#18 - JRL 8222 - JRL Home
From: Alexander Mikhailenko <anmikh@mail.ru>
Subject: re 8214-Karaganov/New CIS Strategy,
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004
S. Karaganov s recent article about Russia's new CIS strategy (JRL #8214) reflects Moscow's growing attention to its neighbors. Western CIS strategy is also of great importance. The West plays a key role in developments on the post-Soviet space. There might be several positions in this regard. One is to continue the policy of breaking close ties between Russia and its neighbors. The breakup of the USSR resulted in reduction by half of the post-Soviet countries GDP, according to the evaluations of some experts. It is clear that there are mighty circles in the West that will by inertia or for other reasons aim at full destruction of the former geopolitical enemy.
But there are also other attitudes. I fully agree with N. Gvosdev, who wrote in his article about the sources of Russian conduct in the Spring 2004 edition of The National Interest that a reviving Russia assumes a greater political and economic role in Eurasia . It would be logical for the West to recognize the really existing status of Russia as the regional leader. There are all foundations for that. Russia is the only Eurasian permanent member of the UN Security Council. Its economy produces roughly two thirds of the region s GDP. Russian military capabilities are incomparable with those of its neighbors, especially taking into account possession of WMD. Russian culture is famous worldwide, and Russian language is widespread in the post-Soviet space.
To conduct a responsible strategy re CIS corresponding measures in four areas--economic, political, security and humanitarian--could be adopted by the West. Let's take economy. Can the West provide the countries of the Near Abroad with gas, priced half of what the world price is? It cannot do that since the pipelines and the gas there are Russian. Moreover, it wouldn t want to carry such a financial burden. But what should Moscow do if the neighbors used to live in a single country and are now insolvent? Make them (who include Russians mothers, fathers and other relatives) starve? Can any other country replace Russia in its relations with Belarus, if Moscow's share in the neighbor s foreign trade equals almost 60% in 2003? It is hardly possible as Russia is the regional center of economic gravity.
A variety of concrete steps by the West might be taken in economic field to help integrate regional states. For example, it is seen in Russia that mainly due to political reasons Western advisers do not recommend to revive large interrepublican plants, which were abundant is the USSR. They seem to be afraid of Russia getting control over its neighbors industry. Nevertheless this process is under way. In 2003 in the framework of a debt for equities swap Russia acquired five Armenian plants. Both sides were interested in this purchase, because the plants were created in the times of the USSR to satisfy the needs of all the Soviet Union, and not only Armenia. Armenians had neither resources nor consumers to work effectively within one country.
It doesn't mean that the West must pour massive resources to revive ineffective cadavers. But here it is important to discriminate between really vital economic projects and politically motivated negative approaches. It is a widespread point of view in Eurasia that the West hampers cooperation between the CIS states because it simply doesn t need another competitor. Many large factories (like above mentioned Armenian ones) made part of the most hi-tech sector in the Soviet Union s industry. Blocking their development adds arguments to those politicians who believe that the West wants to turn the Eurasian region into a raw materials supplier of the industrialized world. Changing approach in this direction would increment confidence between Russia, CIS and the West in our interdependent world, which presupposes close interaction to cope with new challenges. And this is only one segment of economic field, where mutually advantageous economic projects could be developed.
Or let's take the political aspect of the situation in the region. The efforts of the U.S. to spread its understanding of democracy to the other countries in many cases don't prove to be successful. Relationship between democracy and stability is also a question. The most important interest of the West in Eurasia is stability, according to many specialists. At the same time the U.S. policies are directed to strengthen opposition parties in the CIS countries. The role of Americans in the November 2003 events in Tbilisi was described in detail. Opposition movements in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Ukraine and other CIS countries are encouraged. Are the coordinated Western efforts to change the ruling parties in the region compatible with ensuring stability in the post-Soviet space? Will the new rulers be better than the previous ones?
I doubt that with J. Rosca at power in Moldova there would be a quick fix (if any at all) of Transnistrian conflict. One has a contradictory feeling while watching the difference in the attitudes of the U.S. policy makers and political scientists to nationalists in Russia and in the other CIS states. For example, they consider that the results of the December 2003 parliamentary elections in Russia demonstrated the victory of nationalists and increased xenophobia . At the same time the U.S. cherishes Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yuschenko, though if he comes to power in elections this fall it may lead to a deep divide between Eastern and Western parts of the Ukraine. Such a bias can be explained in terms of politics, but does it serve the interests of Eurasian peoples?
In the security sphere cooperation between Russia, the West and the CIS states might be concentrated in fighting against international terrorism. Law enforcement cooperation could also develop to battle new threats like drug trafficking and export of prostitution. But Russia s good will in cooperation with the West is undermined by penetration of the Western military into its backyard. Russia is suspicious whether U.S. military forces will leave the region soon: the counterterrorist operation may continue forever. Moscow has arguments as to the presence of its troops in certain CIS countries as soon as Americans may deploy their forces in the vicinities of its borders.
Common actions may be taken to resolve regional conflicts. Events in Ajaria are a proof of changes in Russian position. There are certain possibilities to make further progress in this direction, but many obstacles, including artificial ones, are on the way. In November 2003 both Moldavian president V. Voronin and Transnistrian leader I. Smirnov agreed to sign the Memorandum on federal state of Moldova. But in the last minute Voronin recalled his signature, though the two sides could make a tremendous step forward in settling the conflict. The mass media reported it happened after the American Ambassador to Moldova visited Voronin and the acting chairman of OSCE called him. The question is whether this retreat was in the interest of the peoples living in the area.
Finally there is a need for development of humanitarian cooperation. At the meeting with his election campaign agents in February 2004 Russian president Vladimir Putin stated that the breakup of the Soviet Union was an all-national tragedy of enormous size. This is a very exact reflection of popular feelings not only of Russians, but also of common people in the other CIS states. Nostalgic memories of the USSR have a solid base. At the end of the 1990s roughly a forth of the Russian senators were Ukrainians by nationality. Almost one forth of the Ukrainian population are Russian compatriots. Altogether, more than 20 million Russians live in the states of the Near Abroad. The humanitarian ties are the hardest to breakup because they have the most long-living character as opposed to the economic ties, which represent the surface layer of social relations and are prone to easy and radical transformation.
Or let's reflect on the following statistics. The migrants from the CIS countries find jobs in Russia and feed their families, left back at home, with their salaries. In Georgia, remittances from Russia make 25% of the country s GDP; in Moldova they make 30%. If every migrant feeds at least his wife and a child, you may imagine how many people in the countries of the Near Abroad have made their choice for the cooperation with Russia. Sharing foreign experience in this sphere, including problems of labor migration, would be of great help to Russia and its neighbors. The U.S. had similar problems with wetbacks from Mexico. How did it succeed in resolving this task? What are the best practices to implement?
The future of the post-Soviet space is built today by the choices of all the stockholders. The choice is not a position fixed once and forever, it is rather a continuous work with flexible approaches, which depend on the counterpart s moves. The West should help Moscow to unite the efforts of the regional community in raising the well-being and democracy levels of Eurasian societies. Russia is persuaded to believe that NATO s expansion to the East contains no threat to Moscow. In the same manner integration of the CIS countries should be seen in the West as a positive movement, and not as Russia's neoimperialist machination . If constructive cooperation develops in this aspect, the relations of Russia with the West could acquire a new meaning characterized by the trust and responsibility for the future of the region and the entire world.
Alexander Mikhailenko,
professor, Russian Foreign Policy department,
Russian Academy of Public Administration
under the President of the Russian Federation.