New American Ambassador’s Unfriendly Welcome in Moscow

War and Peace @ 20.01.2012, 14:15

DWarner

Politologist

The Associated Press reported that State television Channel One critically cited several previous activities by Mr. McFaul to undermine his credibility on the evening of his second day on the job. Welcome to Moscow, Mr. Ambassador! What is interesting is what he was criticized for having done in the past and what brought on the undiplomatic broadside.

    First, who is Michael McFaul? Former Rhodes Scholar and PhD from Oxford, he was a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University before becoming Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council. While at Stanford, he was the former Director of the prestigious University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. Although friendly with certain neo-conservatives and associated with the hardline Hoover Institute, McFaul is known as a Democrat and an important player in President Obama’s “resetting the button” of U.S. policy toward Russia. McFaul was unanimously confirmed as Ambassador by the U.S. Senate.

    What was he accused of? The A.P. article said that Channel One criticized McFaul as not an expert on Russia, but a specialist in democracy promotion. It is in this sense, that they quoted the title of a 1991 book by McFaul, “An Unfinished Revolution in Russia: The Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin” and asked whether he had come to Russia to finish the revolution. Indeed, there have been many innuendoes in the Russian media about U.S. involvement in protests following December’s Parliamentary elections.

    What set off this virulent reaction to the new Ambassador? Diplomatically, Ambassadors to major posts are almost never proposed before the host country has been consulted. McFaul’s error, in the eyes of the Kremlin, was that upon arriving in Moscow he met with leaders of the opposition and civil society. It was reported that he had had discussions with human rights and anti-corruption activitists as well as representatives from the Communist, Just Russia, Yabloko and People’s Freedom parties. He had also met with government officials during his first day on the job. As McFaul explained; “U.S. officials in Russia make a point of meeting with both government officials and civil society leaders,” according to his blog.

    During times of tense domestic situations, the role of an ambassador towards the government and opposition leaders is never simple. The United States now talks to the Maoists in Nepal because they are part of the government; previously they were on a terrorist list and untouchable. The same problem exists for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Hamas. Should the American Ambassador talk to opposition groups? The Kremlin obviously is not pleased with McFaul’s decision. In the United States, for example, visiting officials regularly talk to the party out of power and civil society. That is considered part of the normal political/diplomatic process.

It is interesting to recall that in September 1952, then U.S. Ambassador George Kennan compared his conditions at the ambassador's residence in Moscow to those he had encountered while interned in Berlin during the first few months of the Second World War. He decried his lack of freedom, and for that he was declared persona non grata and forced to leave the country. McFaul has gotten off to a rocky start with the powers that be. In a transparent, open society one does not have to make radical choices between the government and civil society. According to Channel One, McFaul made a wrong decision. However, the diatribe against the Ambassador says more about the state of civil liberties in Russia today than McFaul’s decision.