Meeting With Congressman Rohrabacher

Thursday, April 1, 2011, I met Congressman Rohrabacher in his office in Washington D.C.  Two days earlier the Congressman gave a speech at the World Russia Forum.  In constrast to Richard Perle's speech earlier in the day, the Congressman's speech was not an attack on Russia, but an accurate assessment of Russia's role in the conflict in 2008 and the nation's interest in the Caucasus region and in combatting terrorism.

Congressman Rohrabacher said that Russia did not start the conflict in South Ossetia, but that Georgia had clearly done so.  This was not the first time he has publicly stated this.  In 2008, after the conflict, Mr. Rohrabacher forcefully said in Congress that "the fighting was started by Georgia.  The Georgians broke the truce." and not the Russians.  In the Congressman's speech at the Forum, he also said that Russia clearly has interests in the Caucasus region, just as the U.S. does in Central America. Further, he believes in the right of self-determination for the Abkhaz people.  Finally, his position, like mine, is that NATO should not be confronting Russia as if it represents the threat of the Soviet Union.  Rather, NATO should work together with Russia to meet the common threat of terrorism.

I was delighted to hear the speech and after I approached the Congressman and told him of my business in south Russia and Abkhazia.  Graciously, he and his staff arranged a meeting on short notice before I left town at the end of the week.

When we met in his office, the Congressman had a number of questions about my experiences in Russia and Abkhazia.  We spoke for a full hour and he was interested to learn more about Abkhazia and its history, culture and people.  I was pleased to have the chance to describe the reasons that I support Abkhazia and its independence.  I also told him that Abkhazia is blessed with natural resources, a spectacular coastline and mountains and that it is primed for development due to its location next to Sochi and the Russian market.  I also told the Congressman that I believed that the U.S. had a chance to help develop Abkhazia, thereby not only cementing relations with both Russia and Abkhazia, but also promoting American values of entrepreneurship, business ethics and democracy.  I believe he shares my views on these issues.  

Personally, I found Mr. Rohrabacher to be very bright, informed and a pleasure to speak to.  I told him that I hoped to see him in Russia and would gladly act as his guide.  I was happy to have an audience with the Congressman and I left buoyed by his interest and support.  

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. 

Withnail and Corum (Telegraph UK)

As I read Mr. Corum's post "The neo-Tsarist Russian empire is an increasing security problem for the West" in the Telegram, I thought about a British film I saw years ago, Withnail and I.  The main character and his friend, Wtihnail, are two actors struggling to survive in 1969 London.  The film was very funny and eventually became a cult hit.  As I read the post, I found myself repeatedly thinking of Withnail's answer to a statement he found absurd and pretentious:  "What absolute twaddle!"

Of course, there is an American expression that is roughly equal, but I think that Withnail's comment pretty well sums up what I think about Mr. Corum's column, except  that I believe his points are much more dangerously askew than those of Withnail's friend.

I lost count of the number of times that Mr. Corum states conclusively that some future event "will" happen. Even the most seasoned analyst usually writes in less certain terms.  There are too many variables to state with such certainty so many future outcomes.

He describes Russia outside of Moscow and Saint Petersburg as a "Third World" of poverty and misery.  I live in Russia and outside of those two cities.  While it is not Malibu or Park Avenue and there are many problems, it is not the place of Third World misery that he imagines.  He also wonders why Russia has a belief in itself as a great power.  How about the largest land mass in the world?  145 million people with a very important cultural, historical and intellectual legacy? The most natural resources of any nation? 

In Mr. Corum's post, he says "Russia will adopt a more aggressive policy in the Caucasus in regards to Georgia and the two Russian-occupied breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia."  Has Mr. Corum even been to either place?  I have been to Abkhazia and know it well.  Abkhazia is not an occupied nation.  In 1992, Georgia attacked Abkhazia,  Earlier, Georgian leaders made genocidal threats and spoke of the illegitimacy of the Abkhaz in their own land.  After the Georgian Army was driven out, the Russians acted as peacekeepers in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia for 15 years.   Russia actually enforced an economic blockade on Abkhazia until 1999 in deference to Georgia and the CIS.  After years of Georgian threats and the unprovoked attack on South Ossetia  (confirmed by an EU Commission report) by Georgia in 2008, Russia has recognized both nations and has given aid and military protection, including an army base in Abkhazia,  to prevent further Georgian aggression and bloodshed. Abkhazia has a democratically elected government and sets its own course, just as many nations with protective American bases set their own course.  But a double standard is applied to Russia.

Mr. Corum calls Belarus a "satellite state" of Russia, but gives no evidence. Belarus has a different political and economic system than Russia and pursues its own domestic and foreign policy. While there has been cooperation, the recent dairy product and natural gas rows show that Moscow does not call the shots.  I am not endorsing the Communist Belarusian government, only pointing out what is obvious. Mr.Corum also states that Ukraine "will" become a "satellite" of Russia because of the recent Ukrainian election, but he ignores the centuries of shared historical, political, religious, linguistic and familial history of the two nations. I spend a lot of time in Russia and Ukraine and many in both nations have ancestors in the last 2-4 generations from the other. It is difficult for those unfamiliar to understand the special relationship between Russians and Ukrainians.  While Ukraine may turn its orientation more towards Russia, sooner or later that was likely to happen.  It does not necessitate that Ukraine will become a Russian satellite.  But here, as in most of Mr. Corum's claims, there is an entirely different standard applied to Russia.

He sees ill intent on Russia's part in the customs union with Kazakhstan and Belarus.  Should Russia not be free to do this, just as the US has joined NAFTA, the WTO and European countries have formed the EU? The Kazakh President believes that the 3 nations will enjoy a 15% increase in GDP by 2015 as a result of the customs union.  But in this, Corum visualizes a neo-Soviet state arising.  

The same holds true for Russia's naval base in Ukraine.  Despite the ties between Russia and Ukraine and the long Russian presence in Crimea, Mr. Corum sees this as evidence of Russia dominating Ukraine.  America has bases in a lot of countries and I don't recall anyone describing Japan or the U.K. as satellites.   In reference to Ukraine, he even calls it " the Ukraine", the common usage of which ended shortly after the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War ended.  But then Mr. Corum's mindset is firmly grounded in a Cold War mentality.

In Mr. Corum's view, all about Russia is a zero-sum, Cold War, neo-Tsarist scenario. He talks about the usage of a centuries old Russian symbol, the two-headed eagle as evidence.  However, he ignores what any serious discussion about Russia should not: the invasions and catastrophic, unparalleled losses that inform Russian views.  For 50 years or so American foreign policy was dominated by realpolitik.  American policy-makers, left and right, thought about how their actions would be viewed and the resulting reactions.  However, the neo conservative ideologues who dominated the Bush Administration pursued policies that have severely damaged America's economy, her prestige and resulted in much higher tensions with Russia.   

Russia's leadership  and its population have concerns about encirclement and attack.   For this reason, the American bases in the former Soviet satellites of Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary,those nations acceding to NATO and the proposed bases in Georgia and Central Asia (parts of the former Soviet Union) are a nightmare to the Russians (imagine if Arkansas, Mexico and Puerto Rico had joined the Warsaw Pact).  At the same time, writers like Mr. Corum hypocritically condemn Russia for doing exactly what America is doing: seeking military bases in former Soviet Republics. 

In return for the reunification of Germany, the first Bush Administration promised the Soviet Union there would be no enlargement of NATO east.  Not one inch.  The promise was broken.  I am not sure if it was a good idea to expand east or not, but it certainly is viewed as a "broken promise" by the Russians.  America and its advisors are widely blamed for the post-Soviet economic shocks which led to a huge increase in poverty, the concentration of wealth in a few hands, rising death and falling birth rates.   Richard Cohen has written extensively about how in the Post-Soviet period American triumphalism and broken promises, condescending lectures and demands for unilateral concessions have resulted in an unnecessary and dangerous remilitarizing of American- Russian relations.

The recent decision by the Obama Administration to drop the missile shield alignment in Poland was widely praised in Russia.  As a result, the Russian government has given the U.S. reason to hope they may help apply leverage with Iran. Prominent neo-cons and hawks at the time excoriated the Obama Administration, but paid no attention to the fact that majorities in both Poland and the Czech Republic were in favor of scrapping the plan.  The reason?  They know that encircling and provoking confrontation with Russia is a bigger risk to their security, their economies and energy sources.  it is quite obvious that the Bush Administration lost all leverage and persuasive powers with Russia due to their policy of encirclement and isolation.  But Mr. Corum's prescription is to pour the coals on and double down on a policy that has absolutely failed.  Not only that, but many in Russia think that these policies are evidence of a new Cold War.  Is Russia truly the enemy of the United States?  Or are people like Corum still stuck in  the Cold War paradigm? Or is it just that the military-industrial complex needs to find enemies?  

As an American patriot, I do not like policies that damage our standing in the world and, however well-intentioned ,make it a less safe and more hostile place.  As an American in Russia, I am often asked by Russians "Why does America not want to be friends with Russia?"  I always tell my Russian friends that I have a  fundamental disagreement with my countrymen who support policies that isolate and escalate a new Cold War with Russia.  

Andy Garcia and Renny Harlin Film on the South Ossetia Conflict

Somehow I missed the reports last month that Director Renny Harlin is making a new film about the conflict in South Ossetia in 2008.  The title of the film at this moment is Georgia.  Apparently it is low budget and according to the director both anti-war and impartial.  The film is to star Andy Garcia as Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

Calling attention to the human rights disaster that Georgia unleashed when it attacked South Ossetia would be welcome.  I hope that it will really be an impartial look at the conflict and the events leading up to it.  However, the title does not give me confidence.  And one of the producers of the film is an MP from President Saakashvili's ruling party.

Several years ago as I was exiting the Musee d'Orsay in Paris, I happened upon Andy Garcia.  As I walked by, I heard him speaking to someone on his mobile telephone.  I am not prone to eavesdropping, but I could not help but hear him loudly admonish the listener to "stay in the moment" as they apparently discussed a film role.

I hope that Mr. Garcia and Mr. Harlin find the "moments" to research what really happened in South Ossetia last year.  It should not be too hard in light of the recent report from the E.U.

There are reports that Georgia has been involved in the financing of the film.  Goldinvest, a Georgian firm gets credited for sponsoring the film.  The Georgian government has lent government buildings and military personnel for film scenes.  President Saakashvili  has also made statements that Russia's actions are depicted unfavorably in the film.  And he has spent time with the cast and crew of the film.  This does not sound like an environment likely to produce an impartial view of the subject matter.

The conflict in South Ossetia is primarily a humanitarian disaster for the victims, including South Ossetian, Russian and Georgian, who lost their lives and also for all of the displaced persons caused by the conflict. Georgia would like the debate to be about i"territorial integrity" to distract from the actions of their government in trying to reintegrate a nation that wants no part of Georgian occupation.  If Georgia exploits the humanitarian disaster that it caused by attacking South Ossetia to make a propaganda film, it would be unconscionable.  I hope that this does not happen.

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?