Can we learn something about engaging with Russia on human rights from the way the West attempts to approach China? Today there's a very interesting commentary piece on this in the FT by Geoff Dyer which takes a look at the Kevin Rudd approach:
As diplomats scramble in search of ways to conduct this sort of conversation, a lot of attention is being paid to the speech Kevin Rudd, the new Australian prime minister, gave to students in Beijing two months ago. Mr Rudd famously charmed the Chinese when he addressed President Hu Jintao in Mandarin during his visit to Canberra last year, but he also did his masters thesis on a famous Chinese dissident who was jailed for advocating democracy in the late 1970s.Mr Rudd used the speech to launch the idea of zhengyou, a seventh-century Chinese word for friendship. "A true friend is one who can be a zhengyou ," he said, which involves "the ability to engage in a direct, frank and ongoing dialogue about our fundamental interests and future vision." His Chinese audience lapped it up. All this may sound too clever, as if linguistic sleight-of-hand can somehow overcome deep disagreements. Yet by framing criticism in terms of Chinese tradition, Mr Rudd has established an interesting middle road between the quiet chat that gets ignored and standing on a soapbox to deliver lectures. Other governments are watching with interest.
Before asking whether this approach would work with Russia, you need to ask whether it has worked with China. And there is ZERO evidence of ANY progress on ANY human rights issue because of this approach.
One could say Chamberlain used exactly this approach with Hitler. It didn't work out very well.
Then, say what you like about China, it isn't run by a clan of KGB spies who spent their whole life learning contempt for the very notion of human rights and steeping themselves in hatred for the west.
To think that Russia can be sweet-talked into decency is the height of frivolous naive pipe-dreaming.
Another worthless, boring, and extremist comment from Russophobe. Thanks for being so quick to kill all discussion on this blog.
Ivanovichy:
Thanks for showing me how to be worthwhile, interesting and moderate! Your example is one I'll try to live by! How did you manage to pack so much substance, directly relevant to this post, into such a small space?
Meanwhile, take a look. The vast majority of posts on this blog have no comments at all, so there is plenty of wide open fertile ground for you to till. Any reason why you haven't already? Just typical Russian laziness?
Resorting to personal attacks is identical to surrender.
Engagement is not appeasement, and what Rudd says would also work for Russia because it at least begins the conversation - which is much more than your dearly beloved Republicans are able to achieve.
Appeasement, and any reference to Chamberlain, is to give something away for free, not to open dialogue.
By the way, I really enjoyed your recent appearance on hardball:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs
IVANOVICHY:
So you surrendered then when you called me "worthless, boring, and extremist" without the slightest attempt to support your statements?
Thanks! I accept your surrender!
Chamberlain tried to start a conversation with Hitler, look where it got him! You seem not to realize that Russia is ruled by a clan of corrupt KGB spies no more interested in constructive dialogue than in civil liberties.
Us Republicans want to achieve the same thing in regard to neo-Soviet Russia as Ronald Reagan did in regard to the USSR: The destruction of an evil empire. You, it appears, want the opposite -- its elevation through enablement. I condemn that utterly.
Oh and, by the way. When you make a blog that draws as much traffic as any one of mine, much less all of them put together, do please let me know. Then I'll be able to figure out how to be just as interesting as you!