The Cable

Former Russian PM: Obama’s 'reset' with Moscow is good for Putin, bad for human rights

The Obama administration is ignoring, and thereby enabling, the Russian government's gross abuse of human rights and its gutting of the country's  democracy, according to Russia's former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov.

"We have no democracy at all. We don't have any future of a democratic state. Everything has been lost, everything has been taken from the people by the authorities," Kasyanov said in a wide ranging interview with Foreign Policy. "The power has replaced all institutions ... like Parliament, like independent judiciary, like free media, etc. That's already obvious for everyone."

The former Russian head of government, who was ousted by current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in 2004, is on a mission this week to send a two-fold message to U.S.-based Russia watchers: that the upcoming elections next year in Russia will not be free and fair, and that the "reset" policy of the Obama administration has wrongly caused the United States to abandon its role as a vocal critic of Russian democratic and human rights abuses.

"We would like our friends in the West, in Europe and the United States, those who are interested in a democratic Russia... we would like these friends just to open their mouths," Kasyanov said, explaining that he will meet with academics and experts at the German Marshall Fund, the Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia University, and other places. He neither sought nor was granted any meetings with U.S. government officials.

Kasyanov said that he supports the substantive aspects of President Obama's reset policy, such as cooperation on non-proliferation, but that a parallel track should be established to simultaneously exert pressure on Russian leadership to adhere to basic standards when it comes to human rights and freedom of expression.

"I would wish the reset process would become a little bit more principled, rather than closing its eyes to everything that's going on Russia in the sphere of public life and in the sphere of civil society," he said. "You shouldn't just change your principles, the values your government is standing on."

He said that U.S. diplomats at various levels of the Obama administration are ignoring negative trends in Russia in the hope of avoiding even minor confrontations with the Kremlin that might upset the warming of bilateral ties.

"They just don't criticize anything, they don't produce any reports on any unacceptable developments... It's not principled, now it looks like the administration closes it eyes on anything that's going on in Russia," he said.

Right now, independent organizations are not allowed to participate in elections and virtually no new political group has been allowed to register itself as a recognized entity since 2004, according to Kasyanov. There is undue pressure on Russian non-governmental groups, such the arrest and trial of organizers who displayed a controversial art exhibit at the Moscow's Andrei Sakharov Community Center, a case that is now being referred to the European Court of Human Rights.

France and Germany are meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on such issues, but they are operating under the illusion that there could be some significant break between him and Putin on such issues, according to Kasyanov.

"What we need is just general support from the West... We need moral support," he said. "Right now, [Russian citizens] feel that Americans have just given up on Russia, that they are not interested at all."

Kasyanov dismissed the working group on human rights being led by the NSC's Mike McFaul and the Kremlin's Vladislav Surkov. McFaul explained the Obama administration's approach to Russian human rights in October 2009, saying, "We came to a conclusion that we need a reset in this respect too and we should give up the old approach that had been troubling Russian-American partnership."

"This Commission blah blah blah discussing human rights, that's imitation, that is not useful operation. That shows to Russians that the U.S. government has chosen a different path, not human rights and democracy. It's absolutely the wrong thing to do," Kasyanov said.

As for his take on the relationship between Medvedev and Putin, who some see as increasingly divergent on key issues, he explained, "Their relations are very simple, boss and senior assistant who temporarily occupies the position of president of the country."

When asked if he thinks Putin will run for President in 2012, he said, "I wouldn't say ‘run,' just step in."

UPDATE: A State Department officials confirms that Kasyanov was offered a meeting with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dan Russel, but that the meeting didn't happen due to scheduling issues.

VLADIMIR RODIONOV/AFP/Getty Images

The Cable

For British air power, satire becomes reality

In a 2008 episode of the British satire show Bremner, Bird and Fortune, a fictional news reporter interviews the fictional Admiral Sir George Parr about the strange trajectory of the British Navy.

Talking about the British Navy's real-life plan to build two new aircraft carriers, Admiral Parr struggled to explain why the constrained British defense budget should be spent on such big-ticket items like aircraft carriers, and what the new carriers would be used for.

"An aircraft carrier, as its name implies, carries aircraft," Parr said, "But at the moment we can afford to have the carrier or the aircraft but not both... I'm sure we'll find a way around it."

Skip ahead to today, where British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced the results of his government's "Strategic Defense and Security Review," which will immediately decommission the Royal Navy's flagship carrier, the HMS Ark Royal, in anticipation of the two new carriers that are being built. But now, they won't be ready until 2020, at the earliest, leaving only one carrier in operation until then.

As part of sweeping British defense cuts, Cameron's government also announced the immediate withdrawal from service of the Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance jet fleet and the Harrier fighter jet fleet, the latter plane making up a large part of the carriers' current armament.

Axing the Harrier and Ark Royal means that no planes will be able to fly from British aircraft carriers until 2019, according to the BBC's analysis.

The new carriers must now await delivery of the American-made Joint Strike Fighter, which faces production delays and cost overruns that have raised concerns with allies that have ordered them. The Brits decided further that they no longer want the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the JSF, which is more complicated and more expensive to build, placing more of the development costs back on the shoulders of the U.S. taxpayer.

The decisions have caused significant angst inside the U.S. Air Force, both because the British are drastically reducing their naval strength for the next decade or so, and because cutting their airlift fleet could put more responsibility on the shoulders of the Americans, who are already compensating for British airlift shortfalls in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The question is, how can they operate as a credible ally and partner if they can't project power very well," said Douglas Birkey, director of government relations at the Air Force Association, the industry group that represents the Air Force. "Considering their allies are also taking cuts, including the U.S., buffers from allies aren't going to be there as much as they go along."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made that point explicit during remarks last weekend in Brussels, in anticipation of the cuts.

"We must guard against the hollowing out of alliance military capability by spending reductions that cut too far into muscle. My worry is that the more our allies cut their capabilities, the more people will look to the United States," he said.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also in Brussels, said that the plan worries her.

"I think we do have to have an alliance where there is a commitment to the common defense. NATO has been the most successful alliance for defensive purposes in the history of the world I guess but it has to be maintained. Now, each country has to be able to make its appropriate contributions," she said.

With less ability to project power from the sea, the British defense decisions seem tailored to focus military strength on ground-based conflicts, or those that can be fought from bases on the ground.

"It tailors their operations to things that look a lot like Iraq and Afghanistan, which is fine as long as the future threat environment matches that paradigm," said Birkey. "But the only thing we know about the future is that it's going to be unpredictable."

When asked whether the new aircraft carriers themselves might be even further delayed, Admiral Parr said it was "very likely indeed."

"But then, this is Britain," he said.