Waffling John Kerry, the soon-to-be-confirmed Democratic presidential nominee may just be perhaps too intelligent, as his supporters claim. His flip-flops on issues are attributed to later piercing insights that change, rather than supplement earlier decisions. Intelligence in the White House is not always an oxymoron; however, the more critical quality is reasoned, thoughtful action. Changing boats in mid decisionstream is not a reassuring attribute for someone angling for the Commander-in-Chief position. No time delays on panic buttons, as we know.
But Kerry is unproven on the international scene, even though he has allegedly spoken with many foreign leaders about the need to oust the incumbent. As well, he has little on the strategies honed to perfection by the country now known as democratic Russia.
Europe is waking up though, as shown by recent spine with NATO and EU commissions challenging Moscow's claims of protecting its "neighbourhood" interests. Those would be the bear's former territories, we know well about its meddling in the Baltics. But Georgia and Moldova receive even less attention on CNN, perhaps that is what Putin and his team are counting on.
As NATO prepares for the April 2nd enlargement, Sec-Gen de Hoop Scheffer is doing the visiting rounds, reassuring partners to be that air protection will be provided, Russia is reacting in usual kind. The NATO and EU enlargements have, naturally, as much to do with commercial as with strategic interests for both Americans and Europeans. By bolstering their unions beyond not only the Baltics but in the Caucasus and Central Asia, an implicit challenge to Moscow is being presented.
Russia reacted recently by rejecting the terms of the Conventional Armed Forces Treaty. Although Russians had never ratified the treaty, thus were not bound to its terms, the repudiation of the treaty is significant. It can be seen as a direct challenge to NATO and one wonder why, for Russia and NATO participated as pacifist partners in joint exercises last week.
The treaty, last updated in 1999, aims to establish parity in the conventional forces that the world's military powers could deploy in Europe. Under the agreement Russia is obligated to remove its military bases from Moldova and Georgia. But, flip-flopping Russia wants to borrow a page from Kerry's breakfast menu and is waffling. Or, rather, while rejecting the restraining principles of the CAF Treaty in the Caucasus Moscow wants the agreement to apply in the Baltics, This would limit NATO's movements in the region, most significantly impose limits on deployment of materiel to the region. Thus, NATO membership would be reduced in actual significance, or, at the least lacking in effect.
As the Washington Times noted in its editorial last Friday, the United States and Europe should lean on Russia to settle the matter. However, not as the Times suggests, by allowing Russia leeway in economic matters, such as using its energy dominance in the region to influence daily politics. Republican Senator John McCain, whose name was ridiculously bandied about this week as Kerry's potential cross-party running mate, is known as a friend of the Baltics, and very aware of the true nature of the seemingly tame Russian bear. McCain pointed out how Russia enforced "its strategic stranglehold on energy supplies into Latvia to squeeze the democratic government of Riga."
When Russia wants to have it bith ways, then a quid pro quo, for which there is ample potential, should be harnessed. Not necessarily, as the Times suggests, as old-fashioned horse-trading, for that is too reminiscent of historical aberrations such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Yalta. But, as the Times correctly notes it should be the will of sovereign countries that determines where dominating powers such as Russia, NATO and any US supported regime can establish bases or pursue commercial ventures.
The key word is sovereign; the key principle is determination. Let's not listen to Russia's charges about the rights of Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltics, but let's listen to plans to keep Islam fundamentalism in check. That, after all, is behind the war in terror, the US efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Caucasus. In a politically balanced world the enlarged European Union can provide Russia with a fair export market, but it needs to be tit for tat.
This Russian propensity to seemingly swing in the breeze, want things always their own way is nothing new. Moscow has proven adept at applying the democratic principles that serve to its advantage ina selective way, totally ignoring the ones that serve the country little good.
This is most blatant in the case of human rights, the easiest bandwagon of all for bleeding-heart liberals to jump on, and for authoritarians like Putin to ignore. Former Estonian MP, Pro Patria Union member and Baltic lobbyist Mari-Ann Kelam recently reminded us that Russia does not honour its promises on that arena. She wrote that it is important to recall that on its accession to the oldest human rights organization, the Council of Europe, on February 28, 1996, the Russian Federation agreed a long list of commitments ranging from implementation of freedom of religion, freedom of movement and choice of residence, complete abolition of the death penalty to maintaining friendly relations with neighbouring states. The Russian promises to make changes AFTER accession were an extraordinary promissory note for which the Council of Europe had and has no practical enforcement mechanism.
Russia, of course, also accepted the obligations incumbent on all Council of Europe member states - notably the guarantee of the rule of law and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons within her jurisdiction. On April 25, 1996, the Council of Europe decided to start the monitoring procedure for Russia. Most of the promises made by Russia in 1996 have not been filled, nor honoured.
And here we are today, almost back where we started in 1991. While vacillation on difficult issues is understandable when expressed by simple citizens, it is not a quality that should dominate either a politician's record, nor a country's record of international co-operation and obligations.
Leader: Both ways, now (2)
Archived Articles | 12 Mar 2004 | EWR
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
That's the problem we have here and the U.S. People vote in protest and then complain about the government they get. Think Bush is bad, vote Kerry, (remember Clinton).
Since I am not up on Kerry's waffling and I don't know enough about him, I could use some examples of this to be better persuaded by your argument.
Bush has created such a horrific mess -- to me, Kerry is looking pretty good, even if he has not proven himself yet as a leader. I would need some statements attributed to Kerry that show that he would affect Baltic interests negatively.
Bush has created such a horrific mess -- to me, Kerry is looking pretty good, even if he has not proven himself yet as a leader. I would need some statements attributed to Kerry that show that he would affect Baltic interests negatively.
Archived Articles
TRENDING
