To Russia, with disapproval, disappointment

By Joe Baker
Collegian Staff
February 21, 2007

As the wealthiest and most active nation in today’s world, it is generally accepted that the actions of the United States will illicit myriad criticisms from all across the globe. Many of the harshest of these criticisms in recent years have come from emboldened nationalistic leaders such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, low players on the international totem pole using their vast oil reserves as attention grabbers for their anti-U.S. ravings. Yet just last week at a foreign policy forum in Munich, a member closer to the top of the food chain, Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued his harshest statement yet about U.S. actions around the globe. While he may stand out from the traditional criticizers due to his country’s large international profile and his strained, yet existent status as an ally of America, he still suffers from the same disease that plagues the validity of the other two outspoken leaders: hypocrisy.

One of the most scathing of Putin’s accusations was that, under the current administration, “the United States has overstepped its national borders, and in every area.” While international debate should never be stifled, Putin and his neo-authoritarian regime have no leg to stand on while hurling such allegations, given their own interventionist actions throughout the former Soviet bloc in recent months.

During this time, Russia has used its dominance of the European oil and gas market as a fierce economic weapon, wielding its networks of vital transport pipelines as leverage in disputes with Europe. Specifically, Russia is targeting former Soviet satellites, such as Ukraine and Belarus, which are becoming increasingly independent from Putin’s once-immeasurable influence. These nations are being punished for their actions by watching fuel prices skyrocket as Putin ends their subsidies, too dependent on Russian oil and gas to resist service and faced with the very real threat of crippling supply cutoffs if they do not acquiesce. For Putin to act as some sort of objective authority on other nation’s foreign policy is utterly ridiculous given the nature of this recent Russian bullying of surrounding nations.

Yet it did not stop there, as the hypocrisy continued as Putin further chastised the United States’ actions by referring to NATO expansion and the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan as having “nothing in common with democracy.” This would be an argument worth hearing if it were coming from some paradigm of democratic principles, rather than an ex-KGB strongman who has eroded much of his country’s democratic institutions and has made questioning his authority a dangerous practice. This movement towards autocracy is evident in the dissolution of press freedom in Russia today, as can be seen through the brutal October murder of Putin criticizer and journalist Anna Politkovskaya, the mind-boggling 13th Russian journalist killed since Putin took office, according to the Oct. 16, 2006 issue of The New York Times. Any nation that cannot even perpetuate the basic democratic principle of free speech cannot be labeled a democracy, and the leader who has possibly approved of this practice can in no way be viewed as an authority on what is or is not “in common with democracy.” For Putin to think otherwise does not speak well for his integrity as a world leader.

The hypocrisy inherent in these remarks would be laughable if it were not for the broad influence that Putin’s actions yield across the globe, and the problems that this causes for the interests of the United States. The Kremlin’s strong economic alliance with Iran has stymied U.S. efforts at enacting tougher United Nations’ sanctions against the Islamic Republic’s construction of a nuclear arsenal. Russia’s trade commitment to the government of the Sudan has also prevented the Security Council from adopting harsh measures to end the genocide in Darfur.

Yet, while Russia’s influence is strong, its lifeline of vast oil reserves remains vulnerable. Similar to Venezuela and Iran, Putin’s ability to flex his muscles comes from the safety of knowing that he controls the hand that feeds the West’s addiction to oil. Therefore, we must work to undermine that political safety by diverting resources to the search for safe and sustainable forms of alternative energy. Until we commit to kicking our destructive habit, oil-rich hypocrites like Putin will continue to cloud international debate with their rhetoric, eroding the progress of freedom in these vital and trying times.

bakerj2@lasalle.edu