Whatever the goal of western attendance at the "Alternate Russia" conference may be, it is crucial that the G-7 countries speak in one voice: All seven, with no exception, should send their representatives, all representatives should be of the same level. It is equally important that they have a shared message. Otherwise, this whole affair will be easily dismissed as evidence that western governments differ on their Russia policies.
A more important issue, however, is: What is the actual goal of such attendance? What are the G-7 governments seeking to achieve with this sign of support?
I think the message is not fully clear or easy to convey, and yet, I believe it is important that G-7 representatives should attend. Here's why.
Gary Kasparov and his group are referred in the question posed by Fareed Zakaria as "a group of dissident Russians". Though Kasparov himself likely thinks of himself as political opposition (he recently founded an opposition political party), I think the term "dissident" is more apt.
Kasparov is a man of high and firm political principle; he's brave, smart and very articulate, but he and his party are no more integrated in Russian political life, than Andrey Sakharov and his allies were back in the 1970s.
Just as the dissidents of the 70s, they are regarded by the government as political foes, not legitimate political opponents; they are alienated from the public at large; they are fragmented and unpopular.
Yet, there is a big difference between the situation of Kasparov and his associates and earlier Soviet-era dissidents.
Back at the time of the Cold war, the West fought against Communism. Its mission was clear and its message explicit: the West regarded the USSR as the enemy. The dissidents who fought for rights and freedoms were prosecuted by the Communist regime. The West was their natural ally in their struggle against the oppressive, police-state regime imposed upon the Soviet people as well as many other nations of the world.
Today, the West is not fighting against the Russian regime. Nor does it seek to destroy it. It is no minor matter that this regime was not imposed upon the Russian people. Putin did not usurp state power, he gained in it in an election, if an imperfect one. And though fledgling democratic institutions have been largely scrapped in Putin's tenure, the regime has not evolved as a full-blown dictatorship. Nor are the Russian people fully deprived of rights and freedoms.
At least for the time being, Kasparov and his allies are not prosecuted. They can travel freely and express their views at home, if before limited audiences. They can openly hold conferences, such as the one in time for the G8 summit in July.
After all, the most powerful leaders of the West have accepted St Petersburg as the venue of the G8 summit proper, thus legitimizing, if somewhat reluctantly, the current Russian regime, in spite of rising authoritarianism.
It thus has to be admitted that the West does not have a clear message to bring to Gary Kasparov's "Alternate Russia" conference. Which is not to say that western representatives should not attend Kasparov's convention. I think they should. I think it is important that Putin and his elite know that the West keeps watching and has not stopped caring about democracy and human rights in Russia. This awareness may serve as a restraining factor and prevent the Kremlin from resorting to more repressive methods on the domestic scene. And finally, it is important that Kasparov and politically active liberals in Russia do not feel abandoned.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
