Leon Aron on the Republican Party of Russia

Putin seemed pretty entrenched when I lived in Moscow last Winter, but what if Leon Aron is right?

ONE OF THE MOST POTENTIALLY significant events in Russian politics this year was the national conference of the Republican party of Russia (RPR). It witnessed what may prove to be the last credible attempt to create a democratic opposition with broad enough appeal to contest the Kremlin's control over the Duma (parliament) in 2007 and the presidency in 2008.

Largely forgotten before this year, the RPR is one of Russia's oldest liberal (in the Russian sense--right-of-center, pro-market, and reformist) parties. Founded in 1990, it failed repeatedly to gain a foothold in the Duma, and sank from view. This year, however, the party was back in the headlines, overhauling its rules, adopting a new platform, and installing new leaders.

It was clear on the morning of July 2, in the Rusotel Hotel on the outskirts of Moscow, that this renewal went beyond any mere reorganization. Rejuvenation, even exuberance, was in evidence in the auditorium where several hundred delegates from 58 of Russia's 89 provinces applauded and booed. The gathering overflowed with an energy and optimism I have not seen among Russian democrats since the revolution of the late 1980s.

Most reminiscent of those halcyon days, however, was the abandon with which the delegates criticized the government. Their indictment was remarkable both in its scope and its merciless intensity. It found vigorous expression in the documents released by the conference--an "Appeal to the Citizens of Russia" and a platform--as well as in speeches and debates, which were webcast live on the party's website.

Bush a Decisive Leader--NOT

(ht andrew sullivan)

Karzai to US: "Yankee Go Home!"

Maybe it is due to Bush's Katrina fiasco, but I have long thought that Islam Karimov's eviction of the US military from Uzbekistan, with the support of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Russia, China, et al.), might have a ripple effect in Afghanistan. Of course, I had no idea that this would happen so quickly. Today, Afghan president Hamid Karzai also seems to be saying: "Yankee Go Home!"
The Guardian has this report:

Karzai demanded an immediate end to foreign troops searching people's homes without his government's authorization. He also said foreign governments should "concentrate on where terrorists are trained, on their bases, on the supply to them, on the money coming to them" - a veiled reference to support that militants allegedly get from neighboring Pakistan.

Afghan officials have repeatedly accused Pakistan of aiding Taliban rebels and other militants, a charge Islamabad vehemently denies.

"I don't think there is a big need for military activity in Afghanistan anymore,"Karzai told reporters. "The nature of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan has changed now.

"No coalition forces should go to Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government. ... The use of air power is something that may not be very effective now. ... That's what I mean by a change in strategy."

It was the second time Karzai has publicly challenged the U.S.-led coalition. In May, before a trip to Washington, he demanded more authority over the 20,000-member U.S.-led coalition here, but President Bush said they would remain under American control. In addition to the coalition troops, there are 11,000 NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

There's an interesting Eurasianet profile of Karzai by Ahmed Rashid from 2001 that contains this revealing quote:

"The tragedy was that very soon the Taliban were taken over by Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) and they became a proxy for a foreign power. Then they allowed Arabs and other foreigners to set up terrorist training camps on Afghan soil and I began to organize against them," he said. "By 1997 it was clear to most Afghans that the Taliban were unacceptable because Osama bin Laden was playing a leadership role in the movement. I warned the Americans many times, but who was listening - nobody," he added.

And this:

According to a US diplomat, the issue of whether or not to support Karzai provoked a heated debate between the US departments of state and defense. Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly was reluctant to support Karzai out of concern that such a move would anger Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. "There was real anger at Powell from the military because he was accepting at face value whatever the Pakistanis were telling him, when in reality they were doing nothing constructive in the Pashtun belt," the US diplomat said.

Washington only decided to support Karzai in the first week of November - four weeks after the bombing campaign started - and only after the Pentagon had taken the decision to support a Northern Alliance attack on Mazar-i-Sharif.

Interesting, the Pentagon supported Karimov against the State Department's support for human rights NGOs. Sounds like a familiar situation. So, stay tuned...

Remembering Simon Wiesenthal

Roger L. Simon mentioned that Simon Wisenthal had passed away. Here's the story in Haaretz.

Putin Grants Pushkin's Descendants Russian Citizenship

According to this RIA Novosti report, they currently live in Belgium.

Will Safavian Sing?

If he does, this could be big news:

The Bush administration's top federal procurement official resigned Friday and was arrested yesterday, accused of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government. It was the first criminal complaint filed against a government official in the ongoing corruption probe related to Abramoff's activities in Washington.

The complaint, filed by the FBI, alleges that David H. Safavian, 38, a White House procurement official involved until last week in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, made repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002.

(HT War and Piece)

Musharraf's Historic Speech

Daniel Pipes praises the Pakistani leader for opening up to Israel and the Jewish diaspora:

Most news coverage of the Musharraf speech focused on the prospect of Pakistan opening diplomatic relations with Israel (Reuters: "Pakistan leader urges US Jews to help make peace"), but what is potentially of lasting importance about the Musharraf address – beyond the mere fact of its being delivered to a Jewish organization – was the president's respectful, accurate, and constructive comments about Jews.

He began with the important observation that Jews and Muslims "have many similarities and few divergences in their faith and culture," then listed three specifics: belief in the oneness of God, shared ways of greeting, and a common phrase in the Talmud and Koran. And Moses, he pointed out, is the prophet most often referred to in the Koran.

Mr. Musharraf noted how "our experiences and histories intertwine" and then elaborated on what he called the two communities' "rich and very long" history of interaction. He mentioned the "shining examples" of Cordova, Baghdad, Istanbul, and Bukhara, the golden period of Muslim Spain, and the joint experience of the Spanish Inquisition. Generalizing from the inquisition, he correctly asserted that Jews and Muslims "have not only lived together and shared prosperity, but also suffered together."

A Russian-American Alliance?

That's the stated aim of this website. I found it on a link at Registan. It looks a lot more Russian than American, Gleb Pavlovsky seems to run the show. Right now, it looks unlikely. But stranger things have happened. I don't know who is lobbying for this type of thing on the American side right now. On the other hand, maybe Putin helped Bush out with the Korea talks. And if Hillary Clinton becomes President...

Ben Paarman's Central Asia Blog

Has some nice photos posted today...

Human Rights Watch Condemns British Antiterrorism Plan

Their headline:U.K.: Detention Plan Amounts to Punishment Without Trial

Moscow Cat Theatre Comes to NYC

We saw the New York Times article announcing the Moscow Cat Theatre has come to New York, and thought about going. Our Moscow friends said it was sort of a cat circus, but if you had a cat, you'd seen the show. So we don't know yet if we'll go. But we do know that we like their website.

More on Uzbekistan

My account of Shirin Akiner's appeareance at Johns Hopkins University to discuss the Andijan violence in now online at Registan.

Judy Miller's Jailhouse Guest List

Carol D. Leonnig writes in today's Washington Post that some of Washington's most powerful figures have visited Judy Miller in jail.

Locked in the Alexandria Detention Center for the past 11 weeks, New York Times reporter Judith Miller is cut off from the world. She has no Internet access and precious little opportunity to view CNN. Her phone calls are limited, friends say. Her daily newspaper arrives a day late.

But for 30 minutes nearly every day, the world comes to her: A parade of prominent government and media officials, 99 in all, visited Miller between early July, when she was jailed for refusing to be questioned by a federal prosecutor, and Labor Day, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.

Her visitors have included Bob Dole, John Bolton, and Tom Brokaw...

Cashing in on Katrina

The Project on Government Oversight has posted this list of government contracts for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. (ht War and Piece)

No Deal

According to MosNews, Putin and Bush could not come to an agreement at the Washington summit:

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave no support to his U.S. counterpart George W. Bush in his bid to to bring Iran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions and acknowledged he has not yet forged an international consensus on how to deal with Tehran’s alleged nuclear program.

Peter Baker's Washington Post account of the meeting can be read here.

Yale Russian Chorus Alumni Concert in Washington, DC

A friend from Russian class has invited us to the Yale Russian Chorus alumni concert in Washington, DC. Admission is free, so if any of our readers lives in the national capital area, it might be worth a trip. Here are the details:

When: Sunday, October 2, 4:00pm
Location: George Washington University Lisner Auditorium, 730 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC View Map
Phone: (202) 994-6800

Heres a picture of the chorus meeting President Clinton (a Yale Law alumnus):

A Democracy Blog

Just found Democracy Rising,through a link in Registan's comment section.

Roger L Simon Remembers Robert Wise

A short and sweet tribute to the director of West Side Story and The Sound of Music...

Mr. Putin Goes to Washington

For some inexplicable reason, I haven't yet received my invitation to cover the White House meeting today between Presidents Bush and Putin, so have had to cover it from The Washington Post, which has been pretty good so far. Here's my two cents, informed by living in Moscow and Central Asia as well as Washington, DC...

It is sure to be a significant meeting, for right now, believe it or not, Putin is in a stronger position than Bush, so is negotiating from strength, an old Ronald Reagan tactic.

Russia's GDP is growing faster than the US economy, the new Russia-China military alliance pretty much balances the US technological edge with millions of "boots on the ground," and Putin is at 70 percent approval in Russian public opinion polls, while Bush is at the lowest ebb of his career. To add insult to injury, today's Post reports that the US space program is now dependent on Russian technology, in the wake of the space shuttle tragedy.

Bush has egg on his face not only from shuttle screw-ups, but also from the dismal stalemate in Iraq, the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina, and his weakness in the face of North Korea and Iran's nuclear threats. The Ukrainian and Kyrgyzstan "color revolutions" have bogged down into partisan infighting. Georgia is a basket case, totally dependent on American aid. The former Yugoslavia remains under NATO military occupation, and the Kosovo situation has not been resolved. Not to mention the Middle East, where American-backed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas--educated in Moscow--has not yet managed to rein in Islamist terrorists.

Bush needs some friends now, and will have to bend a little to get them. It is in his interest to have Russia as a friend, rather than an enemy.

So, what does Putin want? It's pretty clear from his UN speech that he wants to be an equal partner to the West, rather than an adversary. And he wants the fight against terrorism--read Islamist terrorism--to become the new common cause of the UN Security Council. Since the Council was formed in WWII, and represents the Allied Powers of Britain, America, Russia, China, and France, he's basically trying to restore the WWII, pre-Cold War relationship between the Great Powers. Here's the money quote from Putin's UN speech the other day, with my interpretation in brackets:

I am convinced that today, terrorism represents the main danger to the rights and freedom of mankind, and to the steady development of states and peoples. [Forget "democracy-building," free markets, development, and all your other trendy priorities]

In connection with this, the UN and the Security Council should be the headquarters for coordinating international cooperation in the struggle against terror --Nazism's ideological successor.[Revive the WWII Alliance (my emphasis)]

They must also help coordinate the settlement of deep-rooted regional conflicts on which terrorists and extremists of all kinds breed by using the historical baggage of religious, ethnic and social inequalities. [Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Central Asia, et al.]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is necessary to use not only states' ressources but, most importantly, the large opportunities offered by civil society, mass media, cultural and educational cooperation, and interconfessional dialogue to oppose ideologues that preach a clash of civilisations, and terrorist agression. [Shut down Islamist mosques and madrassahs, bankrupt Islamist charities]

Who if not the UN can take on this coordinating and organising role? Here it can base itself on the support of all member countries, on the cooperation of influential international organisations, and on regional integration associations. [If you try and go around the UN, we will fight you. No more NATO interventions in Yugolsavia]

Russia intends to increase her participation both in the international reaction to crises, and in assistance for development and progress. Next year, within the framework of Russia's membership in the G8, the CIS, and the Council of Europe we will continue to work together on this major issue. [Let us into your clubs as a full member, and we will help you. Keep us out, and we will hurt you]

Putin clearly wants the United States to end its support for Islamist guerilla movements in Chechnya and Central Asia, in exchange for Russian support of American positions perhaps vis-a-vis Iran and Iraq. I don't think it sounds like a bad deal. While perhaps Russia can't "deliver" Iran or Iraq, they still have considerable influence in the Middle East and as recent events have shown, are able to make trouble even if they can't defeat the West.

However a genuine full partnership with Russia would mean less hanky-panky by the CIA and its cut-outs in the former Soviet bloc, perhaps in exhange for Russia pulling back in Latin America--where Venezuela and Cuba now enjoy Russian support in the same way Ukraine and Georgia are American outposts.

While not exactly another Yalta, a partnership with Russia might mean that the UN could become an effective instrument for ending the threat of Islamist terror, just as the Allies crushed the Nazis through the UN. The UN's effectiveness, that has been hampered by US-Russian tensions, could be turned against a common foe.

That is Putin's strategy, I believe. It is why he wanted Bush at the V-E day celebrations in Moscow. And at this point, I think it seems reasonable to consider seriously Putin's approach to the war on terror as a credible alternative to that offered by American neoconservatives, realists, or isolationists. That means America has to drop the Cold War stuff and, as Bill Clinton liked to say, "focus like a laser beam" on defeating terrorism.

With Russia as a full partner, Osama Bin Laden and his Islamist supporters will no longer be able to play "divide and conquer" games. My guess is that a true alliance of the UN Security Council could crush the Islamists very quickly indeed--but Bush and his cronies might not be able to count on post-Administration payouts from their Saudi friends...

On the other hand, with Russia now rolling in petrodollars, perhaps Putin could offer to put Bush Senior (and Clinton for that matter, since they are doing a doubles act these days) on the board of his newly-reorganized Yukos?

Dr. Akiner Comes to Washington

At the invitation of Dr. Fred Starr, who heads the Central Asia and Caucuses Institute at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Dr. Shirin Akiner, a lecturer in the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, came to Washington tonight. She discussed reactions from international human rights groups, governments, and ordinary citizens to her controversial report on the breakout of violence in the Uzbek city of Andijan on May 13th, 2005. She was strikingly well-spoken, with a charming British accent. Her talk was filled with illusions to British history ranging from Henry II to the shooting of an innocent Brazilian bystander by armed police in the London Tube following the July 7th bombings.

I'm currently writing up my impressions of her talk. In the meantime, the photos below give a sense of the excitement of the occasion, where Dr. Akiner had a chance to confront her critics, including Justin Burke, editor of Eurasianet.

There was one real bombshell that I can share right now.

Dr. Akiner charged that an excutive of International Crisis Group in London tried to get her fired. Akiner claimed she had a copy of a poison pen letter written by the ICG executive (she would not name him). Akiner charged the letter contained an untruth intended to damage her reputation that was either a deliberate lie or evidence that the person was too lazy to check facts. Akiner added she had the letter with her, and would show it if challenged. She noted that she believed an ICG staffer was in her audience. In a long Q & A, no one challenged the truth of her charge. According to the list of registered guests provided by SAIS, Jonathan Greenwald would have been the representative of International Crisis Group in attendance. Here is his ID photo from the ICG website. His name was number 28 on the attendance list. Greenwald's bio on the ICG website says he is vice-president for research and publications, so he should have been able to respond. If Greenwald wasn't there for some reason, no one else spoke up for ICG, either.

All of which may mean International Crisis Group just had the guts ripped out of its reputation by Dr. Akiner.

More to come...