The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy TOWARD GEORGIA, Moldova, Ukraine, and the BALTIC STATES
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THe “HUMANITARIAN DIMENSION” OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, UKRAINE, AND THE BALTIC STATES Riga, 2009 EDK: 327(470)+327(474) Hu 451 This book is work of six think tanks from Baltic States, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Centre for East European Policy Studies (Latvia) had a leading role in the im- plementation of this research project. Contributors include the International Centre for Defence Studies (Estonia), the Centre for Geopolitical Studies (Lithuania), the School for Policy Analysis at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Ukraine), the Foreign Policy Association of Moldova (Moldova), and the International Centre for Geopolitical Studies (Georgia). The research project was implemented with the support of the Konrad Ade- nauer Foundation and of the East - East: Partnership Beyond Borders Program of the Soros Foundation – Latvia. The book has been distributed with support of National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Editor: Gatis Pelnēns Project Director: Andis Kudors Authors of the study: Juhan Kivirähk, Nerijus Maliukevičius, Dmytro Kon- dratenko, Olexandr Yeremeev, Radu Vrabie, Nana Devdariani, Mariam Tsatsanash- vili, Nato Bachiashvili, Tengiz Pkhaladze, Gatis Pelnēns, Andis Kudors, Mārtiņš Pa- parinskis, Ainārs Dimants, Ainārs Lerhis. English translation editor: Rihards Kalniņš Design of the cover and layout: Toms Deģis © Authors of the study (text), 2009 © Centre for East European Policy Studies, International Centre for Defence Studies, Centre for Geopolitical Studies, School for Policy Analysis at the National university of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Foreign Policy Association of Moldova, Interna- tional Centre for Geopolitical Studies, 2009 © SIA Apgāds Mantojums (design concept), 2009 ISBN: 978-9984-39-908-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . 8 Introduction . 12 Methodology . 14 1 . The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy: Meaning and Background . 18 1.1. Opening the Box: Elements of the “Humanitarian Trend . 20 1.2. Making Ideas Work: the Provision of Resources for Foreign Policy . 25 1.3. Inputs and Outputs: the “Humanitarian Trend” and its Targets . 26 2 . The “Humanitarian Dimension” and Russian Foreign Policy . 28 3 . Power and Geopolitics in the “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy . 36 4 . Case Studies . 49 4 1. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Estonia . 49 4.1.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006–2008: Estonia . 50 4.1.2. Compatriots as a Tool of Russian Foreign Policy in Estonia . 62 4.1.3. Consular Issues of Russian Foreign Policy in Estonia . 75 4.1.4. Culture, Education. 80 4.1.5. Mass Media: Consumption and Confidence . 88 4 2. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Georgia . 95 4.2.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006–2008: Georgia . 96 4.2.2. Russian Compatriots Policy in Georgia . 111 4.2.3. Consular Issues of Russian Foreign Policy in Georgia. 118 4.2.4. Culture . 126 4.2.5. Education . 128 4.2.6. Russian Mass Media in Georgia . 133 4 3. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Latvia . 137 4.3.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006 – 2008: Latvia . 138 4.3.2. Russian Compatriots Policy in Latvia . 153 4.3.3. Consular Issues of Russian Foreign Policy in Latvia. 161 4.3.4. Culture, Education. 169 4.3.5. Russian Mass Media in Latvia . 180 4 4. The Humanitarian Dimension of Russian Foreign Policy in Lithuania . 191 4.4.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006 – 2008: Lithuania . 192 4.4.2. Russian Support of Compatriots Living in Lithuania . 193 4.4.3. Consular Issues of the Russian Foreign Policy in Lithuania . 200 4.4.4. Culture, Education. 202 4.4.5. Russian Mass Media in Lithuania . 207 4 5. The Humanitarian Dimension of Russian Foreign Policy in Moldova . 211 4.5.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006 – 2008: Moldova . 212 4.5.2. Russian Compatriots Policy in Moldova . 219 4.5.3. Consular Issues of Russian Foreign Policy in Moldova . 224 4.5.4. Culture, Education. 228 4.5.5. Russian Mass Media in Moldova: General Aspects and Trends . 236 4 6. The Humanitarian Dimension of Russian Foreign Policy in Ukraine . 245 4.6.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006 – 2008: Ukraine . 246 4.6.2. Russian Compatriots Policy in Ukraine. 252 4.6.3. Consular Issues of the Russian Foreign Policy in Ukraine . 263 4.6.4. Culture . 274 4.6.5. Russian Policy in Education and Science in Ukraine . 282 4.6.6. Russian Mass Media in Ukraine . 291 5 . Comparison . 296 5.1. Russian Human Rights Practice. 296 5.2. Russian Compatriots Policy . 299 5.3. Consular Issues . 304 5.4. Culture and Education . 307 5.5. Russian Mass Media . 310 6 . Conclusions . 314 Bibliography . 329 Partner Organizations . 349 Notes on Authors . 350 Tables Table No. 1 – Design of the Empirical Study . 15 Table No. 2 – Television Channel Audiences Among Russian-Language View- ers Oct-Nov . 91 Table No. 3 – The Estonian Russian-Language Population’s Confidence in the Media . 93 Table No. 4, Russian propaganda material designed to spread official version of history . 198 Table No. 5, Ability to communicate in different languages among various groups of Lithuanian society (in percent) . 199 Table No. 6, Ability to understand different languages among various groups of 204 Lithuanian society (in percent) . 205 Table No. 7, The Traditional Religious Denominations of the Byzantine Tradition in Ukraine . 278 Table No. 8, Satisfaction of Educational Needs of Russians in Ukraine and Ukrai- nians in Russia (academic year 2008-2009 . 288 FOREWORD “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” Mahatma Gandhi History offers many examples where a state — the birthplace of a particular cul- ture or even a civilization — assumes as its mission the dissemination of values not only to its own people but also “outside,” that is, to other people and states. Such mes- sianism has undoubtedly given many people the opportunity to mutually enrich each other. However, in many cases, evidence shows that the dissemination of cultural values has in fact been a screen for the achievement of a state’s foreign policy goals. The Eastern European region, whose countries are studied by the Centre for East European Policy Studies (CEEPS), is distinguished by a huge variety of cultures in a relatively small geographical space. The political choices of its countries are also different; democracies exist side by side with authoritarian states. In our mod- ern globalized world, the states are less protected from the unwelcome influence of other actors. In the international environment, the active policy of any state has an influence on other players of international policy, especially neighbors. Therefore, in its research, the CEEPS devotes special attention to the influence of Russia’s foreign policy towards its neighboring states. During research work for the book Outside Influence on the Ethnic Integra- tion Process in Latvia (English version: Riga, 2007; 2nd edition, Riga, 2008) CEEPS researchers struck upon the idea to deepen and broaden their research of the hu- manitarian trend of Russia’s foreign policy. CEEPS then embarked on an combined international research project with five research centers from other states: the Inter- national Centre for Defence Studies (Estonia), the Centre for Geopolitical Studies (Lithuania), the School for Policy Analysis at the National university of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Ukraine), the Foreign Policy Association of Moldova (Moldova), and the International Centre for Geopolitical Studies (Georgia). As a result of this research, you have in your hands the second book issued by CEEPS. The new edition is a research study on the problem of Russia’s humanitarian influence on independent countries of the former U.S.S.R. Let us take a brief glimpse at the history of this region. During the period of the Soviet Union’s disintegration (1989–1991), one of the aims of non-Russian Soviet republics was to minimize the strength of power of the “federal centre,” i.e., Kremlin domination, in order to procure equal rights for all Soviet republics. Even the state structures of the biggest Soviet republic, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Re- 8 public (R.S.F.S.R.), suffered from the Kremlin dictate. The refusal of the Kremlin to comply with these requirements resulted in many centrifugal tendencies which led to the collapse of the U.S.S.R.. To some extent, along with economic factors and other reasons, this was a re- sponse to decades-long Soviet policy of Russification of all non-Russian republics. (In spite of official Soviet ideology of equal rights for all peoples, Russification was allowed during the entire Soviet period under the slogans of “proletarian internation- alism” and “brotherly assistance to other peoples (republics)” and in the process of industrialization.) It may seem somewhat paradoxically, but in this way the previous tsarist policy of Russification was continued by the Communists. under Commu- nist rule, the U.S.S.R. inherited almost all the territory of the former tsarist Russian Empire. Despite many mutually irreconcilable ideological contradictions, in some issues (such as Russification and regaining the former territories) the position of the Communists and the supporters of the former tsarist Russian Empire among Rus- sian exiles (the White movement) were similar. During the Soviet era, Russia was considered a core of the Soviet Union, and many people (especially immigrants who fled to non-Russian republics) also unofficially treated the other fourteen Soviet re- publics (i.e., outside R.S.F.S.R.) as Russia. After the disintegration of the U.S.S.R., many immigrants suddenly found themselves “living abroad,” and were uncomfort- able outside the new borders that now divided them.