Translated material
How McCain took revenge on Obama
The United States has reproached the Kremlin for suppressing the opposition. But very quiet
Barack Obama's unsuccessful rival in the 2008 presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain, sharply criticized the suppression of opposition demonstrations by the Russian authorities in support of the 31st article of the Russian Constitution. He specifically mentioned...
Barack Obama's unsuccessful rival in the 2008 presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain, sharply criticized the suppression of opposition demonstrations by the Russian authorities in support of the 31st article of the Russian Constitution. He specifically mentioned the groundlessness of the police detention of one of the Solidarity leaders, Boris Nemtsov. McCain urged Obama to make a relevant statement. A few hours later, such a statement came from Washington, but not from the lips of Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but from the lips of the representative of the US National Security Council, Mike Hammer, a person who is not very public and not very influential in the Washington establishment. Like, the signal was sent to Moscow, and therefore the issue can be covered up. Moreover, he was sent in such a way as not to irritate the duumvirate ruling in Russia. Or in the way that the new rules of the game of the 21st century require?
The question is really difficult. Many, if not most, international analysts in Russia and the West have recently come to the conclusion that the issue of human rights is clearly losing its former weighty place in interstate relations. This, they say, is clearly manifested in the nature of the current relationship between Russia and the United States. Global threats such as terrorism (read: al-Qaeda and the Taliban) and the possibility of uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons (read: Iran), require an expansion of the platform of agreement between the main world players and, accordingly, a reduction in areas of disagreement. And it is true. At least as far as current top-level politicians in the US and Europe are concerned. It is this tendency of "not noticing violations of elementary human rights and democratic norms" in the US partner countries that noticeably prevailed in the administration of Barack Obama. A kind of "real politician", not very, it should be admitted, characteristic of the establishment of the Democratic Party in the United States, since it was to a greater extent inherent in the rivals of the Democrats from the Republican camp. With regard to Washington's relations with Moscow, this policy again clearly brings positive results: Russia, although softening the initial draft, nevertheless supported the sanctions resolution against Iran in the UN Security Council, arousing the undisguised wrath of President Ahmadinejad; a spy scandal was discharged easily and cheerfully, etc.
Looking at this, one might think that the wind is really blowing steadily into the sails of Obama's foreign policy, who guessed the dominant trends in the world and extracts concrete profit from this find. So one might think, if we close our eyes to the fact that such a departure from the human rights aspect in relation to partner countries (in particular, Russia, and China) runs counter to the mentality of the average American, who, despite being immersed in everyday worries, believes that the "banner of democracy" should be raised from time to time in remote lands by the leader of America.
Whether George W. Bush went overboard with the idea of promoting the spread of democracy in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular is a question that everyone decides for himself in his own way. But the eclipse of America's "democratic messianism" is quite shocking to that very average bearer of traditional American values. This phenomenon appears to have been identified by Obama's Republican rivals as yet another Achilles' heel of the administration. They sharply criticized the so-called joint Surkov-McFaul commission on the development of civil society institutions, ridiculing the fact that on the Russian side it is headed by the inventor of the term and construction of "sovereign democracy".
Apparently, the events around the "Strategy-31" are beginning to spill out beyond the borders of our fatherland. Recently there was a call from human rights activists to organize protest actions on the 31st near Russian embassies and consulates in Western countries with the help of the liberal part of the Russian diasporas. It is possible that we will see something similar on August 31st. This will remind someone of the actions in support of Soviet dissidents in ancient times. And for some, it may well turn out to be a factor in adjusting “real politics”.
So it is premature to say that the human rights element in the foreign policy of the United States and European giants has gone forever. By the way, even during the presidential campaign, the same McCain emphasized the importance of supporting democracy in Russia as the most important component of his policy. It is not difficult to imagine how Washington would react to what is happening in Russia on the 31st, if John McCain won in 2008. One thing is clear: the pressure on the Obama administration in this aspect is increasing, and it will have to respond to it. Preferably, of course, without destroying the already sort of well-established system of cooperation with Moscow to counter global threats.