DOES THE WEST STAKE ON THE RIGHT FORCES?

That human rights protection is not regarded as interference in the internal affairs of this or another state does not cause any objections in the world today. But where human rights protection ends and an attempt starts to "model" political developments in another country to match your own interests is far from being rhetorical question. This was obvious during a recent harshly-worded slanging match between the Russian Federation and the USA. This time it was the US State Department report that played the role of "a trigger".

Three pages

We would have thought that it is a routine internal document: The State Department reports to Congress on human rights protection in the world every year. Three of the 262 pages were dedicated to Russia, but they were enough for a political storm. "The strengthening of presidential rule with a weak multi-party system and a pliable State Duma. Political pressure on the judiciary authorities, corruption and the selective nature of legal practices. The authorities' pressure on the media and opposition political parties. The worsening state of non-government and human rights organizations, increasing corruption in the bureaucratic apparatus, increasing bullying and harassment in the army and the persecution of independent journalists, suppression of citizens' rights and freedoms, the shrinking of their chances to influence the government with the help of general elections. All this destroys the mechanism of accountability of government leaders to society," the authors of the document point out. In their opinion, 2006 did not bring anything good to Russia.

Moscow is already used to criticism. However, the report points out something else: the State Department did not even try to hide that it has been carrying out active work, giving technical and financial support to public groups and non-government organizations dealing with human rights in Russia.

"The USA is rendering such assistance by means of programmes to train representatives of political parties and the media to cover political issues, as well as by means of initiatives to educate voters to assist in the conduct of free and fair elections to the Russian State Duma in December 2007 and presidential elections in March 2008," the document says.

In Russia, such "revelations" were assessed as interference in internal affairs, or to be more precise, as an attempt "to finance" the rise to power of forces loyal to the USA, including with the help of the same "orange" revolution scenario.

We do not doubt that US and Russian interests do not overlap in the international arena. Several days later, news agencies filed another report: Washington has come up with a strategic foreign policy plan for 2007-12 drawn up by Condoleezza Rice. She outlined foreign policy priorities of the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) for the next five years. The government is implementing its foreign aid programmes with the help of USAID. The Russia section of the plan says: "We will cooperate with Russia where we can do it productively, but with the support of our European and other allies, we will defend democratic values, human rights and freedoms in this country and repel negative behaviour."

The White House also focuses on the fact that "Russia's decision to sell weapons to countries like Iran, Syria and Venezuela has caused great concern among the international community". And the most important thing is that Washington says: "Another major challenge is Russia's policy with regard to its neighbours, especially Moscow's support for separatist regions in Georgia and Moldova, its political and economic pressure on Georgia and its monopolistic use of energy to put pressure on the neighbouring states in order to take control of their infrastructure and strategic assets."

A deputy's response to the West

This way or another, the report on the fight for democracy against the background of cold relations between the two countries seriously alarmed Russian deputies. Sergey Popov, chairman of the Russia State Duma committee on affairs of public associations and religious organizations, was quite straightforward: "Multiple seminars are being held and individual political and first of all, opposition parties are being given instructions. Individual media are being given instructions. They are actively and insistently pursuing a policy that the USA is very concerned about the forthcoming Duma elections." In turn, Boris Gryzlov, chairman of the Russian State Duma and leader of the One Russia faction, is sure that "the report in fact proclaims intentions to influence the development of democracy in Russia and both the State Duma and presidential elections." "Let's start by saying that this is a policy of double standards on the part of the USA and continue by saying that such interference by another state is simply unacceptable," Gryzlov explained. As for the chairman of the Federation Council, Sergey Mironov, he assured the West that Russia is a peace-loving country, but stressed that the country will do anything it regards as necessary. At the same time, the chairman of the State Duma committee on international affairs, Konstantin Kosachev, spoke out against any discussions on Russian democracy "every time some State Department of another country called USA expressed its opinion about it".

Not just a coincidence

Everything would probably be quiet if it were not for some coincidences. The US State Department report was published one day before "the march of dissenters" scheduled by the leading Russian opposition alliance Another Russia. What is more, the British newspaper Guardian published a front page interview with Boris Berezovskiy with an outspoken headline "I am plotting a new Russian revolution". "We need to use force to change this regime. It isn't possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure," the fugitive oligarch assured his readers.

Of course, Moscow's reaction did not keep us waiting. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov immediately said that "there has been an outstanding request to end the situation in which Boris Berezovskiy is using his status as a political refugee, abusing it and committing actions that require his extradition under British law".

London immediately condemned Berezovskiy's remarks, while Scotland Yard started investigating recordings of his interview to find out whether it contained illegal actions. What is interesting is that on the same evening, the oligarch, probably having consulted his lawyers, hurried to soften his statement. "I support direct action. But I do not support violence," he said.

This way or another, the "war of words" moved on to the official level. Both houses of the Federal Assembly adopted statements in response to the US State Department report. Duma members did not waste their time on trifles and did not question every remark from the report. Instead, they assessed the report as a whole, saying that the accusations against the Russian authorities "are absolutely groundless". At the same time, they urged the Russian president, government, Prosecutor-General's Office and Public Chamber "to take the necessary measures to make sure that the Russian law regulating the work of non-commercial organizations is strictly observed". "It is necessary to check the facts given in the report because it is talking about direct financing of political activities in Russian territory," said Sergey Popov, chairman of the committee on affairs of public associations and religious organizations. His proposal was quite timely. Almost at the same time as the discussions in the parliament, the deadline for non-government organizations to submit their financial reports expired on 15 April. Thus, the dispute about democracy with America might harm a third side again - non-government non-commercial organizations (NCO) working in Russia.

Revolutionaries or grant seekers?

Thus, the situation was quite tense on the eve of the "march of dissenters". In the next few days, the dispersal of the "marchers" who could hardly stage an "orange" revolution was news number one in the world media.

According to many eyewitnesses, people were taken away, knocked off their feet, dragged on the ground and bundled into buses. OMON detained Garry Kasparov and handcuffed the leader of the Yabloko youth movement, Ilya Yashin, and the leader of the Yes! youth movement, Maria Gaydar. Many journalists were beaten up, for example, a Japanese journalist who, as he said himself, was hit by a police baton in the head during the brawl, though he was wearing a special jacket. Kommersant correspondent Andrey Kozenko was also hit in the back, while Reuters news agency correspondent Thomas Peters was punched in the face when he was detained. In St Petersburg the situation was exacerbated by the fact that the retreat of the protesters was not planned. Dispersing after the rally, people ran into police cordons and were beaten up with truncheons.

This way or another, an official spokesman for the US State Department, Sean McCormack, said at a briefing that the State Department was concerned about the use of force against the participants in the "march of dissenters" in Moscow, St Petersburg and other cities of Russia. "People should be given a chance to express their opinion freely, to protest peacefully and participate in elections. These rights form the basis of any democratic system," McCormack stressed.

The European Commission also criticized the Russian authorities' action against the participants in the "march of dissenters". "We are extremely concerned about the incident," press secretary Christian Homan said. Freedom of speech and assembly are very important civil rights, and Russia has officially recognized them by signing a relevant UN convention."

In turn, the chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Rene van der Linden, reminded the Russian government that freedom of speech and assembly belongs to the category of basic rights in any democratic state. "We condemn the disproportionate use of force in Russia," Rene van der Linden said. The Japanese Foreign Ministry also filed a protest against the beating-up of its journalist.

Meanwhile, the Russian media continues to report searches in the offices of NGOs (the abbreviation NCO is more common in Moscow) and quote Gorbachev as saying that the arbitrariness of the incumbent authorities might surpass the actions of the CPSS.

In this situation, the representative of the Kremlin administration, Dmitriy Peskov, made an interesting statement on the Russia Today channel. According to the BBC, he admitted that "some sort of excessive reaction had taken place, but the main role (of the police) is to ensure law and order in the streets". The BBC pointed out that several days before, Peskov justified the police action - in an interview with Reuters, he said that OMON tried to foil violations of law and order by "ultra-radicals".

In any case, Moskovskiy Komsomolets is sure that the "orange" revolution does not really threaten Russia. According to the newspaper, "in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan the population was dead tired of the authorities and wanted to change them. Even a weak jolt was enough to "set things in motion". Nothing like that can be seen in today's Russia. Most of the population are absolutely indifferent to politics and are busy with their own personal lives." A former top official from the presidential administration said that "revolutions always start in capitals and large cities. In Russia, people are doing best of all in major cities. No matter how much noise Kasyanov, Kasparov and Limonov are making in the streets, this will have a zero influence on the general situation in the country."

However, something different is also clear. In books, films and memoirs about anti-totalitarian movements and victorious revolutions, officials of a rotten regime bogged down in intrigues and corruption are always confronted by noble knights who are ready to sacrifice everything for the rights, freedoms and dignity of their fellow countrymen. But in real life this is not always true, and in present-day Russia Berezovskiy, Illarionov and Kasyanov are unlikely to be "such noble knights". Moreover, the presence of characters like Edichka Limonov and his national Bolsheviks among the participants in the "march of dissenters" does not just beg the question. Obviously, not all the members of Another Russia can be attributed to political forces with which it is not shameful to deal. Convinced democrats like Yegor Gaydar and Grigoriy Yavlinskiy are no longer leaders here and the situation is determined by people like Kasyanov and Illarionov who had lost their political games, or by radicals like Limonov, or by "brand names" like Kasparov. There is no other noticeable opposition in Russia yet.

And here the financial subsidies from the US State Department acquire a complete unexpected role. In essence, the struggle for democracy in this situation might also turn into quite a lucrative "grant business". In this case, you can hold seminars and meetings, hand out interviews, get invitations abroad and shy away from answering what real force is behind the fledgling opposition figures.