[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 187 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8395-S8398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RUSSIA
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Russia, and to
review--particularly, in light of the recent election in Russia and the
relationship we have--the state of what this administration has
trumpeted as a so-called reset of U.S.-Russia relations, especially in
light of the flawed Duma election that occurred this weekend, and in
light of my strong belief that the growing demand for dignity and
uncorrupt
[[Page S8396]]
governance that has defined the Arab world this year may impact Russia
as well.
Let me once again make clear that I am not opposed to U.S. engagement
with Russia. I am not opposed to working consistently in good faith
with Russia to find more ways to improve our relationship. To the
contrary, we must continue to actively seek ways to cooperate with
Russia in mutually beneficial ways. It is in our national interest to
do so. And whatever can be said about the administration's policy
toward Russia, no one can accuse them of a lack of sincerity and
diligence in trying to increase cooperation with Russia.
I would simply ask, What has been accomplished? What has been the
result of the administration's good-faith desire for a so-called reset
of relations with Russia? The answer, I am afraid, is precious little.
Yes, there have been some areas of progress, but even those minor steps
may now be getting rolled back.
There has been a lot of news recently pertaining to our relationship
with Russia and Russia's future development, which my colleagues may
have missed. It is very important to spend some time today and review
these new developments.
Let's start with the issue of missile defense.
My colleagues will remember the debate we had here last year over the
ratification of the New START treaty. In that debate, we spent a lot of
time discussing the Russian threat to withdraw from the treaty if the
United States took any further steps to build up its missile defense
capabilities. Specifically, the Russian Government stated that the New
START treaty ``may be effective and viable only in conditions where
there is no qualitative or quantitative build-up in the missile defense
system capabilities of the United States of America.'' The Russian
Government stated that in the ratification of the treaty. They went on
to say that if those conditions were not met, Russia would exercise its
right to withdraw from the treaty.
Many of us felt strongly at the time, and feel strongly now, that it
was a mistake to ratify a treaty on which the two signatories had two
completely antithetical positions about the implications of that
treaty, particularly as it pertains to one of our most vital national
security programs--our missile defenses. Some of us thought and argued
at the time that the United States should not voluntarily sign up to a
treaty that would likely be used by the Russian Government as a source
of political pressure and blackmail to get us to make concessions on
our missile defenses.
Well, here we are, 1 year later, and let's review some of what the
Russian Government has been saying and doing in this regard.
On November 23, we read an article from Bloomberg entitled ``Russia
Prepares to `Destroy' U.S. Shield.'' This is what it said:
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the military to
prepare the capability to ``destroy'' the command structure
of the planned U.S. missile-defense system in Europe.
Russia may also station strike missiles on its southern and
western flanks, including Iskander rockets in the Kaliningrad
exclave between Poland and Lithuania, both members of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union,
Medvedev said on state television today.
``I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to
ensure, if necessary, that we can destroy the command and
control systems'' of the U.S. shield, Medvedev said. ``These
measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.''
On the same day, we read the following in an article in the New York
Times entitled ``Russia Elevates Warning About U.S. Missile-Defense
Plan in Europe.'' I quote from the article:
Russia will deploy its own missiles and could withdraw from
the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty if the United
States moves forward with its plans for a missile-defense
system in Europe, President Dmitri A. Medvedev warned on
Wednesday.
``I have set the task to the armed forces to develop
measures for disabling missile-defense data and control
systems,'' Mr. Medvedev said. . . .
But it was Mr. Medvedev's comments about the New Start
treaty, put into effect this year, that suggested a darkening
tone in what has been a steady drumbeat of warnings out of
Moscow in recent days over the plans for a missile-defense
system based in Europe.
``In the case of unfavorable development of the situation,
Russia reserves the right to discontinue further steps in the
field of disarmament and arms control,'' Mr. Medvedev said in
a televised address from his residence outside Moscow.
``Given the intrinsic link between the strategic offensive
and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the
New START treaty could also arise,'' he said.
If all this were not troubling enough, we then read on November 28 an
article from a Russian state news agency entitled ``Russia's NATO Envoy
to Visit China, Iran, Over Missile Defense.'' Here is what was
reported:
Russian envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin will visit China and
Iran in mid-January to discuss a U.S.-backed global missile
defense network.
``We are planning to visit both Beijing and Tehran soon
under the Russian president's directive, to discuss the
planned deployment of a global missile defense network,''
Rogozin said during a roundtable meeting at the lower house
of the Russian parliament.
On November 28, the Russian Government went even further, not just
using the New START treaty to try to blackmail us into weakening our
missile defenses but threatening to cut off NATO's supply routes into
Afghanistan as well, which was another area of limited progress that
the administration hailed as part of its so-called reset policy. This
is how the Wall Street Journal described it last Monday in an article
entitled ``Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes.''
Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply
troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn't seriously
consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for
Europe, Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday.
If NATO does not give a serious response, ``we have to
address matters in relations in other areas,'' Russian news
services reported Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO, as
saying. He added that Russia's cooperation on Afghanistan may
be an area for review, the news services reported.
So let me summarize: After being assured that the New START treaty
would contribute to the improvement of U.S.-Russia relations, and that
the Russian Government would not use the treaty against us as
blackmail, we are now in a situation where the President of Russia is
threatening to deploy ballistic missiles to destroy U.S. missile
defense systems in Europe; where he is openly threatening to withdraw
his government from the New START treaty if the United States does not
make unacceptable concessions on its missile defense programs; and
where the Russian Ambassador to NATO is threatening to cut off NATO's
supply routes to Afghanistan and planning to visit China and Iran with
the purpose of deepening Russia's cooperation with those governments
against U.S. missile defenses.
I think it is safe to say that the effect to date of the New START
treaty on the U.S.-Russia relationship is rather less positive than
originally advertised. The problems in our relationship with Russia go
well beyond missile defense, as important as that is. In recent months,
as the Assad regime in Syria has slaughtered roughly 4,000 of its own
citizens who are seeking a democratic future, what has been the Russian
Government's response? With the help of China, Russia has been
absolutely shameless in blocking any serious action in the United
Nations Security Council, including by vetoing a toothless security
resolution that would not have even imposed sanctions but merely hinted
at the possibility of sanctions. At the same time, while the Assad
regime's bloody rampage has continued against the Syrian people, the
Russian Government has continued to serve as its primary supplier of
weaponry. In fact, last week in a story entitled ``Russia Delivers
Missiles to Syria,'' AFP reported that despite the brutal violence of
the Assad regime, and over Israel's strenuous objections, Russia
delivered 72 supersonic cruise missiles to the Syrian Government worth
at least $300 million.
Then there is Russia's continued interference in the sovereign
territory and internal affairs of the Republic of Georgia, a country
that the Russian military invaded in 2008 and continues to occupy to
this day. Two weeks ago there was a Presidential election in the
breakaway state of South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia's sovereign
territory. But when Moscow's preferred candidate was overwhelmingly
defeated in those elections, the supreme court of this Russian proxy
state declared the results illegal and nullified
[[Page S8397]]
the vote. Russian parliamentarians applauded.
Finally, there is the unfortunate issue of Russia's backsliding on
human rights and democracy. A few months ago, President Medvedev
announced, as we all know, that he would step aside in Russia's
election next year so that Vladimir Putin could once again run for the
Presidency. Some see this as a sign that Putin will come back. I object
to that characterization, because I do not believe Putin ever left. He
has been running things in Russia with no less informal power than he
had as President.
Not surprisingly, over the past 3 years, the state of human rights
and freedom in that country has gotten no better. In fact, things have
gotten worse. Perhaps the clearest evidence of this fact is the tragic
and heartbreaking case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax attorney
working for an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had
invested in Russia. Magnitsky did not spend his life as a human rights
activist or an outspoken critic of the Russian Government. He was an
ordinary man. But he became an extraordinary champion of justice and
the rule of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all
meaning.
What Magnitsky uncovered was that a collection of Russian Government
officials and criminals associated with them colluded to defraud the
Russian state of $230 million. The Russian Government, in turn, blamed
the crime on Hermitage Capital and threw Magnitsky in prison in 2008.
Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial.
Russian officials, especially from the interior ministry, pressured
Magnitsky to deny what he had uncovered, to lie and recant. But he
refused. He was sickened by what his government had done and he refused
to surrender. As a result, he was transferred to increasingly more
severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat
unclean food and drink unclear water. He was denied basic medical care
even as his health continued to deteriorate. In fact, he was placed in
even worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358
days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.
The Magnitsky case shined a light on the tragic realities of human
rights abuses in Russia today, and the overwhelming cruelty and
injustice that Magnitsky endured has made it impossible for the
government and the people of Russia to ignore. Even the Public
Oversight Commission of the City of Moscow for the Control of the
Observance of Human Rights in Places of Forced Detention, a Russian
organization empowered by Russian law to independently monitor the
country's prison conditions, concluded the following in a report this
year:
A man who is kept in custody and is being detained is not
capable of using all of the necessary means to protect either
his life or his health. This is a responsibility of a state
which holds him captive. Therefore, the case of Sergei
Magnitsky can be described as a breach of the right to life.
The members of the civic supervisory commission have reached
the conclusion that Magnitsky had been experiencing both
psychological and physical pressure in custody, and the
conditions in some of the wards . . . can be justifiably
called torturous. The people responsible for this must be
punished.
The case of Sergei Magnitsky is but an extreme example of a problem
that is all too common in Russia today, the flagrant violations of
human rights and the rule of law committed by the Russian Government
and its allies outside of government. We have seen the problem in the
show trial of Mikhail Khordokovsky, which I would remind my colleagues
was unfolding at the exact same time that this body was debating the
ratification of the New START treaty last December.
After the Russian Government stole Khordokovsky's oil company, it
then turned around and charged him for the crime. Even more absurdly,
as he was nearing the end of his 8-year prison sentence, the Russian
state then charged him again for virtually the same crime. Before the
judge had even handed down his verdict, Prime Minister Putin said,
Khordokovsky ``should sit in jail.'' And lo and behold, that is exactly
what the judge ultimately ruled, sentencing Khodorkovsky to 5
additional years in prison on top of the 8 years he had already served.
Earlier this year, not surprisingly, Khodorkovsky lost his appeal of
this ruling. In a report released this year, Freedom House concluded
that the cases of Magnitsky and Khodorkovsky:
Put an international spotlight on the Russian state's
contempt for the rule of law. . . . By silencing influential
and accomplished figures such as Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky,
the Russian authorities have made it abundantly clear that
anyone in Russia can be silenced.
The violations of human rights in Russia also extend to the deep and
worsening problem of corruption, which perhaps as much as any other
issue mobilizes the frustration and anger of the Russian public. In its
annual index of perceptions of corruption, the independent organization
Transparency International ranked Russia 154th out of 178 countries.
That means that Russia is perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan,
Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be
better places to do business than Russia. I would point out that one of
those countries is the Republic of Georgia, which is ranked 12th by the
World Bank.
When we consider the pattern of corruption and abuse the Russian
Government has perpetrated over many years, it is not surprising to see
the outpouring of anger and dissatisfaction that Russian voters
expressed in this weekend's parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, the
conduct of that election and especially its aftermath has only
validated the growing frustration that Russians feel for their rulers.
Before the ballots were even cast, a noted Russian election monitoring
organization called Golos was subjected to intimidation, harassment,
political pressure, and fines. The subsequent election has been
criticized by impartial international observers, including the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which documented
in its preliminary assessment numerous irregularities and other efforts
by the government to sway a vote in its favor.
Instances of ballot stuffing have been documented. For example, in
Chechnya, it was reported that 99 percent of the population
participated in the election and 99.5 percent of them voted for Putin's
party. That seems a little suspicious, especially considering that the
Putin government has waged years of bloody warfare in Chechnya.
Despite the fact that the recent Duma election fell short of
international standards and violated Russia's law, substantially fewer
Russian voters chose to cast their vote for Putin's party, including in
its stronghold and home base of St. Petersburg. This frustration has
subsequently poured into the streets where Russian citizens have
peacefully sought to demonstrate against the recent election fraud. The
Russian Government has responded, in turn, by arresting hundreds of
opposition leaders, democracy and human rights activists, journalists,
and other members of civil society, including Boris Nemtsov, Alexey
Navalny, and Ilya Yashin. Those men and women are exercising universal
human rights and fundamental freedoms which should not be a crime in
any country.
I call on the Government of Russia to release every Russian citizen
who is unjustly detained for political purposes and to clarify the
whereabouts and conditions of those individuals.
Mr. President, throughout this year, I have said that the demand for
dignity, justice, and democracy that is shaking the Arab world to its
foundations will not be confined to that one region alone. It will
spread. It will inspire others. It will demonstrate to others that the
frustrations, indignities, and lack of hope they may feel today need
not be the realities they endure tomorrow. They can change those
realities. They can change their destiny. They can change their
countries. And it appears that message may be resonating with the
people in Russia. We should hope that it does resonate and resonate in
a peaceful manner, because we agree with a growing number of Russians
who clearly believe they deserve better. They deserve a government that
respects and responds to their aspirations for a better life. They
deserve the power to freely elect their own leaders.
The political development of Russia is more than an issue of moral
principle for the United States. It is closely
[[Page S8398]]
tied to our national interests. We have seen in the past that when
autocratic governments feel they are losing legitimacy among their
people at home, they try to demonize others, both in their country and
beyond it, and redirect their public's anger against imaginary enemies.
We have seen how the Putin government has done this in the past. We
have seen its attempts to paint the United States and our NATO and
other allies as enemies of Russia and to lash out against us in the
hope of mobilizing public support at home. This is why the growing
pattern of confrontation from the Russian Government that we have seen
in recent months--over missile defense, resupply efforts into
Afghanistan, and other issues--should be so concerning to us and why
we must understand that the actions of the Russian Government cannot be
separated from its character. In fact, as Russia's Government grows
less tolerant of its own people's rights at home, we should not be
surprised if it treats us the same way.
As I have said before, I believe we need greater realism about
Russia, but that is not the same as pessimism or cynicism or
demonization. I am ultimately an optimist, and I often find sources for
hope in the most hopeless of places.
One year ago, after languishing in prison for 7 years and facing the
near certainty of enduring many more, Mikhail Khodorkovsky spoke before
his sentencing about the hopes of the Russian people as they watched
his trial. He said:
They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all
become a country of freedom and of the law. Where supporting
opposition parties will cease being a cause for reprisals.
Where the special services will protect the people and the
law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law.
Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the
tsar, good or evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will
truly be dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law
and God. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail,
and I do not want to die there. But if I have to, I will not
hesitate. The things I believe in are worth dying for.
That there are still men and women of such spirit in Russia is cause
for hope. And eventually--maybe not this year or next year or the year
after that but eventually--the Russian people will have a government
that is worthy of their aspirations, for equal justice can be delayed
and human dignity can be denied but not forever.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my most distinguished friend from
Arizona for his generous, warm, and friendly remarks. They mean a lot
to me. I will never forget them. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in observation of the surprise
attack that the Empire of Japan launched on the U.S. military bases in
Hawaii 70 years ago. The attack was concentrated on the Pearl Harbor
Naval Base, where over 2,400 courageous sailors, soldiers, and marines
lost their lives. Each year, close to 1\1/2\ million people from across
the country and around the world visit the memorials at Pearl Harbor to
remember the events of December 7, 1941, and how the world was changed
forever on that day.
As the Sun rose over Pearl Harbor today, solemn prayers were offered
and large crowds gathered to honor the sacrifice made by so many of our
brave young men and women.
The National Park Service and the Navy Region Hawaii are hosting the
70th Anniversary Pearl Harbor Day Commemoration at the Pearl Harbor
Visitor Center to recognize those who bravely survived the attacks and
to remember the thousands more who gave their lives in service to their
country that day.
Representative Charles William ``Bill'' Young from Florida will be
representing Congress at the commemoration ceremony accompanied by
William Muehleib, the president of the Pearl Harbor Survivors
Association, and approximately 100 survivors of the attacks, including
8 who were aboard the USS Arizona, which lies enshrined at the bottom
of Pearl Harbor today. The USS Oklahoma, BB 37, Memorial Executive
Committee will dedicate a rose granite memorial marker at the National
Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl to honor the memory of
the approximately 355 USS Oklahoma sailors who perished but were never
individually identified. The remains of two servicemembers will be
interred at the USS Utah and the USS Arizona so they may again join
their shipmates in accordance with their wishes. And the Hawaii Air
National Guard will fly F-22 Raptors over the memorial sites at Pearl
Harbor and Hickam Air Force Base in honor of the fallen.
I want to recognize and thank the National Park Service and Navy
Region Hawaii for their diligent work and dedication to ensuring that
the legacy of the thousands of servicemembers who perished that day
lives on through the memorials that stand solemnly at Pearl Harbor.
They have done an outstanding job conveying the unwavering spirit of
those who, in the face of perilous odds, stood their ground and fought
back against the Japanese attack to save the lives of their brothers in
arms. The efforts of these organizations have helped to make sure that
our country will never forget the tragic loss that all Americans felt
as news of the attack spread across the Nation.
We must continue to remember the acts of heroism, bravery, and
sacrifice that followed the attack. Our country fought in the name of
justice to preserve our Nation's sacred freedoms. And we must also
recognize and thank the courageous men and women of our Armed Forces
today who are still fighting in the name of those same freedoms. I urge
the citizens of this Nation to recall that it was the collaboration of
a country and the sacrifices made by ordinary men and women who rallied
in defense of freedom, liberty, and the great promise of our democracy
that preserved our Nation's freedom and liberty. It is in that spirit
of coming together to save our country that has always produced the
strongest results and made our country great.
Mr. President, I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in prayer and
remembrance for the men and women who died in Pearl Harbor and those
who are still fighting overseas today. May God bless all of those who
have served to protect our shores, and God bless America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Sanders pertaining to the introduction of S. 1960
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'' )
Mr. SANDERS. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________