In a hearing of the International Relations Committee held a hearing January 11 called "Next Steps in the Iran Crisis," Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) has been quoted as saying that the US should "consider making geopolitical concessions to Russia in return for stronger Russian support on the Iranian nuclear issue."
Among the "concessions" to the Kremlin Sherman toys with is bargaining with Russia over "the treatment of Russian-speaking people in Moldova, Latvia and Estonia. The national security of the United States depends on our ability to gain Russian support on the Iran issue, in return for reasonable accommodations on issues in Russia’s region."
It's funny that Sherman would single out Estonia as belonging to "Russia's region" because that country is a European Union member and a party to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In other words, they are our allies, and Sherman is considering selling them out to gain a perceived ally in dealing with Iran.
The United States made similar concessions to preserve "peace" with Russia, and its predecessor, the Soviet Union. It forfeited half of Europe to a totalitarian regime with its own secret police and concentration camps and "population transfer" policies at Yalta in 1945. And what did we get for that? A 40+ year-long "cold" war, complete with costly proxy battles and a spiraling arms race.
But moreover, just looking at the Baltics, which successfully oriented westward after regaining independence from Moscow in 1991 (they became independent in 1920 and were occupied by the USSR in 1940), shows you that Russia has little influence among even its smallest and weakest neighbors.
Still, Sherman thinks that appeasing Moscow is the best way to win its hand in dealing with Iran. "We can beg or lecture, but that hasn’t worked. Bargaining probably would, because Russia cares enormously about issues in its own region – Chechnya, Abkhazia, the route of Caspian oil pipelines, the pipeline situation with Belarus and Ukraine, and the treatment of Russian-speaking people in Moldova, Latvia and Estonia," Sherman was quoted as saying.
"The national security of the United States depends on our ability to gain Russian support on the Iran issue, in return for reasonable accommodations on issues in Russia’s region."
Well, it's funny that Sherman thinks that the US has some clout in dictating citizenship policy to Estonia and Latvia, considering that Russia had a near monopoly on trade with those countries when they instituted their citizenship policies in the early 1990s. Under immense pressure and the threat of sanctions, both countries have defied the will of the Kremlin. Estonia also went against the advice of its closest neighbor Finland, which similarly opposed the citizenship laws in the early 1990s. The bottomline - citizenship policies are dictated in Tallinn and Riga, not in Washington and Moscow. So where does he think we can get the authority to tell sovereign nations what to do? We can't even tell the iraqi government what to do, and our army is occupying the country!
About ten percent of Estonia's residents lack citizenship because following the reinstatement of independence, citizenship was awarded to those who were in Estonia legally. Occupation-era settlers from Russia had to naturalize. Estonia has made progress in doing so. In 1992 the number
of stateless people was 32 percent. In 2006 it was under 10 percent. It is difficult for the Estonian state to issue blanket citizenship to residents because of its uninterrupted legal continuity during the occupation era. WHo would be eligible for citizenship? Would people who came illegally from other countries in 1985 be eligible, while those who came illegally in 1995 not be? The solution has been a naturalization process.
The American diplomats that work with the Estonians know this and they know that Estonia's policies are working, but Sherman seems to think that any country that borders Russia is fair game for concessions to win its approval on Iran. In his recent remarks he takes aim at diplomats in the State Department. "They have a bureau on Moldova, they have a bureau on Abkhazia, and those bureaucrats will scream loudly if their pet issue is sacrificed for a greater national security concern," Sherman said.
Last summer he similarly suggested suboordinating US policy towards allies in order to win over Moscow. "We won't tell Russia that their support on the Iran issue will influence our policy on issues in Russia's neighborhood. We seek Russia's help on Iran, while refusing to make the slightest concessions on issues Russia cares about - Moldova, Chechnya, Abkhazia. Any reasonable U.S. policy would subordinate these issues to the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran," he said in the Huffington Post.
Why does Sherman think that a show of weakness on the US part would be reciprocated by the Russians? If anything it would just encourage them to be greater bullies to more of their neighbors. It's a slippery slope. First it's Georgia, then it's Estonia, then it's Poland, and before you know it, you've got Russian troops sitting in central Berlin again. Been there. Done that. Russia's foreign policy intelligentsia openly call for restoring Russia's influence to the old borders of the Soviet Union, and its predecessor, the Russian Empire. To nonchalantly discuss pressuring sovereign governments to bend to the will of Moscow, what example are we setting as the charter member of the democratic republican club?
And let's not forget why we are so worried about a nuclear Iran, it's not just for fear of an ICBM hitting New York, it's also for fear of one hitting Tel-Aviv.
Israel has been an ally of the United States for nearly as long as the United States' non-recognition of the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. So why is it ok to sell out some allies over others? Why are some people that live in fear of a belligerent neighbor more worthy of our support than others?
I don't think American foreign policy in the 21st century should make the same mistakes it did in the 20th century. I see no need for backroom deals that infringe on the sovereignty of free peoples that are made to please the commissars. We are not an empire, we are supposed to be a beacon of democracy. Let's stay true to our principles and act like one. Let's not sell out our allies.
I know personally that the laws that were introduced at a very different time in the early 1990s are not as popular in Estonia as they once were and I believe that that country is capable of deciding for itself the way forward. Even Amnesty International, which criticized the way in which its policies are implemented, did not take issue with the citizenship laws or education reform underway in Estonia to enable Russian-speakers better access to the economy and to public debate by making them fluent in the majority language, Estonian.
Estonia is a country. Sherman is a congressman. Why does he think that he can dictate policy to a sovereign country thousands of miles from California? Are we a democracy that respects other democracies, or are we really just another meddling imperial power?