|
Russia and the West: cooperation or confrontation?
Russia has always remained a mystery to the West,
even more now it is run by Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB
agent, who is as much admired and loved by the Russians
as he is disliked by the West. There have been numerous
EU-Russia summits this year. As they all finished with
no significant or positive results, with no new
partnership in place, and only accusations of human
rights violations on both sides, the future of a united
and democratic Europe that comprises Russia (as so
desired by Bill Clinton when Boris Yeltsin was in power)
appears unlikely.
By Julia Poliscanova
West vs. Russia
There were rather few sincere rapprochements between the
West and Russia throughout the history: successful
Franco-Russian cooperation in the 17-18th centuries
could be one example; the Yeltsin years could be the
other. Indeed, it seemed in the 1990s, after the
collapse of the USSR, as if Russia was moving closer to
the West and might one day become as European and
western as France and Germany are.
Russia joined what became the G8 and there were many
improvements in both its economy and politics that would
one day make the membership of WTO or even EU possible.
The then newly-elected British Prime Minister, Tony
Blair, at a NATO summit in Paris in 1997 praised
Yeltsin’s transformation of Russia, and said that, ‘as
one of the youngest prime ministers on the scene, he
looked up to him’.[1]
Things changed. After Putin came to power in 1999 (as
unexpectedly as it always happens in Russia: on the New
Year’s Eve Boris Yeltsin announced his resignation and
chose Putin, his then prime minister, as his
replacement), the relations between the West and the
Russian Federation began to deteriorate. There are now
many tensions, criticisms and unresolved arguments.
Bones of contention
One of the most obvious ones is the West’s
dissatisfaction, if not frustration, with Russia’s
transition into a democratic state in general. It is
difficult to call a country in which there is no freedom
of press or speech democratic; it is even harder to call
it so when you consider the lack of strong and clear
opposition and the ease with which Putin can work around
the constitution to stay in power (after two successive
terms).
Many recent events brought to light the fact that
respect for human rights remains fragile and marginal in
the country. Not least the mysterious death
(assassination?) of Anna Polytkovskaya (an independent
anti-Putin journalist) a year ago.
This summer saw at least three more outrageous, in the
eyes of the West, human rights infringements. First,
when the government denied an opposition youth group the
right to stage a demonstration, claiming that another
youth organisation (that by chance happened to be pro-Putin)
applied for the same date and place a couple of hours
earlier. Second, when opposition leaders Garry Kasparov
and Eduard Limonov, trying to get to the Russia-EU
summit in Samara this May, were held in the airport for
hours until there were no more flights available. And
finally, when a group of homosexuals, participating in a
gay parade, was beaten up by Russian police. The only
conclusion that any western journalist or politician can
derive from all these events is that human rights in
Russia are on the slide.
Dissent is weakness
As
for opposition, there appears to be none with any
clarity and cohesion in Russia. The Russian opposition
is seen as ‘a loose coalition of liberals, nationalists
and communists… [T]he opposition may not yet be dead,
but is in a deep coma’. [2] And it is as much the
opposition’s own fault, as it is the government’s
attempts to weaken it.
Among the latter’s attempts are the new laws and rules
on parties and elections. Thus, the new threshold for
parties to get into the parliament is 7pc (compared with
5pc previously), which makes it much harder for parties
to get any parliamentary representation and pose a real
challenge to Mr Putin’s United Russia. The opposition is
further undermined by the inability to put its case on
television, which is strictly controlled by the
government (the owner of the biggest Russian Channel One
is a friend of Vladimir Putin), and by the intolerance
of any protests.
However, opposition parties themselves are weak and
incoherent, and their in-fighting and lack of ideas make
them less and less competitive. Other Russia, one of the
leading opposition parties, can serve as a prime
example, since its two important figures, Mikhail
Kasyanov and Vladimir Ryzhkov, left the party after the
argument with Garry Kasparov over how to nominate
candidates for the presidency and the parliament. Two
liberal opposition parties, Yabloko and the Union for
Right Forces, failed to form a coalition and find a
strong leader.
Unopposed, unworried
All this is further exacerbated by the lack of public
support, as Putin’s approval ratings remain steadily
high at around 80pc. If you ask a Russian in the street,
they will say there is no any need to challenge Mr Putin.
All that the West can say is that there can’t be a
healthy democracy without a strong and coherent
opposition, as history has proved many times; and Russia
seems to be falling into autocracy more and more with
every day.
Furthermore, the West is deeply dissatisfied with the
way Russia manoeuvres its gas and oil supplies,
sometimes turning into a bully for its neighbours
(Ukraine and Georgia among them). If there is one
obvious reason why Russia’s economy has been growing
steadily at around 7pc in the last 5 years (for which Mr
Putin gets credit), it is the high level of oil and gas
prices caused by the growing demand and instabilities in
the Middle East. And to add to this, Europe is almost
entirely dependent for its energy resources on Russia:
the country is undoubtedly in a very beneficial
position, which gives Mr Putin leverage when it comes to
international negotiations.
Nonetheless, more and more plans are being put forward
to change this situation. Thus, a recent International
Conference on Energy Security, which took place in
Lithuania in October, brought the leaders from the
Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Poland and Lithuania
together, where they discussed the opportunities of
building a pipe that would connect the Black, the
Caspian and the Baltic seas without passing Russian
territory.
Russia’s integration into the West, which once seemed so
close and plausible, is turning more and more into an
unattainable goal or a myth.
Russia vs. West
And as is always the case in politics, there is never
just one bad guy; thus, according to Russia, it is the
West that treats the country disrespectfully and doesn’t
want to consider its interests and needs.
The idea that there is some conspiracy towards Russia
from the West has been popular and widely believed by
Russians for centuries, since long before the Cold War.
And it still resonates in the minds and hearts of the
Russian population nowadays. According to them, the only
aim of Vladimir Putin is to restore the country’s
previous might and strength, to make Russians once again
proud of themselves after they were embarrassed by Boris
Yeltsin.
And indeed, if for the West Yeltsin was one of Russia’s
most successful politicians, bringing many liberal and
pro-market reforms and trying to transform the country,
for Russians he was nothing but a failure: not only did
he plunge the country into a deep economic crisis in
1997, but it was under him that corruption thrived and
such now-hated Russian politicians and businessmen as
Berezovsky and Chubais tripled their wealth. To which
one of the most bizarre politicians, Viktor
Chernomyrdin, gave a famous explanation: “We hoped for
the best, but it turned out like always”, [3] And as if
all this was not enough, Yeltsin also had a drinking
problem: by the end of his term he couldn’t even make a
proper speech in public.
Even leaving history to judge Boris Yeltsin, there are
many serious issues in 2007 on which Russia deeply
disagrees with the West and feels undermined by it. One
of the most ridiculous ones is the Jackson-Vanik
amendment in the US. This amendment is the root of some
trade restrictions between Russia and the USA, though
the amendment should apply only to communist or other
non-democratic countries.
Of
missiles and men
One of the most confrontational recent disagreements is
over the USA’s plans to site elements of its missile
defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic,
claiming that it will better secure Europe against a
possible threat from the Middle East and Iran in
particular.
However, Russia sees this move as threatening to the
Russian-American strategic relationship, as well as
challenging the balance of power in Europe and
undermining Russia’s military position in the region.
Vladimir Putin invited the Bush Administration to share
its military base in Kazakhstan, claiming it is nearer
to the Middle East. So far, the answer is negative, with
no clear reasons for the refusal. In a recent conference
on the issue in Moscow in October, Mr Putin even
jokingly suggested to use parts of the Moon instead. [4]
He was only partly joking.
Now Vladimir Putin threatens withdrawing from the
intermediate range nuclear forces treaty (INF), which
was signed between the USA and the USSR in 1987 to
restrict the use of these rockets. There are two reasons
for this: first, this treaty no longer reflects the
balance of power in Europe since many Eastern European
countries have joined the Western bloc; second, there
are other strategically important countries, like China,
which have not signed to the treaty. Thus, according to
Putin’s administration, being part of INF only
undermines Russia’s strategic military position and
limits its actions.
Finally, Russia is discontented with the West’s constant
interference into its domestic matters (or what it sees
as such). And it’s not only that the USA and the EU
constantly point out at the lack of respect for human
rights, but that they constantly interfere in Russia’s
arguments with its neighbours, taking the latter’s side.
The EU, for instance, is on Poland’s side in the dispute
over the Russian ban on Polish meat exports, whereas
Russia considers this to be a bilateral matter.
According to the Kremlin, this ban was provoked by
Poland’s constant accusations and criticisms of Russia’s
politics.
The recent dispute between Russia and Estonia over the
removal of a monument of the Soviet era caused the same
situation, where Russia sees this as a bilateral
argument between the two countries and is irate over the
West meddling, and the West considers its responsibility
to assist Estonia, which has been part of the EU since
2004, and is undoubtedly fragile and helpless vis-à-vis
the Kremlin’s sanctions and bullying.
Is
cooperation impossible?
All these arguments and disputes lead to the deadlock
when it comes to negotiations and signing agreements.
Thus, the EU and Russia failed to concur over the new EU-Russia
agreement to replace the current Partnership and
Cooperation Agreement which expires next year.
Furthermore, the recent Bush-Putin summit in the US also
failed to bring any positive results. Meanwhile Putin’s
refusal to extradite Mr Lugovoi to face charges in Great
Britain over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko resulted
in the expelling of diplomats by both sides.
This results in a wider inability to cooperate when it
comes to vital international issues, where the West,
beyond any doubt, needs Russia’s support and
collaboration. Such concerns as Iran’s nuclear
aspirations (Russia vetoes any further sanctions in the
UN Council) or the independence of Kosovo (Russia
supports the Serbs, claiming secession would be against
international law) remain unresolved and lack a
unanimous and coherent international approach.
Is, then, a new Cold War between Russia and the West
possible, as some begin to envisage? Probably not, as
there is no confrontational ideology in place as was the
case with capitalism versus communism; and also because
Russia is no longer as economically and military strong
as the USSR was in relation to the US.
What’s the Russian for ‘democracy’?
Nonetheless, the question remains whether Russia will
ever be democratic in the western interpretation of the
word? Russians think not. ‘Mr
Putin's supporters maintain that Russians are not ready
for liberal democracy, preferring their tradition of a
benevolent dictator/tsar.’
[5]
And indeed, whereas the West had a long (and often
bloody) path towards democracy, Russia was never a
proper democracy until the collapse of the USSR in 1990.
(Its main mistake, according to experts, was the jump
from the feudal system into the Communism in 1917,
whereas K. Marx stressed the grassroots character of
people’s emancipation which should happen after some
sort of democratic apparatus had been in place for some
period.)
Nowadays, the Russian political elite claims that it is
not that democracy in Russia is not possible, but rather
that another form of it would suit the country better,
i.e. democracy
à la
russe,
since the country has a different historical development
to those in the Western world.
This appears to be a reasonable argument, especially in
our world of growing cultural tolerance and acceptance
of differences (in the West). However, what does this
mean in practice? On September 12th Mr Putin
picked the new Prime Minister (unknown tax official
Viktor Zubkov), leaving the entire world wondering why.
Later, on October the 1st the president
solved the puzzle: he
announced that he would head the pro-Kremlin United
Russia party's list in the general election in December;
making it clear that there is a strong chance he will
become the next Prime Minister, leaving Mr Zubkov the
presidential post (and obviously retaining great
influence over the new president’s decisions). Thus Mr
Putin didn’t break the constitution, which allows only
two successive terms for the presidential post, while
managing to stay in power.
Is
it a healthy democracy though? To a rational observer
the answer appears to be evident: no. As Russian
essayist Lev Rubinshtein wrote: ‘Isn't
it fun? The president appears in public, stretches out
two closed hands and asks cunningly: where is the sweet?
That is the only question deemed suitable for the
population’.
[6] Will such democracy work for Russians? History will
show. Although one thing is clear: the West has to
elaborate a new approach to cooperate with present
Russia, assertive and autocratic, which is not the ally
it seemed in the 1990s.
References
[1]
Alastair Campbell, ‘The Blair Years: Extracts from the
Alastair Campbell Diaries’, Alastair Campbell and
Richard Stott (eds.), Hutchinson: London, 2007; p. 207.
[2] ‘Putin versus nobody serious’, The Economist, July
26th 2007.
[3] One of his latest speech pearls include the one
given in the Ukraine recently (where he is Russian
Ambassador): “It has never been like this and now it is
exactly the same again”...
[4] Which Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
jokingly suggested to US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice during the meeting in Moscow on October 12th 2007.
[5] ‘Democracy, Soviet-style’, The Economist, October
4th 2007.
[6] ‘The never-ending presidency’, The Economist,
October 4th 2007.
|
