#5
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001
From: "Nina Khrushcheva" <KhruschN@newschool.edu>
Subject: Re: The Economist's "Changing
Russia," November 3-9, 2001 (JRL #5221)
It is now obvious that the "transitional" reporting on Russia has run its course, much like Yeltsin's "transition" run its own a few years back. The world is different, Russia is different but the reporting is same old, same old* Although factually no one denies that Russia is doing ultimately better--politically, economically, emotionally, and the Nov. 3-9 Economist piece admits that, it is clear that the West itself is not doing too well with Russia doing better. The following quotes from the Changing Russia article are the proof:
1. "He [Putin] liked consensus and caution, not bold moves. The rhetoric was sometimes friendly and liberal but was rarely turned into action." As the first statement is true, the second one is truly false--Putin's political rhetoric has been turning into action for at least a year--economic reforms are proceeding steadily, the situation between the center and the regions has been normalized. In the words of Andrei Illarionov, "Some reforms which have only been talked about for years, now they are in the process of implementation. Maybe it's not enough. But nobody can deny that many reforms, like tax reform, pension reform, land reform, military reform, deregulation of the economy, reform of natural monopolies and so on, they have really started" (The Washington Post, May 10, 2001).
2. "Like Mikhail Gorbachev ten years ago, Mr Putin may find it hard to make a pro-western stance pay off at home." While a comparison with Gorbachev is in general a fair one, this particular statement makes little, if no sense. 15 years ago Gorbachev's "Westernism" was a novelty in an imperial Soviet giant with closed borders and carefully censored, very limited access to the West. Today's Russian reality, especially in urban areas, is often as good as the West itself. And if some anti-Westernism still exist, it is not because Russia doesn't want to be part of the West, it is because the West has clearly demonstrated that it doesn't want Russia as its part.
3. "A third question is sincerity. Mr Putin's motives are inscrutable." It might be a surprise in England, but many of us here in New York, and not only Russians, do question motivations of Tony Blair's over-the-top passionately militant rhetoric. Is it his way to boost long-lost Britain's leadership position in the world, an attempt to out-stage the suburban, not too eloquent American president, to fashion himself as a new Bill Clinton?
4. "Still, real change in Russia, and real trust from the West, will take years, not weeks." The question today I am afraid is not that the West can trust Russia, but whether Russia should continue to trust the West as long as its rhetoric remains scolding, condescending and derogatory. In the last decade Russia did everything an independent country could or should do to earn the West's approval, while many of the Western policies towards Russia (and other countries) have been often opportunistic and not beyond reproach. May be now Russia should request a new replacement for most of its "transitional" Western journalists (although it will of course be taken as a Western press freedoms oppression, rather than a reasonable call for fairness). What has been said about Yeltsin--the former communist leader can never turn into a true democrat--applies to those who have reported Russia's corruption scandals and political crisi in the last 10 years--they are too tainted by their own "ideological party line"--the ever guilty Russia--to be fair.
Nina L. Khrushcheva International Affairs Program New School University 66 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel.: 212-229-5808, ext. 122 Fax: 212-229-5579 E-mail: khruschn@newshool.edu
Next Article