Russia And CIS
When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, due to many pressures both internal
and
external, the ex-soviet satellites were given their independence, much
to
Russia's dismay. A new trend towards sovereignty made it difficult for
the
largest country in the world to deny it's former members the right to
separate.
However, even with the creation of the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS),
Russia is still heavily involved with the
matters of its former soviet members.
This then leaves the question, are
those former states truly sovereign? In the
following pages we will examine
the many reasons as to why this question is
currently being posed. Firstly,
we will look at Russia's history on the
international scene and how they have
not really changed their agenda throughout
the last century, up into the
present. Along with the brief history, we shall
elaborate on the reasons why
the CIS was founded. Furthermore, modern day Russia
seems to feel the need to
impose itself upon these new sovereign states for
various reasons that we
will elaborate upon. Lastly, the members of the CIS see
Russia as both a
friend and foe to the organisation, which will be shown by
looking at their
interests and why they have divided views. However, to fully
understand the
complexities that are the Russian Empire, let us take a step back
in time to
when Peter the Great was building a country of grandeur. In the
early
18th century, Peter the Great continued the expansion set forth by
his
predecessors, and fought a long war against the seasoned Swedish army.
With the
final defeat of their army, Peter gained control of several small
countries,
Latvia, Lithuania, Ingria and Estonia. Upon his return from
the war the Russian
senate voted that he bear the title of the Great and
Emperor, his acceptance of
the last title marked the official inauguration of
the Russian Empire. Peter the
Great continued to fight wars in hopes of
expanding Russia's borders and its
economy, regardless of cost, which
eventually led to mistrust within the empire.
Russia was indeed a world
power, influencing and controlling its neighbours.
Having built such a
vast empire was only part of Peter's public appeal, he was a
very ruthless
but enlightened leader, the kind that appealed to the Russian
people. In one
of the bloodier cases, he had 1000 members of a coup d'?tat
assassinated, a
punishment that he himself helped administer. Upon his death,
many school
children were then raised to see Peter as a hero, and a model
leader. Perhaps
then it is not so surprising that in the decades to follow, his
accepted
ruthlessness would be passed down into the next generations of leaders,
this
time having stricter doctrines within the regimes. As Karl Marx's ideas
of
socialism spread across a desperate nation several men stepped forward to
end
the oppression and starvation of their beloved country. The Russian
revolution
in 1917 seemed to be a refreshing change compared to the
imperialism of the old
regime and so countries such as Ukraine, Poland and
Belarus joined willingly,
hoping to find guidance for their country.
Regardless of the many positive
changes in the late 1920's, Joseph Stalin
gained sole control of the Soviet
Union and was more or less as ruthless
as Peter the great himself. He began
expanding and militarising the union,
putting the state above each and every
man. In the Ukraine, profitable farms
were condensed into collective farms
hoping to support industrialisation, and
as a result there was a great famine
and an estimated 5 to 7 million
Ukrainians died. Even in Ukraine's darker
period, because of their many
natural resources, they were still considered very
important to the Soviet
Empire, almost its backbone. The Ukraine was not the
only country to be used
by the Soviets. Since the USSR spanned eight time zones,
the land occupied
was enormous; in fact it was the largest in the world. With
such diverse
landscapes there came many different natural resources which were
used to
feed and house the population of the Soviet Union as well as push the
economy
forward with its exports. The trees blanketing one-third of the
Soviet
Union constituted more than one-quarter of the earth's forest
cover,
subsequently making it one of the main exports, coming second only to
the mining
industry. The mineral deposits and precious metals in the
Ukrainian and Siberian
areas brought in the most revenue for the Soviets. Now
it is quite evident that
one of the reasons that the USSR prospered was that
upon its vast amount of land
were several different resources which they had
every right to exploit, allowing
access to the whole of the union, rather
than one single area within. As the
Soviet Union weakened, its last
secretary general, Mikhail Gorbachev, decided
that it was time to end the
socialist era in 1991.Many countries, who had relied
upon the omnipresent
Soviet government for so long, were lost. New governments
were appointed in
each new state, and so, the roller coaster began. At first it
seemed as if a
great weight had been lifted from the minds of the people in
Eastern
Europe, but it was soon apparent that a new accord would have to be
signed to
protect the minorities within the neighbouring states and distribute
the
Soviet armed forces, among other things. The newly elected Russian
president,
Boris Yeltsin, the Ukrainian president, Leonid Kravchuk and the
Supreme
Soviet Chairman, Stanislav Shushkevich, met in the secluded Minsk forest
in
December of 1991 to discuss the terms for the new accord. However, as
time
would later prove, there was a wide gulf in the understanding between
the
"fathers" of the commonwealth. "Boris Yeltsin would manoeuvre
for
Russian supremacy over the organisation. Leonid Kravchuk would insist
on an
amicable separation between equal and sovereign independent states.
Stanislav
Shushkevich would argue for Belarusian neutrality and a
multinational,
"rule-of-international-law" organisation that would enable
Belarus to
sow the first seeds of a separate national identity." Since these
countries
had been linked so closely together for such a long time, they
shared many
common bonds, some of which Russia was not ready to let go. When
the accord was
created and the parties had all agreed to the terms, things
appeared to be fine.
However, it took little time to realise that Russia
was unsatisfied with the
direction in which things were heading and proceeded
to place itself at the head
of the arena. Moscow was sick and tired of
complying with the opinions of its
partners and decided to exercise the right
of Big Brother to the CIS. They
continued on to forbid CIS members to pursue
independent external policies.
Yeltsin called it "committing to their
first priority, the CIS, and to
refrain from participation in unions or blocs
against any or all of the
states." There is an actual clause stating that if
any member of the CIS
forms an alliance outside the given states then they
will be forced to withdraw
from the commonwealth, however, it is no surprise
that clause does not apply,
nor will ever apply, to Russia. As stated in
president Kravchuk's electoral
slogan, "Russia does not intend to develop its
relations with CIS countries
on the basis of international law. (...) the
further integration with the
Commonwealth is leading to the watering down
of CIS countries sovereignty,
subordination of the interests to those of
Russia, and the recreation of a
centralised superpower." We have seen that
Russia has always had interests
in her neighbouring countries, sometimes
turning violent, sometimes not, but
always causing tension. The many borders
surrounding the largest country in the
world preoccupy its government for
safety reasons. During the Soviet reign, and
most importantly during the cold
war, the Soviet states surrounding Russia were
a security barrier, a
guarantee the west wouldn't creep up to the Kremlin
unnoticed. However, there
have been offers by NATO to several of the countries
of the CIS for
membership, consequently enraging Russia, who does not want the
western
organisation sitting on its doorstep. NATO argues that it is not
expanding to
spite Russia and has even offered them a seat, which, was evidently
refused.
Even though there is tension with the occident, North America is not
what
preoccupies Yeltsin the most. With the bombings in Kosovo this past year,
we
can see that Moscow's concerns fall mostly in Europe. Because of the
Kosovo
bombings there have been threats by Moscow to form negative alliances
with
Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Iran and China if there were to be a NATO
enlargement«
L'expansion de l'OTAN qui montre sa d?termination ? dominer
la plan?te
pour les prochaines cinquante et une ann?es obligera la Russie
?
recr?er son propre potentiel militaire », ?crit
Vladimir
Kouznetchevski, qui ajoute : « On ne peut arr?ter cette
expansion que par
la force.» However, an alliance of that kind would alienate
them from the west,
as well as financial aid. Albeit Russia's current
preoccupation with the eastern
European NATO expansion and the bombings
in Kosovo, it has never had the
intention to join the neither European Union
nor NATO. Moscow has been offered,
at several occasions, a place at the EU to
calm tense nerves, but like with
NATO, it refused. To join itself to
either would mean subjecting Russia to the
discipline and will of its former
rivals, so they have chosen to counter it.
They have participated in
several European security meetings and are no stranger
to dealings with the
EU, but are too proud to accept membership. To compensate
for this over sized
ego on the global market, they depend on the members of the
CIS, who are
also "encouraged" to avoid contact with NATO as well. At
times Moscow has
been known use pressure tactics on the countries to get its
way. It would
seem that Russian influence is as important to Moscow as the
nation's
security. In the Caucasus, Moscow is supporting both Karabakh
and
Abkhazia, two nations who have had longstanding disputes. This move
allows
Russia to play both sides and still remain influential. Their fear
is this; if
quarrelling countries are able to resolve their conflicts, then
Russia will have
no say and will see its power and influence over the region
diminish. Overall,
Russia's crisis management has been known to be
self-serving, resembling more
the tactics of dividing and ruling than
integration. Georgia and Armenia are
currently addressing the possibility of
peace settlements, but they are both
hoping that Russia's direct role in
their business is finished, as unlikely as
it seems. One of the reasons for
which Moscow is so busy with external affairs
is that its own country is in
shambles. "La corruption financi?re
sans limites, la d?gradation nationale et
le cataclysme ?conomique
dans lesquels se d?bat la Russie depuis l'arriv?e au
pouvoir de M.
Boris Eltsine en 1991 n'ont pas de pr?c?dent dans
l'histoire du
capitalisme au XXe si?cle. En huit ans, les apparatchiks du
pr?sident,
la nouvelle oligarchie et leurs mentors am?ricains ont ruin?
le
pays." Experts have compared modern Russia to Chicago in the 1920's
because
of the extreme crime rate. It is well known that Russian Mafia play a
large part
in the running of the country, with influence in the surrounding
areas as well,
and as such the people have lost faith in their government.
There is not only a
problem with crime however, the economy is much worse.
Boris Yeltsin is trying
to strengthen his appeal to voters by giving them
what they want, a strong
Russia. Throughout Russia's history, there has
always been a legacy of strength
and power. When the USSR failed and the
government became democratic, the people
believed that it would bring them
prosperity. However, it brought them
corruption, in the greatest sense of the
word. As mentioned above, inner turmoil
and bankruptcy are tearing Russia
apart. Unpaid salaries are among the dozens of
hardships the Russian
population is facing, but seeing as they are a democratic
nation, the
impoverished masses are voters, and will decide Yeltsin's fate. He
is trying
to win over his people by getting Russia involved in
international
situations. Take for instance the conflict in Kosovo; there
have always been
tensions between Moscow and Yugoslavia, but Yeltsin rallied
his people against
the American bombings. Regardless of the tension, the
masses are focusing their
anger towards anti-American propaganda because it
is all they have. "La
crise des Balkans agit sur l'?volution du paysage
politique russe de mani?re
multiforme. Si, jusqu'ici, le th?me du « complot
am?ricain contre
la Russie » ne rencontrait qu'un ?cho assez mod?r?, la
crise
du Kosovo survient dans un contexte en pleine ?volution."
Moscow
needs to fuel the fire to keep people's faith. "Pour beaucoup de
Russes, la
guerre men?e par l'OTAN confirme la volont? des Am?ricains
de
mettre leur pays ? genoux. D'autant qu'ils sont sensibles ?
leur
isolement croissant." The recent conflict in Chechnya is yet
another
instance where Russia refuses to let go. They have asked for their
independence
on countless occasions since the reign of Peter the Great and
have always been
refused. Just recently, there has been some activity around
the Russian-Chechnyan
border causing panic throughout the state.
Unfortunately though, Moscow has
played the situation to it's fullest,
bombing their own civilian buildings and
placing the blame on Chechnyan
terrorists, subsequently winning over the Russian
people. Just like in the
Russian Tsarist and Stalinist periods, Yeltsin is using
force to appeal to
the Russian public. Instead of giving the small nation their
independence,
the Yeltsin government has pushed them over once again, only this
time
bombing civilians and creating thousands of casualties. Moscow
is
disregarding the suggestion for peace by CIS members and justifies the
bombings
for its own gain. It would seem that the CIS only matters when it
will profit
Russia. The members of the CIS also have issues with Russia.
It is known that
Moscow uses the Commonwealth for its own purpose but its
members are not wholly
ignorant. Some countries need Russia, or have been led
to believe they do, and
some know they do not need Russia but can't seem to
shake them off. During the
Soviet period many Russians emigrated all over
its territory, settling families
and lives. Today that is causing many
problems with countries that would choose
to oppose Russia, the Ukraine for
instance. There are nearly 15 millions
Russians within Ukraine's borders,
and as such they are a heavy minority. They
represent enough of a pull for
the government not to disregard them in matters
of the state. Russia has much
say in Ukrainian dealings because of that specific
minority, albeit president
Kravchuk's disapproval. It is known amongst the
ex-Soviet states that the
Russians overlook other nationalities with an undue
degree of ethnic
superiority, creating tensions. Ukraine has a problem with this
but can say
nothing because of the repercussions it would cause between them
and
Russia, especially since there is enough tension there already. The
Ukraine also
relies heavily on Russian fuel and has strong cultural links so
it wouldn't be
able to find allies elsewhere without being cutoff of a vital
supply. In 1995,
Russia threatened to call the Ukraine a bankrupt country
and demand their debt
be paid off in Ukraine assets. Moscow is using its
imports, exports and past
debts to manipulate other countries. Another
country stuck in Russia's economic
grasp is Kyrgyzstan. The Kyrgyz government
believes that to be truly independent
economically, they must depend on
Russian support. The president stated,
"If we break these relations, there is
a risk that the Kyrgyz will return
to their traditional nomadic life as
cattle breeders." They rely on fuel
material, lubricants and equipment
provided by Russia, which, if they were to be
taken away, would greatly
affect Kyrgyz agriculture. Also, reforms in the
mid-Asian state also depend
on Russia, or so believe the president of Kyrgyz,
"it will be impossible to
achieve reforms in Kyrgyzstan without close
cooperation with Russia." There
is a fear throughout many mid-Asian
countries that if they turn their
interests to the south or west for economic
purposes, they will lose all
support from Russia. This does not leave them much
choice in the matters of
their states. They have been dependant on their
northern ally for such a long
time that it would appear they know no better than
to agree with whatever
decision comes their way. We can see that through
manipulation and the image
of power, Russia tends to get its way, all the while
impeding on the
sovereignty of its neighboring states. Russia today is not that
different
from the Russia back in the 19th century, doing what it can to form
a
superpower, at which they are the head country. Even as Russia is in its
darkest
economic period they have not let go of their pride, rallying the
people to
support the Kremlin's decisions, as well as manipulation the other
countries
into believing Russia is the beginning and the end of eastern
European politics.
Many scholars believe that the CIS is in fact Russia
is piecing together its
former federation, a fallen power desperate to hold
on to everything it has, or
can have for that matter. Russia does not have to
be strong to possess power,
Kissinger once wrote that the perception of
power is as manipulative as power
itself, something the Kremlin knows well.
Current academic works have already
begun replacing the term Commonwealth of
Independent States with a much simpler
term, Russia. It will be interesting
to see in the coming years where such a
country will be. With the failing
economy and internal politics turned inside
out by crime, one would think not
to far, but Russia still has enough kick to
get by and maybe what the critics
say is true, with the help from the west,
Russia will rebuild its empire
to one day stand again.
Bibliography
1-Bremmer, Ian, Russia's
Total Security, World Policy Journal Volume XVI No.2
Summer 1999
2-Brzezkinski, Zbigniew- Sullivan, Paige, Russia and the
Commonwealth of
Independent States- Documents, Data and Analysis, Library of
Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data, New York, 1997, 855 pages 3-LE
MONDE
DIPLOMATIQUE - Ukraine, une soci?t? bloqu?e MAI 1998 - Page
8
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1998/05/PFLIMLIN/10467.html 4-LE
MONDE
DIPLOMATIQUE - Temp?te politique en Russie JUIN 1999 - Page 10
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1999/06/RADVANYI/12117.html
5-Microsoft
Encarta Encyclopedia 2000, Interactive software, 1999 6-The
National
Russia and Election 2000 September 6/13, 1999
http://www.thenation.com