Moskovskii Komsomolets
No. 78
BETWEEN DELIGHT AND THE WESTWhy Russia’s international image is plummetingAuthor: Mikhail Rostovsky
April 12, 2006
SourceThe Kremlin's frantic attempts to improve Russia's image abroad are somewhat reminiscent of the failed North Korean project. More and more efforts and money are being directed into it, but North Korea is still in decline.
In Vladimir Putin's seventh year as president, our gold and currency reserves are at a record high. On the contrary, the outside world's good opinion of Russia has dropped to a 15-year low. After his first meeting with Putin in 2001, President George W. Bush spoke of him in lyrical tones: "I looked into his soul." These days, Bush's comments sound extremely ambivalent: "I'm not entirely disillusioned with Russia." The Bush Administration still includes a "friendship with Moscow" faction - Thomas Graham, special aide for Russia, and his superior, National Security Advisor Steven Hadley - but this duo is increasingly acquiring a reputation as wishful thinkers. Even a prominent Russia specialist and political moderate like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is increasingly inclined to support the hardliners, headed by Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs. London has to be one of the most Russified capital cities in the West, with almost 400,000 Russians living there. At the individual level, the locals get along fine with the Russians. But views on Russia as a state are another matter. "The real Russia is very different from the country described in the British media,"says Sergei Kolushev, head of the Russian Economic Forum in London.
Of course, the West's poor opinion of us might be written off as historical hostility. But what about the CIS? In late March, the Georgian newspaper Kviris Palitra polled 700 people in various parts of Georgia, asking which country they consider to be the most hostile. And 94.4% of respondents named Russia. Well, let's forget about Georgia, where anti-Kremlin rhetoric has long become a favorite pastime for politicians. Let's not discuss the Baltic states either, or Moldova and its Trans- Dniester problem. Let's look at Ukraine and the Kremlin's favorite, Viktor Yanukovich. The failed presidential candidate hasn't abandoned slogans like giving Russian the status of a second state language - but his speeches now include more frequent criticism of Moscow and assurances that Ukraine will stand by its Euro-Atlantic choice. Out of all the regions that are important to us, Russia's prestige still remains reasonably high only in Belarus and the Central Asian countries. Even there, however, any visitor from Moscow faces a blizzard of questions from locals: why is the great country of Russia behaving so strangely? What have we done to offend it?
Our efforts to create a pro-Russian lobby group in the United States, for example, are producing quite cartoon-like results. Why are all our efforts failing? Kremlin-linked political analysts like Sergei Markov say it's all because the state isn't providing enough funding. Most likely, however, the real reason lies elsewhere. In order to say something convincingly, you need to have a firm idea of what it is you're trying to say. But we're still having problems with that.
Take our policy in the CIS, for example. In the Brezhnev era, any African dictator could secure the Soviet Union's assistance simply by claiming to be "building socialism." These days, Moscow isn't offering African leaders anything but the prospect of debt write-offs. But as recently as 18 months ago, CIS presidents were able to manipulate Moscow with one catch-phrase: "We support the Common Economic Area project!" Russia's reputation in the CIS is still undermined by many sore points inherited from the Yeltsin era. Against a backdrop of renewed friendship between Moscow and Tashkent, it's not the done thing these days to mention how Uzbekistan quit the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 1999. At the time, President Karimov's domains faced an incursion by militants from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Karimov requested military assistance from Russia, the CSTO leader. In effect, he was told to get lost. Such a disgraceful situation would never happen with Putin at the helm, of course. But Russia's fulfillment of its commitments still remains extremely low. Informed sources estimate that only 2% of inter-governmental commission decisions are actually implemented!
With every passing year, the unrecognized republics situation is becoming an increasingly serious problem for Russia and its image. This applies to South Ossetia and Abkhazia in particular. These quasi-states arose due to a combination of two factors: the foolish nationalist policies of former Georgian president Gamsakhurdia, and Moscow's wish to retain at least some leverage in that region. Fifteen years later, these two republics remain Russia's chief bridgeheads in the South Caucasus - but their future is uncertain. Some Russian politicians, such as Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, maintain that there is a way out of this impasse.
In their opinion, the almost-inevitable declaration of independence for Kosovo will set a precedent. If Kosovo can do it, why can't Abkhazia and South Ossetia? But the West has already found an antidote to that political project. First, the United States and the European Union will twist Serbia's arm so that it doesn't raise any objections to Kosovo's new status. Recognition of Kosovo's independence will then be pushed through the UN Security Council. And Russia won't have any reason to exercise its veto power; we can't object more strongly than the Serbs, after all. Obviously, there's no way the UN Security Council would recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - so the question of their future status is left hanging. Meanwhile, the very existence of the two unrecognized republics undermines Russia's image in Georgia at the most basic level.
Energy superpower. After lengthy efforts, the Kremlin's political strategists have finally thought up a pretty phrase to describe Russia's current condition. But what really lies behind those two words? They might be synonymous with another concept: raw materials appendage.
And that's precisely the reason for our foreign policy failures and consequent image problems. Yuri Kobaladze says: "Without any real grounds, we have started asserting again that we're a great country and others take account of us. Alas, such rhetoric only works for domestic consumption. Other countries won't really take account of us until our economy is at least one- fifth the size of the American economy."
Unfortunately, this sad diagnosis is fairly accurate. Putin recently called on everyone to stop dozing beneath the "oil blanket." But that's exactly what is happening now. All the propaganda fuss about being an "energy superpower" essentially amounts to admitting that Russia is doomed to remain a raw materials exporter. True, the official media are also saying a great deal about our achievements in the international arms trade. But experts predict that Russia's arms exports might start declining rapidly by 2008-10. We can't keep milking Soviet-era designs forever, after all, while investing almost nothing in new research and development! In the modern world, dependence on raw materials exports dooms a state to the role of an economic outsider. Other countries are well aware of that.
Stanislav Belkovsky: "Others started treating us with contempt in the late 1980s. And Russia is still growing weaker. Naturally, many of those around us are baring their teeth like animals. After all, everyone wants to kick the lion when he is weakened!"
Besides the understandable wish to make rude gestures at a weakening neighbor, there are several other reasons behind the deterioration in Russia's international image. Allegations that the Kremlin is "behaving undemocratically" aren't always justified, by any means. Many people in the West forget that establishing democracy is an extremely complicated and painful process. Britain and America also made slow progress and encountered many problems on their path to democracy. But neither should the Kremlin reject all accusations out of hand. The Russian authorities are running a real risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The increasing level of xenophobia in Russia is also extremely dangerous for Russia and its image; the media in other countries offer very vivid descriptions of it. And another point is important as well. "Britons don't get most of their information about other European countries from the media," says Sergei Kolushev. "They visit those countries all the time and see everything for themselves. But people in London believe all the media's horror stories about Russia. Due to our underdeveloped tourism infrastructure, few of them ever go to Russia."
Still, the main point lies elsewhere. We can bemoan our inability to slow down the loss of Russia's geopolitical influence, but that's an entirely useless exercise. It's much more important to get a clear understanding of where we're going. Then we'll be able to develop a policy course that's suited to the real world rather than a world of illusions.
Translated by Ewgenija Ryzhikova
Post Edited (10-17-06 16:22)