georgia, money disappears and also there have been military expenditures that were disguised as other budgetary items.  So the true figure is probably greater than the 8% of GDP estimated in 2007.  This is in a country that has much poverty, decaying infrastructure and underfunded social and educational programs.  

 The Republic of Georgia has been represented in the Western press as a small, democratic nation victimized by Russia.  But it is not the beacon of democracy that it has been portrayed as.  There are reports of opposition figures marginalized, abused and imprisoned.  The US State Department's 2007 report found serious problems with Georgia's human rights record. And Freedom House has actually downgraded Georgia's human rights record since Mikhail Saakashvili became President.  The "Rose Revolution" in 2003 was supposed to change the corrupt and abusive practices of the government under Edvard Shevardnadze, but it has gotten worse! 

 I always thought that Georgia's President Saakashvili made a really stupid move attacking South Ossetia.  What did he think would happen when South Ossetian civilians and Russian peacekeepers started dying?  Surely he had to know the Russians would respond forcefully to an attack.  However, a friend with ties in South Ossetia explained to me that if Saakashvili  had been able to get the Georgian Army to the Roki Tunnel  (this is the only land route into SouthOssetia from Russia) and cut off access for Russian ground forces, it would have only been possible to dislodge the Georgians with a very lengthy and casualty-heavy bombing campaign.  Given the narrative at the time that Russia was invading Georgia, it may have been difficult for the Russian government to stomach the backlash.

The reintegration of South Ossetia would have been a domestic political triumph for Saakashvili and then he could have turned his attention on Abkhazia.  So he bet it all and lost.  Now South Ossetia is gone and Russia has announced they are spending $500 million for the security of Abkhazia. Even an ethnic Georgian has told me that everyone but the most diehard Georgian nationalists recognizes Abkhazia is gone forever.

 I find it personally distasteful that neocon ideologues like Scheunemann are being paid large sums of money by the Republic of Georgia to  lobby Congress to keep the money spigot turned on for the Saakashvili regime.  Then Georgia turns around and uses the money to attack South Ossetia.  Ossetian civilians and Russian peacekeepers die as a result.  In the meantime, Georgia's President appears in American media and represents his country as the victim of Russian aggression.  This is dishonest and immoral.  I would think a neocon lobbyist with close ties to Georgia would have a hard time sleeping. The conflict caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of refugees have been left homeless.  Even if the Bush Administration was not directly involved in the planning of the attack, who can doubt that Georgia would have done this without significant American aid?