And Russian Foreign Policy 30 4.6.1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) THe “HUMANITARIAN DIMENSION” OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, UKRAINE, AND THE BALTIC StATES The 2nd, supplementary edition Riga, 2010 EDK: 327(470) The 2nd, supplementary edition 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 Ad- enauer Foundation and of the East - East: Partnership Beyond Borders Program of the Soros Foundation – Latvia. 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), 2010 © 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, 2010 © SIA Apgāds Mantojums (design concept), 2010 ISBN: 978-9984-39-989-8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface to Second Edition . 8 4.4.2. Russian Support of Compatriots Living in Lithuania . 195 Foreword . 10 4.4.3. Consular Issues of the Russian Foreign Policy in Lithuania . 202 Introduction . 14 4.4.4. Culture, Education. 204 Methodology . 16 4.4.5. Russian Mass Media in Lithuania . 209 4.5. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Moldova 213 1. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy: 4.5.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006–2008: Moldova . 214 Meaning and Background . 20 4.5.2. Russian Compatriots Policy in Moldova . 220 1.1. Opening the Box: Elements of the “Humanitarian Trend”. 22 4.5.3. Consular Issues of Russian Foreign Policy in Moldova . 226 1.2. Making Ideas Work: the Provision of Resources for Foreign Policy . 27 4.5.4. Culture, Education. 230 1.3. Inputs and Outputs: the “Humanitarian Trend” and its Targets . 28 4.5.5. Russian Mass Media in Moldova: General Aspects and Trends . 238 4.6. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Ukraine. 247 2. The “Humanitarian Dimension” and Russian Foreign Policy. 30 4.6.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006–2008: Ukraine. 248 4.6.2. Russian Compatriots Policy in Ukraine. 254 3. Imagining an Image: Soft Power in the “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian 4.6.3. Consular Issues of the Russian Foreign Policy in Ukraine . 265 Foreign Policy . 38 4.6.4. Culture . 276 4.6.5. Russian Policy in Education and Science in Ukraine . 284 4. Case Studies . 51 4.6.6. Russian Mass Media in Ukraine . 293 4.1. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Estonia . 51 4.1.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006–2008: Estonia . 52 5. Comparison . 298 4.1.2. “Compatriots” as a Tool of Russian Foreign Policy in Estonia . 64 5.1. Russian Human Rights Practice. 298 4.1.3. Consular Issues of Russian Foreign Policy in Estonia . 77 5.2. Russian Compatriots Policy . 301 4.1.4. Culture, Education. 82 5.3. Consular Issues . 306 4.1.5. Mass Media: Consumption and Confidence . 90 5.4. Culture and Education . 309 4.2. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Georgia. 97 5.5. Russian Mass Media . 312 4.2.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006–2008: Georgia . 98 4.2.2. Russian Compatriots Policy in Georgia . 113 Conclusions . 316 4.2.3. Consular Issues of Russian Foreign Policy in Georgia. 120 Bibliography . 331 4.2.4. Culture . 128 Partner Organizations . 351 4.2.5. Education . 130 Notes on Authors . 353 4.2.6. Russian Mass Media in Georgia . 135 4.3. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Latvia . 139 4.3.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006–2008: Latvia . 140 Tables 4.3.2. Russian Compatriots Policy in Latvia . 155 4.3.3. Consular Issues of Russian Foreign Policy in Latvia. 163 Table No. 1. Design of the Empirical Study . 17 4.3.4. Culture, Education. 171 Table No. 2. Television Channel Audiences Among Russian-Language View- 4.3.5. Russian Mass Media in Latvia . 182 ers October-November 2008. 93 4.4. The “Humanitarian Dimension” of Russian Foreign Policy in Lithuania . 193 Table No. 3. The Estonian Russian-Language Population’s Confidence in 4.4.1. Russian Human Rights Practice 2006–2008: Lithuania . 194 the Media . 95 Table No. 4. Russian propaganda material designed to spread official version of history . 200 Table No. 5. Ability to communicate in different languages among various groups of Lithuanian society (in percent) . 206 Table No. 6. Ability to understand different languages among various groups of Lithuanian society (in percent) . 206 Table No. 7. The Traditional Religious Denominations of the Byzantine Tradition in Ukraine . 281 Table No. 8. Satisfaction of Educational Needs of Russians in Ukraine and Ukrai- nians in Russia (academic year 2008/2009) . 290 Russia should be regarded as a toll of influence by “soft power” that does undermine national security in any direct way. Even more, promotion of culture, in context of PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION this study, should be regarded as less threatening than other elements of “humanitar- ian trend”. There are always those who overestimate importance and scope of events on- Second edition of this book, does not provide conceptually new approaches or going around them. There are also those, who underestimate such events or do not overall update of the empirical study. However, some important details are clarified realize the extent of their scope. Most of the researchers would like to assume, that and minor technical details precised. their approach to assessing such events is somewhere in-between! We, the authors of this research, share the same belief, while recognizing, that we are not just a passive Editor, Gatis Pelnēns observers that highlighten certain trends in environment around us, but also partici- pants of debate on Russia’s policies and its influence on our countries. Not a long time has passed since publication of the first edition of this study at the October of last year. However, a need for an update was obvious when research was discussed in book presentation seminars. There were five seminars held altogeth- er to discuss the results of this study – one in each of the „target countries” (Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia). Discussions in seminars allowed us to assess the conceptual framework, that has been chosen as a basis of this study and apply particular cases of “humanitarian” actions to trends in domestic politics of each country. Presentations and discussions also gained attention from media that helped to promote general ideas of the study and highlightened the most sensitive issues for each country. In general, discussions gave positive review on research in all countries. How- ever, certain issues were addressed that show the complexity of our work and two of those in particular should be explained to the reader before entering the study. One of the issues was pointing on incoherent nature of Russia and its Foreign policy. It was argued, that Russia’s foreign policy is not as comprehensive and intentional as portrayed in our study, because there are also other actors than official policy makers that shape actions of “humanitarian trend” and there are a lot of actions taken by ac- cident rather than rational implementation of policy directions. On the one hand, we can agree on such argument for it calls for further analysis of Russia’s domestic policy factors influencing “humanitarian trend” of its foreign policy. On the other hand, however, we would like to note, that analysis of the official level of policy formula- tion and implementation was chosen exactly for the purpose to avoid fragmentized overview of domestic factors and their role. As it was noted, another study would be required to reveal those actors and aspects of Russia’s domestic policy that shape its foreign policy decisions and implementation. Therefore, we have chosen an official policy of Russian Federation as a focal point of this study as [at least] a first step to explore its sources and implications. The other issue was highlightened by media regarding significance of Russian culture in our study. We were faced with a problem that Russian culture was por- trayed as a threat by media and given a decisive role in Russia’s attempts to spread its influence. However, we do not refer directly to the issues of national security when revealing Russia’s cultural influence. It must be noted, that promotion of culture by 8 9 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 FOREWORD the collapse of the U.S.S.R. To some extent, along with economic factors and other reasons, this was a re- “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. sponse to decades-long Soviet policy of Russification of all non-Russian republics. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.