When asked to name a Russian leader, the average American citizen is more likely to say Vladimir Putin than Dmitry Medvedev. Indeed, in the cables recently put on WikiLeaks, President Medvedev is characterized as playing “Robin” to Prime Minister Putin’s “Batman” (1). Whether or not this is a fair assessment is up to, and under, quite a lot of debate. As Russia rushes into the 2012 presidential elections unsure which politician will emerge as the ruling party’s candidate, it is interesting to look at the contrast between the two of them. In many ways Medvedev is seen as the “techie” president, a man addicted to gadgets and Twitter, while Putin is the more steadfast, omnipresent figure. While Medvedev proposes and supports many political changes, most of them fare better in the blogsphere than in the legal system. This is proving to be unfortunate as Russia tries to revolutionize its external and internal relations.
In the past few months, Russian diplomats have been busy. Russia has not only met with the European Union and some of its Western neighbors, but also attended a NATO summit and the meeting of the G20. In the meetings with other European countries, Russia laid groundwork for increased trade partnerships and visa-free travel for Russian citizens (though that may be more of a distant dream than a plan as of yet) (2, 3). With NATO, President Medvedev tentatively agreed to a cooperative missile defense shield (4). This is a far cry from the state of affairs during NATO’s conception, when it was intended to counteract the expansion of the Soviet Union. The greatest demand of Russian diplomats attending meetings of the EU and NATO is that Russia “be included” in major decisions and goals more and more; no longer does Russia wish to be treated as an alien entity by the West (2). It would seem that this demand is being met – though perhaps a bit more slowly than the Russian government would like. Russia has also recently signed a significant energy deal with China, once in living memory an enemy, agreeing to the creation of a large oil pipeline from Russia into China expected to play a big part in China’s fuel dependence in the years to come (5). Further energy deals have been signed with Iran, Venezuela, and even France. With these and other agreements, Russia is successfully expanding its influence on the global stage.
Energy has become a growing source not only of international interest, but of national interest as well. An unprecedented deal with BP a few months ago gave the British company rights to untapped oil fields in the North of Russia in exchange for ownership of previously co-owned oil fields elsewhere (6). The deal breathed new life into Gazprom, the main gas company in Russia (still, for all its opening up, government-owned). As Russia develops, it seeks more and more available oil fields. In fact, President Medvedev visited one during late October – the Kuril Islands. Though sparsely inhabited and a point of contention between Japan and Russia, the waters surrounding the islands are known to be oil-rich. Medvedev toured as reigning president, promising modernization (7). Modern utilities, that is, for the inhabitants, and untouched modern oil reserves for companies – if all goes well.
Yet, even while government-owned companies eye reserves of oil in Siberia and beyond, RusHydro (also state-owned) has begun to resurrect itself. During the Soviet era, huge hydroelectric dams were constructed to support a demand for metal-working energy; since then, they have fallen into disrepair. Currently, Russia only uses 20% of its hydroelectric potential (as estimated by the BBC). Just recently, however, the company that owns most of these dams – RusHydro, as mentioned above – has poured money into renovation projects. With these dams running, Russia could turn around its oil-based energy system; hydro power would even be considered not only for internal use, but also as an export.
As Russia grows and endeavors to bring itself into the twenty-first century, a small but energetic environmental movement has developed. Most recently, Russia hosted a summit to organize efforts to save the endangered Siberian tiger from poachers. The multi-day meeting, supported by Prime Minister Putin, ended in positive feelings and a plan to double the present number of remaining tigers (8). The only point of complaint is that the action outlined by the plan may be the better place to focus than the plan itself.
Back at the end of summer, this movement managed to halt completely the construction of a major highway through the Khimki Forest, a pristine natural habitat preserved (so far) between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Due to repeated demonstrations and some very daring reporting, President Medvedev himself ordered the government to stop construction of the road (9). The victory came at a cost – several reporters over the years have been beaten because of their work in connection with the forest. And, in the end, it has turned out to be a hollow one. Despite Medvedev’s grand gesture as a voice for the people, the voice of the legislators has spoken: construction is to be resumed, on the original plan (10). This eventual triumph of bureaucracy over protest, though not by any means unique to Russia, is a setback in the country’s quest for democratic government.
Russia’s president has also been supporting, of all things, that horror most often associated with the internet – freedom of expression. Most recently he has released a video which criticizes the ruling party (the party he is a part of, Putin’s party, otherwise known as United Russia) for dominating the political landscape (11). If the ruling party can not lose, he argues, the leaders lose touch with the people and the party becomes outdated. Incidentally, within the past week the Moscow City Court dismissed a suit filed by Just Russia, one of three opposition parties, which called for a nullification of the recent elections for State Duma on the grounds of corruption. (The election came out as a solid victory for United Russia.) To form a new party in Russia, one must only have a certain number of signatures; but even when the signatures are presented to the authorities, they may chose to disbelieve them. This is not the only such situation to be found in Russian law, unfortunately.
The right to protest, one of the primary indicators of free speech, has been slow to come after the initial promising measures were made –even though, when compared to other measures, the growth in this area has been explosive. In Moscow citizens’ right to protest was increased last month to allow for larger crowds and parades, despite officials’ concern that increased protests would bring increased violence resulting from heated clashes of opinion (12). The success may be mostly superficial, however, since the permit approval process (historically basically impossible to get through for anyone but a member of United Russia) still must be dealt with – just like the party conundrum above. It is loopholes like this that must be closed in order to foster more political expression in Russia; regrettably, however, they are hard to close through legislation alone.
While Medvedev can usually be found supporting these popular movements and revolutionary trade deals and relationships, his stance does not always reflect that of the rest of the Russian government. If one wants to find a politician perpetually supported by the government, one looks to Putin. One must be careful, however, what one says of the governing pair – especially if one happens to be a high-ranking employee of the government (perhaps a mayor, for example). In any case, it is clear that in Russia the desire to transform national politics and policy is strong and well-meant, but often caught up by the hard realism of entrenched politicians and ingrained ways. Given time, I believe the people of Russia will be able to overcome this stumbling block; the only question is, can they do it quickly enough – before they lose hope?
Links to Articles Cited:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02wikileaks-russia.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=russia%20wikileaks&st=cse
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/world/europe/18iht-germany.html?ref=russia
3. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/france-says-visa-free-deal-possible-before-2025/420634.html
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11799097
5. http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15711878&PageNum=3
6. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/business/energy-environment/29bp.html?_r=1&ref=russia
7. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/medvedev-will-visit-kuril-islands-again/421746.html
8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11791105
9. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/world/asia/07medvedev.html?_r=1&ref=russia
10. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/kremlin-approves-khimki-highway/425983.html
11. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11828222
12. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/gays-win-landmark-rights-ruling/420789.html
A National Election's International Effects
Since the results of the U.S.'s November 2nd elections came in, Russians have been worrying. With a larger number of Republicans in the Senate, it seems likely that the New Start treaty will not be ratified.
The treaty, which was signed by both President Obama and President Medvedev some months ago, fills a gap left by the old START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty; see definitions at bottom of page) which expired after fifteen years. Under the agreement, both sides pledge to reduce nuclear weapons and to allow regular inspections and inquiries into nuclear facilities. Republican opposition claims that the new treaty is moving too hastily, putting America at risk by reducing nuclear arms, and wants to put off the ratification until the new Senate convenes. At that point, the treaty - once a central point in our country's foreign policy - will be lost in a slew of other measures and increased party bickering.
And that's a shame, because the New Start would be an affirmation of how both countries have striven to redefine and modernize their respective roles on the international stage. At least the recent meeting of NATO in Lisbon, which President Medvedev attended, showed more promising signs of cooperation (in shield and defense matters; see link below).
From the Moscow Times:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/lavrov-wants-start-passed-in-2010/422787.html
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world/europe/19start.html?_r=1&ref=russia
From the BBC, on NATO's meeting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11799097
The treaty, which was signed by both President Obama and President Medvedev some months ago, fills a gap left by the old START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty; see definitions at bottom of page) which expired after fifteen years. Under the agreement, both sides pledge to reduce nuclear weapons and to allow regular inspections and inquiries into nuclear facilities. Republican opposition claims that the new treaty is moving too hastily, putting America at risk by reducing nuclear arms, and wants to put off the ratification until the new Senate convenes. At that point, the treaty - once a central point in our country's foreign policy - will be lost in a slew of other measures and increased party bickering.
And that's a shame, because the New Start would be an affirmation of how both countries have striven to redefine and modernize their respective roles on the international stage. At least the recent meeting of NATO in Lisbon, which President Medvedev attended, showed more promising signs of cooperation (in shield and defense matters; see link below).
From the Moscow Times:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/lavrov-wants-start-passed-in-2010/422787.html
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world/europe/19start.html?_r=1&ref=russia
From the BBC, on NATO's meeting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11799097
Attack on Reporter Reveals Controversy and Contradictions, 11/9
An attack last week on Russian reporter Oleg Kashin, leaving him in a coma with several broken bones, has led to much debate in Russia. The beating is one of three recent assaults on journalists, and may have connection to a much-disputed development project in the Khimki Forest.
Oleg Kashin – well-known in Russia, for use of provocative language on online sites as well as for his reporting prowess – most recently was involved in protesting the proposed highway through the Khimki Forest, a plan which would involve razing entire sections of this natural habitat. Some authorities believe that this was what led to the attack, citing a similar attack on a popular environmental activist also against the project two days previous as proof. Another theory is that the attack was meant simply to intimidate independent journalism, using Kashin as a symbol in a tirade against freedom of the press. Freedom of expression has been a matter of some contention in Russia lately: just last week Medvedev vetoed a law that would restrict organized protests and rallies severely. A government paper, Itar-Tass, quoted him saying that “without the emancipation of the people, the human potential, nothing can be done.” On the other hand, many other repressive measures are still in place and Russia is still considered one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a reporter.
As of yet, the police still do not know who organized the attack or why – despite the aid of several international journalism organizations, the protests of the U.S. embassy, and Medvedev’s personal proclamation that whoever was in charge will be punished, no matter who they may be. In the meantime, students show their support in constant one-man picketing (all the demonstration they can legally do), and the Russian journalists’ union has advocated a protest column in all Moscow papers on the 5th of each month until the case is solved.
Oleg Kashin – well-known in Russia, for use of provocative language on online sites as well as for his reporting prowess – most recently was involved in protesting the proposed highway through the Khimki Forest, a plan which would involve razing entire sections of this natural habitat. Some authorities believe that this was what led to the attack, citing a similar attack on a popular environmental activist also against the project two days previous as proof. Another theory is that the attack was meant simply to intimidate independent journalism, using Kashin as a symbol in a tirade against freedom of the press. Freedom of expression has been a matter of some contention in Russia lately: just last week Medvedev vetoed a law that would restrict organized protests and rallies severely. A government paper, Itar-Tass, quoted him saying that “without the emancipation of the people, the human potential, nothing can be done.” On the other hand, many other repressive measures are still in place and Russia is still considered one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a reporter.
As of yet, the police still do not know who organized the attack or why – despite the aid of several international journalism organizations, the protests of the U.S. embassy, and Medvedev’s personal proclamation that whoever was in charge will be punished, no matter who they may be. In the meantime, students show their support in constant one-man picketing (all the demonstration they can legally do), and the Russian journalists’ union has advocated a protest column in all Moscow papers on the 5th of each month until the case is solved.
From the Moscow Times:
From ITAR-TASS:
From the New York Times, on the veto:
Russia Favors Development Over Diplomacy in Island Dispute, 11/3
Yesterday, Japan withdrew its ambassador to Russia in protest over a reignited territorial dispute concerning the sparsely inhabited, oil-rich Kuril Islands. The issue was brought to life with Russian President Medvedev’s visit to the islands last week, during which he promised the local people modernization and praised the southern-most island as one of Russia’s “beautiful places.”
The Kuril Islands (called the Northern Territories by Japan) are a chain of four islands stretching from just North of Japan to the Southern tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula, part of Russia. Originally the islands belonged to Japan, but they were seized by Soviet forces at the end of World War II – forces who then deported the Japanese citizens on the islands, and brought in Russian settlers. Since that time, no conclusion has been reached about the true ownership of the islands. Several times in the past Russia offered to make a treaty with Japan, splitting the islands evenly between the two countries, but Japan remained intent on regaining the entire archipelago.
President Medvedev is the first Russian leader to visit the islands. For a tourist, they present little attraction; however, the surrounding waters have been found to be rich in fish and potential oil fields (not to mention handy travel routes for trade vessels). Russia has promised to invest in the development of the islands, just as Medvedev has promised to return to them soon. It is characteristic of Medvedev to act somewhat aggressively in the face of territorial disputes. His move, therefore, is seen more as a domestic measure – showing commitment to holding on to territories and bringing all of Russia’s various regions into the future – than as an international clash.
The Kuril Islands (called the Northern Territories by Japan) are a chain of four islands stretching from just North of Japan to the Southern tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula, part of Russia. Originally the islands belonged to Japan, but they were seized by Soviet forces at the end of World War II – forces who then deported the Japanese citizens on the islands, and brought in Russian settlers. Since that time, no conclusion has been reached about the true ownership of the islands. Several times in the past Russia offered to make a treaty with Japan, splitting the islands evenly between the two countries, but Japan remained intent on regaining the entire archipelago.
President Medvedev is the first Russian leader to visit the islands. For a tourist, they present little attraction; however, the surrounding waters have been found to be rich in fish and potential oil fields (not to mention handy travel routes for trade vessels). Russia has promised to invest in the development of the islands, just as Medvedev has promised to return to them soon. It is characteristic of Medvedev to act somewhat aggressively in the face of territorial disputes. His move, therefore, is seen more as a domestic measure – showing commitment to holding on to territories and bringing all of Russia’s various regions into the future – than as an international clash.
From the New York Times:
From the Moscow Times:
Analysis of the conflict, by the BBC:
Repayment for Repression, 10/26
Last Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled to fine Russia for the prevention of gay rights demonstrations over the past decades. The charges were brought up by activist Nikolai Alexeyev (pictured at left), who calls the resultant punishment a “blow to Russian homophobia on all accounts.”Despite being kidnapped and threatened not to press charges earlier this month, activist Alexeyev successfully carried out his case. The court ruled that the Russian government had discriminated against gay rights activists by limiting their given right (guaranteed under the Russian Constitution) to assemble. The government’s defense – that allowing such parades would incite violence – was deemed insufficient; especially since recorded anti-gay rights comments from Russian government officials are numerous. The total cost of legal fees and damages end up just above $40,000, which Russia as a member of the Council of Europe (and therefore subject to the Court, which convenes in France), must pay.
Moscow’s history of homophobia would be considered extreme by most. The former mayor, Luzhkov, reportedly vowed never to allow gay rights parades and deemed homosexuals “satanic.” Though Medvedev as president has promised more democratic laws and rights, there has so far been little movement in that direction and it remains unclear whether Moscow’s new government – under Sobyanin, known for little other than a certain dedication to Putin – will be more open to the demonstrations. In the meantime, the gay rights community has experienced internal tension as Alexeyev (riding a wave of triumph too far, perhaps) has announced plans to sue a fellow activist over slander.
From the Moscow Times:
From the BBC:
A New Day in the Neighborhood? 10/18
In the past week, Russian president Dmitri Medvedv has busied himself extensively with international affairs. In addition to lobbying the E.U. for more concrete collaboration, he spent several days with leaders of both France and Germany on retreat in Deauxville and promised to attend the meeting of NATO discussing a proposed missile shield.As Russia struggles to revamp its relations with Europe, it has become clear that the EU does not have a unified foreign relations policy strong enough to deal with the emerging Federation. Several issues important to Russia, such as economic agreements and visa-free passage for its citizens to Western European nations, are making no progress with the EU as a whole (though Sarkozy of France recently commented that he expected the visa issue to be resolved by 2025). In light of this, Russia returned to the small-group approach.
For this was not the first time that Russia, France, and Germany in particular have met. The last time was a meeting of mutual disapproval in regard to the American invasion of Iraq. This time, diplomats assure Washington, there was no need for the U.S. to be concerned. Main topics of discussion included security and commercial partnerships - German companies in particular seem eager to encourage modernization in Russia, and Moscow is glad of the help. The three leaders - Medvedev, Sarkozy, and Merkel - emerged from their two-day conference united and optimistic about future relations.
In addition, Medvedev has accepted an invitation to be part of NATO missile shield discussions - though without committing to the idea of blind cooperation. In this as with the EU, Russia insists on a clarified process for including Russian input on decisions made - in other words, Moscow wants in on what's going on in the west.
Three-way analysis from the BBC:
From the New York Times, about Russia and the E.U.:
From the Moscow Times:
United Russia Reinforces its Reign, 10/15
In the regional elections last Sunday, four of Russia's biggest political parties were in competition for dominancy. The results are decisive, and not too surprising: the party that came out in front was United Russia (in other words, Putin's party, formed when he became President) with, in some areas, a majority of 98%.
Elections were held in 77 regions for various posts, including parliamentary seats and, in two cities, mayor. The average voter turnout of just over 49% was an increase from last election - just as United Russia's winning percentage of 56% was an increase of 4%. With the nearest competitor, A Just Russia, coming in with around 10%, this is a very comfortable margin for Putin's party. (Made even more comfortable by the fact that A Just Russia, which is publicized as United Russia's main opposition, is headed by a close friend of Putin's.) The other two parties, the Liberal Democrats and the Communists, ended up with only a handful of positions each.
Though there were no walkouts this year (there have been in the past) the elections were denounced by both the Liberal Democrats and the Communists as one of the dirtiest elections in recent memory. United Russia is accused of getting rid of opposing candidates as well as bribery, blackmail, and fraud in some areas - because of which the Communist leader has announced plans to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Many officials pessimistically see this as an indication of how the 2012 presidential elections will be run.
From ITAR-TASS:
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15576400&PageNum=2
From The Moscow Times:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-claims-landslide-win/419679.html
Elections were held in 77 regions for various posts, including parliamentary seats and, in two cities, mayor. The average voter turnout of just over 49% was an increase from last election - just as United Russia's winning percentage of 56% was an increase of 4%. With the nearest competitor, A Just Russia, coming in with around 10%, this is a very comfortable margin for Putin's party. (Made even more comfortable by the fact that A Just Russia, which is publicized as United Russia's main opposition, is headed by a close friend of Putin's.) The other two parties, the Liberal Democrats and the Communists, ended up with only a handful of positions each.
Though there were no walkouts this year (there have been in the past) the elections were denounced by both the Liberal Democrats and the Communists as one of the dirtiest elections in recent memory. United Russia is accused of getting rid of opposing candidates as well as bribery, blackmail, and fraud in some areas - because of which the Communist leader has announced plans to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Many officials pessimistically see this as an indication of how the 2012 presidential elections will be run.
From ITAR-TASS:
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15576400&PageNum=2
From The Moscow Times:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-claims-landslide-win/419679.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)