#14 - JRL 9288 - JRL Home
From: Ronald Hamilton <ronald.hamilton@us.army.mil>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005
Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Sharansky's recent Bowing to Russia article/JRL 9280
Rebuttal to Natan Sharansky's Washington Post
"Bowing To Russia"
By Major Ron Hamilton (Ret)
US Army Intelligence
The writer retired as a Major and Russian linguist from the U.S Army's
Military Intelligence Corps on October 31st 2005 to pursue business and academic
goals. He has served worldwide in numerous command and staff positions at the
strategic, operational, and tactical levels. His interests are the applied
effects of foreign policy theory and its implementation on the ground -
specifically the transitioning Caucasus nations and the roles that the USA and
Russia play in their democratic development.
Without taking anything away from the fact that Mr. Sharansky is an honorable
man who spent nine years in prison for his beliefs, it is important to dig a
little deeper into his basic thesis that the Khodorkovsky case is an example of
unacceptable democratic regression (backsliding) by Russia and the Putin
government.
What strikes me is what Mr. Sharansky doesn't say in his article. First and
foremost is that he completely ignores the fact of Mr. Khodorkovsky's guilt or
innocence. The likelihood that he is guilty, and that a jury of his Russian
citizen peers has convicted him in a court of law makes the probability of his
guilt very high. In fact, he (along with many other oligarchs to whom Mr.
Sharansky alludes) is guilty as sin of numerous crimes against the state and the
people of Russia. Second is that just because you haven't caught and tried all
of them at once doesn't make trying one at a time any less important. So,
selective prosecution isn't negative as Mr. Sharansky indicates and is simply a
red herring he throws out to attempt to show that others did it and weren't
tried so trying only one for crimes is somehow unfair and sinister. Don't fall
for this trick. You can't point to the unpunished bad behavior of others as a
reason to justify the bad behavior of one. Selective prosecution occurs in every
advanced democratic nation on the planet and is based on numerous conditional
parameters. Mr. Sharansky knows this. Why is it so much more dangerous to
democracy in Russia than in his own country or in mine for that matter? It
happens all of the time everywhere.
The next point Mr. Sharansky avoids is the Russian oligarchs-in-exile
population. The reason they are in self-imposed exile is to avoid being tried
for their crimes in Russia. If they were to return home they too would be
arrested, tried, and found innocent or guilty in a court of law by a jury of
their peers and Mr. Sharansky's Poor Khodorkovsky probably wouldn't be alone at
the labor camp. The reason they are on the run and will not face the charges is
because they are very likely guilty as sin too. Mr. Sharansky along with most
other Eurasia regional experts knows full well that the oligarchs and organized
crime leaders were out of control and breaking just about every rule and law on
the books in their unfettered quests to become Russia's version of America's
Robber Barons in a lightning fast ten year period. These men went from rags to
Billionaires in months and they were killing, maiming and stomping on anyone
that got in their way and Mr. Sharansky knows this too.
The ill-gotten gain and influence these extra-legal, above-the-law oligarchs
wielded prior to President Putin was far more dangerous and inimical to the rule
of law and democratic advancement than any of the so-called democratic back
sliding events Mr. Sharansky attempts to place on the current government. Mr.
Sharansky knows that the current period in Russian democratic advancement is far
more stable, constitutional, rule-of-law oriented, and more fair than the period
of the Oligarchy which preceded Putin. Nobody could get anything done during the
so-called period of democracy that Mr. Sharansky seems to think existed prior to
President Putin without paying obeisance (and large sums of cash) to the
oligarchs, crime bosses, and corrupt government officials who were on the
mafia's dole.
Objective facts such as assassination of legitimate businessmen, the lack of
prosecuting officials accused of bribery and corruption, the amount and
frequency of bribes required to do business in Russia, etcetera are all improved
dramatically since Vladimir Putin was elected. The reason Western interests and
Western investors have dramatically increased capital investments in Russia has
nothing to do with their lack of morals as Mr. Sharansky and others seem to be
implying, but on the contrary they see advancement in openness (democracy),
decreases in corruption, and transparency in government operations on the rise.
Most objective people in the world call this progress.not regression.
Regression (Backsliding) implies that one was more advanced and has dropped
back. This is simply patently false. Russia was not more democratic and
rule-of-law oriented prior to President Putin. In fact, a very small group of
extremely wealthy and totally selfish men were allied with numerous criminal
elements and were working hard to subvert the legitimate will of the people in
order to maintain their own powerful perks, privileges, and positions as the
unelected ruling elite of the Russian people. They didn't try to use the rule of
law to legitimately change things like President Putin has done. They didn't
have to because they were using money and the threat of violence to subvert the
rule of law and influence things to their own advantage and not to the Russian
people's advantage.
Nearly every person I know who follows Eurasian and Russian development in
particular knew prior to Putin and knows now that the two main obstacles to
Russian democratic advancement were the Oligarchs and the powerful mafia
controlled regional governments who had fashioned a loose-confederated
government within the Russian Federation. The Oligarchs and the most powerful
regional clans controlled Russia and ran it into the ground for personal gain.
The Kremlin (Federal Government) was marginalized, infiltrated, and influenced
by numerous unelected mega-wealthy persons. President Putin, like America's
Teddy Roosevelt, had to exert government control and reign in the Robber Barons
and the regional clan controlled governments. Just because he chose to do it in
an organized and controlled manner over a period of time rather than coming in
with both guns blazing doesn't make it wrong. In fact, the cool, calm, and
collected manner that he has set about dismantling the power of the oligarchy
and mafia is completely in character for President Putin and any psychologist or
observant person would tell you that this is how he thinks, works, and executes
his plans. Most of these Russia focused people will also tell you that they
thought the problem was so bad back then that they would have bet against
President Putin being able to overcome the situation and come out on top.
Mr. Sharansky also fails to give credit where credit is due. To put it into
perspective President Putin is attempting to lead a country that covers eleven
time zones, has a nuclear arsenal as large as America's, a population of 170
million, a Wahabbi supported radical Islamic guerilla war in Chechnya that is
spreading into Dagestan and Ingushetia (every bit as intense as America's
struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq) except his is inside of his sovereign borders,
a depression that makes the US Great Depression look like a time of plenty, an
average life-span for a Russian citizen that looks like something from the Dark
Ages, and to top it off he is managing all of this on a budget a little larger
than New York City's. Talk about a bridge to far.
There are only two types of people on the planet who would take his job - an
unintelligent megalomaniac (Sadam Hussein comes to mind) or a true blue patriot
in love with his country. And, Putin is the latter and that is why President
Bush said I looked him in the eyes and got a sense of his soul. This is someone
I can work with. Both Bush and Putin are plainspoken (often tongue-tied)
centrist oriented patriots trying to lead their countries to a better place. A
man (a non-politician) like Putin is preferable to a suave, smooth,
sophisticated, silver-tongued devil any day.
It is part of the human condition to notice the 5% left undone and ignore the
95% already accomplished. If he had only just held everything together, it would
still be an incredible accomplishment, but he has gone into the super human
category and actually started pulling out of the nosedive that looked like a
sure bet to crash. If President Putin were to simply sit back now and coast, his
legacy would still be viewed with great admiration by historians of the next
century. One doesn't have to know history very well to be able to find leaders
who were faced with many of the same circumstances. Putin like Lincoln has a
civil war, like T. Roosevelt he is attempting to exert government control over
extremely powerful Robber Barons, and like FDR he is dealing with a very severe
depression.
He has three gargantuan problems to deal with all at once and three of the
greatest leaders in American history only had to deal with one at a time. Our
collective hats should be off to President Putin.
Mr. Sharansky as always has written brilliantly, but he is cherry picking
select little morsels of information to make his case that Russia is backsliding
on the democracy front and leaving out the underlying reasons for recent events,
which in my humble opinion is intellectually dishonest.
Another very influential thinker from the Holy Land once said, "And why
beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considereth not the
beam that is in thine own eye?" Mr. Sharansky's considerable worldwide influence
should be used first in his own adopted land to bring democracy to the
Palestinians then maybe he could move back to Russia and run for office and help
them advance democratically according to his own particular theoretical formula.
I suspect that he would find out very quickly that his theoretical evangelical
democracy philosophizing and his casting of stones from afar would run smack
head on into the reality of the sheer difficulty of advancing democracy
realistically on the ground with real humans and real conditions.
|