WhirledView

A Letter from Moscow: Paying Last Respects

The following letter, postcript and accompanying photographs are by Steve
Yates, U.S. Fulbright Scholar, Moscow 2006-7. They are published on WhirledView with his permission.

April 25, 2007

Dear Family, friends and colleagues,

Last night I was invited to attend the beginning of the public funeral for President
Yeltsin in Moscow. Here are some pictures of those who stood in line for many hours to say farewell to him and pay their respects to the Yeltsin family at the cathedral. People were quietly talking as we waited in the long line of allages. Few young children were in attendance. Security existed but was not pervasive. Identifications were not checked.

The line continued to grow for many blocks towards the Kremlin after midnight when we paid our final respects.

We stood inside the cathedral as long as we wished while many placed flowers on tables and lit orthodox candles in full view.

This is considered the first funeral of a high state official in a church here. The first democratically elected
President lay in an open casket in the center of the cathedral. Several men in a small choir sang next to him in this structure of nearly perfect acoustics. The Cathedral of Christ the Savior was rebuilt during his tenure. People are still living who saw the first cathedral destroyed in 1933. Yesterday, respect was demonstrated for the man in the country that continues to experience significant historic change and growth.

In August 1991 Boris Yeltsin stood on the tank in defiance of an attempted coup. While opinions still vary with respect to this larger than life man, it is difficult to ignore his destiny for the country, democracy and the world at large.

I share this with you as the world arrives today including former US Presidents and other leaders, and in the spirit of the Fulbright Program, building further mutual understanding. There are a number of things which we are witnessing to pass on to our children.

Respectfully yours,
Steve Yates

Fulbright Scholar, USSR 1991, Russia 1995, 2006-7; Visiting Professor, British Higher School of Art and Design, Moscow; Curator of Photography, Museum of Fine Arts, Santa Fe; Associate Adjunct Professor, Art and Art History Department, University of New Mexico, USA.

Postscript: In 1995 the US President and major leaders of countries in Europe came to Moscow to celebrate
the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. They came to show respect to the Russian people who paid dearly with their lives thus helping to win that war. President Clinton asked the US Embassy to extend his invitation to Fulbright Scholars and one guest to hear his lecture at the oldest university in Russia, Moscow State University. I invited Dr. Elena Burasovsky, a graduate of the department of economics. We sat and listened with university faculty, staff and students - another important moment in history. The US President then stayed to talk with students afterwards outside in the rain.

When President Yeltsin passed, Dr. Burasovsky sadly informed me of his death. We were looking at history again and we spent time thoughtfully thinking about the changes since 1991. I had first arrived in Moscow as a Fulbright Scholar to the USSR just a month after the August putsch when Yeltsin stood on the tank. History would have been different without these events.

This time, I told Dr. Burasovsky, you came to see my President, let’s go to see yours. She hesitated and then moments later, came back and said we would go with her daughter, Masha, about to graduate in journalism from the same university. Thus we paid our last respects as we witnessed history's continuation and change in Russia and the world.

Things Not Going So Well With the India Deal, Eh Nick? - Updated

by CKR

Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, cheers on “the strongest relationship the two countries have enjoyed since India's independence in 1947” in a Washington Post op-ed today.

There’s a thin and wistful feeling to that op-ed, the kind of thing that the boss says when the sales campaign he designed and pushed is not going so well; or better, designed and pushed by a top management located in another city, rolled out to the groans of those who would have to carry it through. Starting with that claim I just quoted. Much of that sixty years, India was defiantly nonaligned or associated with the Soviet Union. If that’s the best Burns can do, let’s not expect too much of the rest of the piece.

The War Bill Process Proves that Divided Government is Better

By PLS

There were hearings, for a change. And before the bill with the Iraq pullout proviso was passed, there were debates, too. Now, if the President vetoes it, as he has pledged to do, he will have to justify his war policy publicly. Again. He will also have to negotiate a mutually acceptable replacement, also in the open. Good. Public discussion is what real democracy is all about. It’s also what this secretive administration has evaded as much as possible during its first six years in office, even as George W. Bush has adorned his speeches with genuflections to democracy—for others.

Whenever the White House is held by one party and Congress is controlled by the other, it’s likely that crafting legislation will be more laborious. It will take longer. Generally the presidentially out-of-power party attempts to block executive proposals considered obnoxious for good or sordid reasons. Cross-party negotiation and/or skillful compromise may end the logjam, but excessively partisan legislation tends to languish or drop by the wayside.

“Inefficient!” the critics cry, when the legislative process (or an uncongenial majority) slows, stalls or prevents passage of a bill the president wants. “Obstructive!”

In fact, Americans tend to overvalue efficiency in most walks of life, including politics. In the case of federal legislation the Founders wrote a Constitution chock full of these time-consuming checks and balances, and they had it right: divided government is safer. It promotes debate. It promotes accountability. It promotes transparency. It encourages broadly acceptable action and prevents extreme legislation by ideologues. It brings the nation together. (Well, not always, and that's not necessarily bad either.)

Now that the Democrats control Congress while the Republicans continue to hold the Executive, we're seeing more debate, more investigation, more insistence on accountability—and since the war is not going very well (for reasons I’m going to ignore here), a Democratic Congress has sent up a war-funding bill in grave danger of incurring a rare presidential veto. In the process of watching this bill being crafted, the public has learned far more about the roots, progress and prospects of the war than a Republican-led Congress ever wanted to reveal about this Republican-conducted war.

Ending the Soviet Union - Updated

by CKR

The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past.
---William Faulkner

At some time before the end of the Soviet Union, I visited the apartment of a colleague in Washington, DC. He lived down the hall from Mstislav Rostropovich. I strained my ears to hear a cello, in case the master might be practicing. I wondered how it felt to be an exile. That was before Rostropovich’s Russian citizenship was restored and he led the National Symphony in Moscow and Leningrad, as St. Petersburg was still called at that very end of the Soviet Union.

Young people coming of age in Russia and other former republics of the Soviet Union probably did some learning this week from the eulogies for Boris Yeltsin and Rostropovich. Those who are in their early twenties may have been just old enough to be aware of the unrest in Moscow, Yeltsin’s standing on the tank, the conflict between him and Mikhail Gorbachev. They would have recalled Rostropovich only from his recent activities.

As Gorbachev and Yeltsin clashed, I was vaguely aware of the political structure of the Soviet Union. I was paying attention because I was involved in a project that could help decommission the Pershing missiles being removed from Europe as a result of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty signed by Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. But the difference between the First Secretary of the Communist Party and the President of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic eluded me. It seems to have eluded most of the American commentators on Yeltsin’s role, too, and it’s important to understanding the power struggle between him and Gorbachev and how the Soviet Union broke apart.

We Can't Talk About the Rule of Law Anymore!

By PLS

For years U.S. public diplomacy has promoted programs and exchanges supporting judicial reform and the rule of law. When I worked for USIA anywhere in the world, I was always pleased to build a program around an American judge or legal scholar, and my audiences in Asia and Africa were uniformly receptive. The U.S. was seen as a model worth emulating.

Times have changed. American credibility vis-à-vis the rule of law has tanked, and I found further evidence of this dismal situation toward the end of a recent article about the travails of an American businessman fighting embezzlement charges in Kazakhstan. The problem, according to local observers, is that Mark Seidenfeld wants to sell his telecom company at auction in order to get the highest price, while an influential local wants to buy it for a song. Although the prosecution is said to have a weak to non-existent case, Seidenfeld’s situation is so precarious that American Congress members as well as the Senate Majority leader have lobbied Kazakh as well as American officials on his behalf.

American’s Credibility in Shreds

A Bishkek-based analyst for the highly respected International Crisis Group cites two reasons for Seidenfeld’s jeopardy. For one thing, he says, there’s a trend in Central Asia to make judicial systems subordinate to presidents, which means dirty politics may prevail over justice, no matter how eloquently defense attorneys plead his case, no matter how persistently U.S. public diplomats extol the virtues of judicial independence. Plus, sad to say, there’s this, he adds:

...the U.S. has suffered a massive loss of credibility when it comes to talking about the rule of law and independent judiciaries in the wake of the abuses we’ve been hearing about in places like Guantanamo.

American Moral Clout Gone

So, innocent or not of those embezzlement charges, Mr. Seidenfeld may have to sell his company to the well-connected lowest bidder or face unpleasant consequences. And should an American Senator be too critical of a grossly politicized judicial system in Kazakhstan, corrupt local officials can point gleefully to U.S. military tribunals that are little better than kangaroo courts.

Imagine the plight of public diplomacy officers posted most anywhere today. How can any but the most cynical make an appointment to speak with a top ranking judicial official in order to propose a much needed (by every possible objective criterion) program on the rule of law without feeling hypocritical and getting braced for a very awkward session?

Ordinary Americans at Risk Now

When the Bush administration decided to ignore the Geneva conventions in its misnamed War on Terror, suspend habeas corpus and indulge in secret renditions for the purpose of torture, many analysts warned that captured American troops would be less likely to receive humane treatment in the future. They should have added that American civilians will also be at greater risk as they pursue legitimate interests abroad.

Tuesday Getting Out Blogging

by CKR

These little beauties are blooming again. They're milkvetch, which makes cattle ill when they eat it. Serves them right if they come into my yard. Or maybe not. I just consulted Weeds of the West, which gives a photo of two-grooved milkvetch, named for the configuration of the seed pods, which are quite different from what I've got. It seems to be a perennial, but it produces an impressive number of seeds, so I'm not totally sure it's not an annual reseeding itself, but WoW says that their milkvetch is a perennial.

Seedpod

This is in the place where that lovely spider made her web last year. I don't know if it's an egg basket or her way of keeping warm through the winter. It's big enough to hold her, a couple of centimeters across in the densest part. I guess I'll see in a few weeks.

As I was returning from my photographic expedition, I was greeted by screams, squawks, and chittering. These are two of three towhees that were producing the excitement. I'd be willing to guess that it was two males and one female, but they're almost impossible to tell apart, especially when they're jumping around.

And two bunnies in the yard when I went out. Two! Even if there's only one in this photo.

Playing Well With Others

by CKR

The New York Times today tells us that the United States knew about the Chinese antisatellite test a few months back, but chose not to say anything to them, partly because of their excessive penchant for secrecy. If we let them know that our surveillance abilities have told us about their upcoming test, then they can figure out some things about our surveillance abilities.

Well, yes. I've had conversations with Russian scientists in which they said something fairly innocuous, and I realized that I had just learned quite a bit about how they did things that they wouldn't have been able to say directly. I've also seen that light in their eyes when I said something totally unclassified.

If you've got a certain baseline of knowledge and understanding, then just a small additional piece of information can tell you quite a bit. You can choose how to deal with that: shrink back into a more total secrecy in the hopes of keeping everything secret forever, or live with the fact that science works in all cultures.

That was the chance that both the United States and the Soviet Union took throughout the Cold War to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. They worked together to develop the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and they applied pressure to their allies to stay away from nuclear weapons. They saw the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles as the greater danger.

Now we have a government in the United States that sees such weapons as a lesser danger than something; it's not clear to me what their greater danger is. That's the conclusion I have to draw from reports like the Times's.

They even lose track of the fact that it might be quite useful for a competitor to know just how much you're capable of knowing. They might be able to block it, too, but we keep coming up with more of that good stuff. Always have.

In another flashback to the Cold War, the United States has begun building walls in Baghdad to separate communities. The Israelis, of course, have their wall, and the US Congress has passed a bill to build a wall along the border with Mexico, although I believe it hasn't been funded.

The faith in bricks and mortar to bring peace parallels the faith in guns and bombing to bring democracy.

Remember the Berlin Wall? A symbol of Communist oppression?

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has better sense: he has called for the wall-building to stop.

In both of these cases, the tools of diplomacy have been rejected. No discussions with the Chinese to head off the missile test, which has put yet more space junk into orbit to bollix up useful satellites. No working on incorporating the Sunni more fully into the Iraqi nation, just build a wall.

Dealing with people seems so indeterminate, while using the technology seems so quantitative. But we can't afford the consequences of tying that one hand behind our back.

America’s image abroad after W

By PHK

“To change the image we must change the reality” – Dr. Dewi Fortuna Anwar, Indonesian scholar and former government official.

I’ve questioned for some time whether the US could change its abysmal image in the world as long as the Bush administration pursues its unilateralist – my way or the highway - policies and America’s occupation of Iraq continues. I will concede that some of the administration’s most extreme unilateralist positions have become more realistic as a result of the replacement of Rummy as Secretary of Defense by Bob Gates and John Bolton’s return to the American Enterprise Institute, but it seems to me US policies towards the Middle East are still far too influenced by the neocon cabal than is good for this country or the Middle East in either the long or short run.

Yet even if W were to do an about-face and send the Kagan trio and others packing, I’m afraid he and his administration are so tarnished by his disastrous foreign policies that it’s far too late in the day to make a meaningful dent in world public opinion. On the other hand, W does not exactly have the full confidence of the American people any more either.

I’ve been wondering, however, about the future of America’s standing abroad in the world after W – providing, of course, a successor administration returns this country to normalcy in its conduct of foreign policy. Or is the US image so badly tarred by W’s colossal foreign policy blunders that the hole has been dug so deep that it won’t matter that the country’s leadership and direction will have changed?

I was intrigued, therefore, when I came across the concluding paragraphs of a keynote speech by Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a foreign affairs researcher at the Habibie Institute in Jakarta and former Indonesian government official, because she addresses my question about the US image abroad after W so clearly.

Dr. Anwar delivered the speech at a conference on US-Indonesian relations on April 19, 2007 at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, DC. The conference was also cosponsored by the United States-Indonesia Society and the Indonesian Embassy.

Here are her observations that relate most directly to my question about the US image problem post W:

More, But Not Enough, on the Nuclear India Deal

by CKR

I've found some new links on the US-India nuclear deal, but I won't have a lot of time over the next several days to write as much as I'd like to on them. So a quick summary:

US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman is telling Indian critics of the deal that there is no threat to India's autonomy or its national nuclear program. On the contrary, it's a major opportunity. Either Bodman hasn't been reading the criticism or he's been tasked with spreading the administration line. Interesting that so many of President Bush's cabinet have been talking to Indian groups lately.

Bodman evidently hadn't read Siddharth Varadarajan's interview on what Stephen Rademaker, the former US Assistant Secretary for International Security and Non-Proliferation, said at a talk in New Delhi. Rademaker is now at Barbour Griffith and Rogers, a lobbying firm. Varadarajan notes that Barbour Griffith and Rogers has been retained by the Government of India.

If Varadarajan's account of the speech is accurate, there are a number of questions that arise. The most sensational is why Rademaker would state that the United States "coerced" India into voting at the International Atomic Energy Agency against Iran's nuclear activities to this Indian audience. There is no new question about his leaving the government to lobby for another nation's interest after being involved in relevant deliberations; this is common practice in the United States, however one may question the ethics involved.

Varadarajan takes the speech as a warning

that the U.S. would make further demands on India. For example, he openly said the US wanted India to join its unilateral sanctions against Iran in the likely event that Russia and China did not back tough UN sanctions. India should abandon its proposed gas pipeline from Iran, he said. India should do all these things if it wanted to be part of the "First World". There was no doubt that he was holding out a threat, from his vantage point as a former senior official of the Bush administration AND (and this is the irony) as a paid lobbyist of the Indian government.

This is indeed odd, unless the purpose was to increase opposition within India to the agreement. The question is whose interest that serves.

Varadarajan further recounts a proposed debate between himself and Robert Blackwill, former US ambassador to India and now also at Barbour Griffith and Rogers. Blackwill, after Varadarajan recorded many hits on his blog from BG and R, backed out of the debate "with a sore throat."

More about India's lobbying effort here.

All of these links are a month old and older; shows how hard it can be, even with my intensive googling of the subject, to find this information.

Marc Lynch on Sunni Differences in Iraq

by CKR

Marc Lynch has published an important article for understanding what is going on among Sunni factions in Iraq. According to him, it's not at all the way the MSM is reporting it. I find it a bit difficult to understand, partly because I'm not acquainted with the names of the groups in the way he is, an partly, I suspect, because it doesn't go according to most of the narratives we keep hearing.

So, at the risk of oversimplification, let me sketch out what Lynch is saying. Please read the whole article and correct me if I've got it wrong; I'm trying to understand it myself.

Islamic State of Iraq = Al-Qaeda's declared polity in Iraq.

Islamic Army of Iraq = One of the insurgency's stronger factions.

In October 2006, al-Qaeda declared the Islamic State of Iraq and now is aggressively insisting that others line up with its program. The Islamic Army of Iraq and some tribal leaders are voicing objections to al-Qaeda leaders outside Iraq.

The American presence in Iraq is part of al-Qaeda's program: Iraq is at the center of their global jihad, presumably where the Caliphate is to be reconstituted. The Americans provide propaganda and targets. Other Sunni factions see their primary goal as an independent Iraq, with the American gone. They are not interested in exporting jihad.

So one of the threats dragged out by the "stay the course" faction, the establishment of an al-Qaeda base in Iraq, is already established. The American presence feeds it. Other factions are turning against al-Qaeda, but not because of the American surge. They are the ones we hear about on the tv news who are asking for deadlines for withdrawal.

We're not talking about divide and conquer here, or the enemy of my enemy being my friend. None of them like the Americans, but if we weren't there, the focus might be on driving al-Qaeda from the country.