[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 477-478]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 RUSSIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last month, The Economist exhorted Western 
leaders to more openly and consistently criticize Russia for its sham 
democracy, its brutal treatment of human rights activists and political 
dissidents, and its utter disregard for the rule of law. It was a 
challenge that should be taken seriously.
  Our approach to Russia has been characterized paradoxically by a 
failure to be both sufficiently pragmatic and sufficiently idealistic 
at the same time. Russia is a key international player with whom we 
must engage. That's undeniable. It is a permanent member of the 
Security Council. It is a key actor in any international effort to 
contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. It exerts great influence in regions 
such as central Asia, with implications for our struggle against 
violent extremists in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
  Keeping our engagement with Russia as constructive and effective as 
possible is essential to pursuing our vital national security 
interests. But, Mr. Speaker, this reality cannot preclude our 
commitment to promote democracy around the globe and condemn those who 
brutally suppress it. We must stand up for human rights and the rule of 
law, even when--especially when--they are undermined by major 
international players. We cannot remain silent when journalists and 
activists are killed or savagely beaten with impunity, while political 
prisoners face years of jail time.
  The new guilty verdict imposed on Mikhail Khodorkovsky late last year 
makes it appear that the only crime that's actually punishable in the 
Russian Federation is opposition to Putin. Days after the verdict was 
handed down, opposition leader and former Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov 
was arrested for participating in a peaceful rally. He had committed 
the grave offense of expressing support for the protection of 
constitutional rights and condemning the sham Khodorkovsky verdict.
  Hostility to the rule of law extends beyond Russia's own borders, as 
we saw in the August 2008 invasion of our democratic ally Georgia. It 
was reprehensible. Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity 
remain under threat today.
  In our relationship with Moscow, we must learn to balance the twin 
imperatives of effective engagement and criticism of gross miscarriages 
of justice. This will only become more essential in the context of the 
coming debate on Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization. 
Russia has moved closer than ever to acceding to the WTO. We are likely 
to face this prospect in the coming year and the resulting vote on 
whether to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations.
  We will need to have a full and robust debate on this issue. We will 
need to ensure that PNTR is not granted until we have confirmed that 
Russia has fulfilled the basic obligations that WTO membership demands. 
If those obligations are met, my view is the WTO accession would be a 
very positive step forward. Bringing Russia into a rules-based trading 
system would bind Moscow to the rule of law. It would create 
consequences and enforcement mechanisms for failure to live by its 
commitments.
  WTO membership is by no means a panacea, particularly for symptoms as 
deeply flawed as Russia's, but it would be a significant step in the 
right direction. Not only would it impose the rule of law in Russia's 
trading relationships, it would demonstrate that even Moscow recognizes 
the value of international rules of fairness. This should serve as a 
reminder that their presumed indifference to our criticism is no excuse 
for failing to voice that criticism.
  We need to engage with Russia, but Russia also needs to engage with 
us. We cannot shy away from taking a public stand against increasingly 
brutal repression at the hands of those with whom we have important 
negotiations. Neither can we lose sight of the fact that supporting the 
rule of law is not just about promoting American ideals.

[[Page 478]]



                              {time}  1850

  One of the most important lessons of the last decade is that 
democracy strengthening is as firmly grounded in realpolitik as it is 
steeped in lofty, high-minded ideals. If our moral clarity helps to 
strengthen democracy advocates in Russia, we will further our strategic 
goals in the long run. A less corrupt, less autocratic regime in Moscow 
will result in a better international partner.
  As Vladimir Kara-Murza has written in World Affairs, defending the 
rule of law is not just our right but our duty. Last week, Vladimir 
wrote that statutes of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe, to which both the U.S. and Russia are party, make this clear. 
The statutes state, ``issues relating to human rights, fundamental 
freedoms, democracy, and the rule of law are of international 
concern.''
  It is absolutely imperative, Mr. Speaker, that we do absolutely 
everything that we can to strengthen this relationship but pursue the 
rule of law.

                          ____________________