Military

Hearing on Russia’s Transition to Democracy

Opening statement - Chairman Bereuter

Just five days ago, Presidents Bush and Putin met at Camp David to review the status of U.S. - Russia relations.

Our hearing today is also intended to look at the current U.S.-Russia relationship. However, the hearing is also designed to review the current political environment in Russia and to assess the status of Russia’s transition to democracy.

In a July 2001 Brookings Institution Policy Brief, Tom Bjorkman wrote that "President Putin has spoken repeatedly about his commitment to democracy as the only way forward for Russia." But, Bjorkman went on to observe that "there is also a serious threat of a more resolute authoritarianism in the course that Putin has set."

In a Los Angeles Times editorial just last week, Dr. McFaul suggested that "there were clear signs that Russia is backing away from democracy." The article pointed out that Putin’s government has seized control of Russia’s last independent national television networks; silenced or changed editorial teams at several newspapers; continues to harass human rights activists; has created state-sponsored civil society organizations, and has launched criminal investigations against corporation executives who have opposed him or who have contributed to opposition political parties. This was the case recently pursued against the Yukos oil company. Recently, at President Putin’s insistence, the Kremlin, in advance of the upcoming Duma and Presidential elections, introduced an election law which has been characterized as a draconian effort to threaten the media if they are critical of political candidates.

McFaul’s article also pointed out that recently, the Putin Government expelled the Peace Corps, closed down the Chechan office of the OSCE and declared the AFL-CIO’s representative in Moscow ‘persona non grata’.

If we were not holding this hearing on Russia, one might wonder if we were describing events taking place in North Korea or Belarus.

It was clear from the start that building a viable democracy with strong democratic institutions in Russia would not be easy nor could it be accomplished in a relatively brief time. But as Bjorkman observed in his article, after 10 years "power remains concentrated in the executive branch. Legislative and judicial institutions remain fragile. Official corruption remains pervasive. And, protections for civil liberties are weak."

These examples should raise serious questions regarding President Putin’s long-term commitment to advancing the objective of building a viable democracy in Russia.

With respect to U.S. - Russia relations, last year, Dr. McFaul told this Subcommittee that "the potential to build a new foundation for Russian-American relations is great"... and that "Russia has the potential to become a strategic partner of the United States. Not since World War II have Russian and American foreign policy interests been in closer alignment.

It is true that Putin’s early embrace of the war on global terrorism, after the tragedy of September 11, ushered in a new dimension in U.S.-Russian strategic relations. However, Russia’s lack of continued cooperation on some aspects of WMD reductions, on Iran, on arms sales to questionable nations, and its opposition to U.S. efforts in Iraq, could give challenge to Dr. McFaul’s comments.

Given the internal situation which appears to exist inside Russia today and given what appears to be differences in our policies towards the international community, it would be appropriate to ask, first, what exactly are our national interests with regards to Russia and, second, what principles should underlie our policy with respect to Russian - American relations.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.