Paul Goble
Vienna, August 25 – Boris Yeltsin’s support for the rise of the oligarchs and the latter’s decision to turn to the siloviki in order to protect themselves from any challenge from the people laid the foundations for Vladimir Putin to construct his increasingly authoritarian regime, according to the leader of the liberal Yabloko party.
But as depressing as that trend has been, several articles in the Russian press today called attention to the appearance of a new history textbook for Russian school children which argues that Stalin’s terror was justified as “an instrument of development,” a message which suggests Putin has plans for an even more draconian system than the one he oversees now.
During a news conference last Thursday that was overshadowed by events in the Caucasus, Yabloko head Sergei Mitrokhin presented his argument step by step, suggesting that Russia’s democrats must better understand both what has gone wrong since 1991 and how they failed to counter it (www.annews.ru/news/detail.php?ID=165604).
“The Yeltsin regime,” Mitrokhin said, “established the oligarchy under the cover of democracy.” The oligarchs played “the key role in economics” and thus took “part of [political] power” into their own hands. Fearful that “society could overthrow this system, the oligarchs called for the help of the siloviki,” the Russian term for those in the security apparatus.
But it rapidly turned out, the Yabloko leader said, that “the siloviki did not become simple marionettes” as the oligarchs had expected, but established their own rules,” rules that meant the oligarchs could continue to play a dominant role in the economy but only if they allowed the siloviki to control politics.
“And those oligarchs who did not want to live according to the rules established by the officers of the special services,” Mitrokhin continued, “have suffered.”
According to the Yabloko head, Russia’s democrats must not only understand this but “acknowledge their own past mistakes since some of them supported the Yeltsin system and others insufficiently effectively struggled against it.” And they must be prepared to revise their understanding of democracy.
“Over the course of the 20th century,” he said, “the communists wanted to construct a just society without freedom. This experiment failed after 70 years. At the end of the 20th century, [Russia’s] democrats attempted to construct a free society, sacrificing justice in pursuit of that aim. That attempt failed after ten years.”
If they are to have a role in Russia anytime soon, he concluded, Russia’s democrats must draw as the most important lesson of the 20th century: “there is no freedom without justice and there is no justice without freedom.” Those who speak “only for freedom,” he said, “have not learned any of the lessons of the past.”
But as unfortunate as Russia’s moves away from democracy over the last decade have been, a new development, reported today by “Vremya novostei” among other Russian news outlets, points to an even more depressing future because it involves what the Kremlin wants Russian children to learn about the Stalinist past (vremya.ru/2008/154/51/211168.html).
The Russian educational establishment is preparing a new textbook on “The History of Russia, 1900 to 1945,” and has already sent out guidance to teachers about the new book’s most important conclusions so they will be ready to inculcate them in the minds of the pupils for whom they are responsible.
This textbook, in the words of its authors, focuses “on the explanation of the motives and logic of the actions of those in power.” In short, the history students are supposed to absorb and master, the newspaper says, “is in the first instance the history of the powers that be.” “There is no history of the people.”
And because this text focuses on one of the most politically controversial periods of Russian history, its authors clearly have sought to reflect the views of those who are in power now, the paper continues. And it provides a long list of the specific conclusions the book offers. Among the most tendentious are the following:
The book insists that the Russian Revolution followed the model of the French revolution, that “in the civil war, the Bolsheviks were guilty but at the same time, the White movement represented an alternative pro-fascist direction,” that “there was no organized famine in the countryside of the USSR,” and that the Soviet Union in the 1930s built not socialism or capitalism but “an industrial society.”
Moreover, it insists that “the Molotov-Ribbentrop was a response to the Munich accords,” “the introduction of Soviet forces onto the territory of Poland in 1939 was for the liberation of the territories of Ukraine and Belarus,” and the absorption of the Baltic states and Bessarabia was appropriate because “earlier they were part of the Russian Empire.”
The Finnish winter war, the textbook says, was won by the Soviet Union which gained what it sought. And it suggests that Stalin was preparing for “a preventive strike against Germany” but had not had time before Hitler struck to develop the Soviet military sufficiently to make such a strike effectively.
And among other things, the new instructional tool, while acknowledging that the NKVD did shoot Polish military prisoners at Katyn, argues that this was “a response to the lost of many (tens) of thousands of Red Army en in Polish prisons after the 1920 war, the initiator of which was not Soviet Russia, but Poland.”
But the most disturbing passages concern Stalin and the Great Terror. According to the textbook, Stalin launched the great terror in order to maintain power and to block the actions of some kind of “fifth column” guided by Trotsky or some group of foreign states against him and his regime.
The textbook tells teachers that “it is important to show that Stalin acted … in a completely rational way, as the protector of the system and as a consistent supporter of the transformation of the country into an industrial society, administered from a single center, as the leader of a country which was threatened with a big war in the most immediate future.
Thus, the book says, “terror was put to the service of the tasks of industrial development,” with the organs dispatching engineers and other specialists “needed for the solution of defense and other tasks to the Far East and to Siberia. And it says that “the terror was transformed into a pragmatic instrument for the solution of economic tasks.”
Last year, when the same group of textbook authors put out another text making some of the same points, including advancing the argument that Stalin was “an effective manager,” there was an outcry among educators, commentators, and others throughout the Russian Federation. And many assumed that the new book would be different.
But now, the paper notes, “a year has passed. The effective manger has become the ‘successful administrator. And mass terror has been explained from ‘a rational point of view.’ What has taken place in our country over the course of the year that the authors continue to advance such claims?”
But there is a larger question than that, on whose answer may depend the future of the Russian Federation and of the world. What kind of a country will Russia be and what kind of a government will Moscow have in a decade if its young people are taught such lessons – and what kind of relations will it and they have with the rest of the world?
UPDATE for August 28: This new history book is not the only textbook that has problems, educators say. Some 80 percent of school texts used in Russia now contain serious mistakes, according to experts at the Ministry of Education (www.argumenti.ru/publications/7635).
Monday, August 25, 2008
Window on Eurasia: Three Disturbing Developments on the Russian Media Scene
Paul Goble
Vienna, August 25 – The past ten days featured three disturbing developments on the Russian media scene: the incautious use by mainstream outlets of reports by xenophobic groups, the destruction of blogs written by those the Kremlin doesn’t like, and official threats to close papers that quote “extremist” materials in order to criticize them.
The first of these developments is far and away the most frightening. The SOVA Center which tracks the treatment of religious and ethnic groups inside the Russian Federation reports that “part of the Russian mass media is simply repeating the information of the DPNI [the Movement Against Illegal Immigration]” without bothering to check its accuracy.
The watchdog site gives as examples reporting by Rosbalt-Povolzh’ye a week ago in which that news outlet reproduced stories from DPNI without pointing out that DPNI activists have a vested interest in exacerbating tension and have issued reports later shown to be exaggerated or even largely invented (xeno.sova-center.ru/213716E/213988B/B93DEDC).
By disseminating such materials, SOVA noted, such “a respectable agency” is not only lending credibility to what that xenophobic group is saying but is contributing to the further deterioration of inter-ethnic relations in the Russian Federation, relations that have become significantly worse since the start of the Russian-Georgian war.
Tragically, in reporting the numerous instances in which Rosbalt-Povolzh’ye has done this, SOVA said that other agencies, including the widely cited “Novyy Region” are doing it as well (http://www.nr2.ru/moskow/192092.html), a development that does not promise anything good for inter-ethnic accord inside the Russian Federation.
The second disturbing development this week was the destruction by hackers of the blog and website of Oleg Panfilov, the director of the Moscow Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations. His blog was taken down, apparently with Moscow’s support, because he has been reporting from Tbilisi during the last two weeks (www.agentura.ru/?id=1219606860).
Russian hackers, often at the urging of Russian officials have frequently attacked the websites of those the Kremlin does not like. The case of Russian hacker attacks on Estonia attracted international attention. But now Moscow is moving into the blogosphere as well, an indication that it plans to tighten the screws on one of the last free spaces in the Russian media.
And the third disturbing development involves the creation of a Catch-22 situation for Russian journalists who want to report on and criticize extremist materials. An article in “Novyye izvestiya” a week ago reported that “Novaya gazeta v Sankt-Petersburg” had been told it might be shut down for quoting extremists in the course of criticizing them.
That leaves journalists with few good choices in discussing and countering the increasingly numerous and noxious extremist ideas circulating in Russia. Under this new official arrangement, the media have to criticize without quoting or their livelihood and the continued operation of their papers may be at risk (www.newizv.ru/news/2008-08-18/96180/).
Undoubtedly, Russian officials will claim that what they are doing will prevent newspapers and other media outlets from spreading such noxious ideas, but in fact, this approach, combined with Moscow’s willingness to allow agencies like Rosbalt-Povolzh’ye to carry DPNI materials, beyond any doubt will make it easier for extremists to spread their venom.
The cure for bad information is good information, not the suppression of the bad; and the cure for evil ideas is active criticism of them and the even more active presentation of good ones. Unfortunately, the Russian government under Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin show no sign of being willing to distance themselves from some of the worst forces in Russian life.
Vienna, August 25 – The past ten days featured three disturbing developments on the Russian media scene: the incautious use by mainstream outlets of reports by xenophobic groups, the destruction of blogs written by those the Kremlin doesn’t like, and official threats to close papers that quote “extremist” materials in order to criticize them.
The first of these developments is far and away the most frightening. The SOVA Center which tracks the treatment of religious and ethnic groups inside the Russian Federation reports that “part of the Russian mass media is simply repeating the information of the DPNI [the Movement Against Illegal Immigration]” without bothering to check its accuracy.
The watchdog site gives as examples reporting by Rosbalt-Povolzh’ye a week ago in which that news outlet reproduced stories from DPNI without pointing out that DPNI activists have a vested interest in exacerbating tension and have issued reports later shown to be exaggerated or even largely invented (xeno.sova-center.ru/213716E/213988B/B93DEDC).
By disseminating such materials, SOVA noted, such “a respectable agency” is not only lending credibility to what that xenophobic group is saying but is contributing to the further deterioration of inter-ethnic relations in the Russian Federation, relations that have become significantly worse since the start of the Russian-Georgian war.
Tragically, in reporting the numerous instances in which Rosbalt-Povolzh’ye has done this, SOVA said that other agencies, including the widely cited “Novyy Region” are doing it as well (http://www.nr2.ru/moskow/192092.html), a development that does not promise anything good for inter-ethnic accord inside the Russian Federation.
The second disturbing development this week was the destruction by hackers of the blog and website of Oleg Panfilov, the director of the Moscow Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations. His blog was taken down, apparently with Moscow’s support, because he has been reporting from Tbilisi during the last two weeks (www.agentura.ru/?id=1219606860).
Russian hackers, often at the urging of Russian officials have frequently attacked the websites of those the Kremlin does not like. The case of Russian hacker attacks on Estonia attracted international attention. But now Moscow is moving into the blogosphere as well, an indication that it plans to tighten the screws on one of the last free spaces in the Russian media.
And the third disturbing development involves the creation of a Catch-22 situation for Russian journalists who want to report on and criticize extremist materials. An article in “Novyye izvestiya” a week ago reported that “Novaya gazeta v Sankt-Petersburg” had been told it might be shut down for quoting extremists in the course of criticizing them.
That leaves journalists with few good choices in discussing and countering the increasingly numerous and noxious extremist ideas circulating in Russia. Under this new official arrangement, the media have to criticize without quoting or their livelihood and the continued operation of their papers may be at risk (www.newizv.ru/news/2008-08-18/96180/).
Undoubtedly, Russian officials will claim that what they are doing will prevent newspapers and other media outlets from spreading such noxious ideas, but in fact, this approach, combined with Moscow’s willingness to allow agencies like Rosbalt-Povolzh’ye to carry DPNI materials, beyond any doubt will make it easier for extremists to spread their venom.
The cure for bad information is good information, not the suppression of the bad; and the cure for evil ideas is active criticism of them and the even more active presentation of good ones. Unfortunately, the Russian government under Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin show no sign of being willing to distance themselves from some of the worst forces in Russian life.
Window on Eurasia: Moscow Now Moving ‘Aggressively' in the Arctic, Canadian Expert Warns
Paul Goble
Vienna, August 25 – Moscow’s use of force in Georgia suggests that Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev are likely to pursue a “very aggressive” policy in their drive to control a large swath of the Arctic Ocean and the enormous natural resources in its seabed, according to a Canadian expert.
“The Russians understand why they need the Arctic,” Rob Hubert, the deputy director of the Center for Military and Strategic Research at the University of Calgary, told the Kazakhstan journal “Delovaya Nedelya,” and they are far “outstripping” all the Arctic powers in their projection of force there (www.iamik.ru/?op=full&what=content&ident=39863).
The Arctic is increasingly becoming an apple of discord not only for the five countries bordering the region – Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, and Norway – but also for three states near the Arctic – Iceland, Sweden and Finland – and for more than 20 other countries, including South Korea and China, which have interests there.
As the map recently released by University of Durham shows, many of these countries have made claims for economic exclusion zones far larger than the normal 200 to 300 kilometers from shore, but no country has sought to exploit one provision of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea more thoroughly than the Russian Federation.
According to that accord, which all the countries involved except the United States have ratified, a country can claim that part of the continental shelf extending from its shores if it is able to demonstrate that the undersea shelf is “an extension” of its own territory. So far, only Russia and Norway have tried to do this, with Russia making the far larger claim.
In 2001, Moscow made its first claim on the basis of the provision, asking for international recognition of Russia’s control over 1.2 million square kilometers of the Arctic seabed. Then in August 2007, it more than doubled its claim after dropping a metal copy of its national flag to the sea floor 4,000 meters deep.
In response, the then Canadian foreign minister Peter McKay called this action “a return to the 15th century, adding that in Ottawa’s view, the Arctic is “Canadian property.” Denmark also responded by announcing its claims, while the United States pointed out that the dropping of the Russian flag onto the seabed “does not have legal significance.”
Last month at a hearing in a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, defense department officials past and present called for an expansion in spending on the building of ice breakers and other equipment suitable for operations in the far north given Russia’s lead in this regard. At present, Russia has seven icebreakers; the US has only four.
Ted Allen, commander of the U.S. Coast Guard, told the congressmen that “we are losing [our] positions in the global competition [in the Arctic]. Russia next year will complete its program of constructing the next generation of icebreakers,” something that will allow Moscow to project power there to 2020.
Over the last several weeks, geopolitical and even military competition in the Arctic has heated up. The Russians launched a new expedition to establish their claims, and the Americans and Canadians dispatched ships to conduct seismic studies in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and the Yukon.
(To make this joint operation possible and in the face of rapidly expanding Russian activities in the Arctic that threaten all other Arctic countries Washington and Ottawa agreed to set aside for the time being their own long-running dispute about the division of that sea north of the Alaskan-Yukon border.)
One of the reasons that the various Arctic powers are taking so many actions there is that according to the UN’s special commission on the continental shelf, they are supposed to agree on the delimitation of the Arctic by the end of May 2009, an accord that in the current circumstances seems implausible.
And thus it is both disturbing and significant that “Delovaya Nedelya’s” Maisur Khabarov should entitle his article posted online today “A Caspian Scenario for the Arctic,” which of course refers to the ongoing diplomatic arguments about the post-Soviet division of the Caspian but after the events in Georgia points to a fundamental change in Moscow’s approach.
Vienna, August 25 – Moscow’s use of force in Georgia suggests that Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev are likely to pursue a “very aggressive” policy in their drive to control a large swath of the Arctic Ocean and the enormous natural resources in its seabed, according to a Canadian expert.
“The Russians understand why they need the Arctic,” Rob Hubert, the deputy director of the Center for Military and Strategic Research at the University of Calgary, told the Kazakhstan journal “Delovaya Nedelya,” and they are far “outstripping” all the Arctic powers in their projection of force there (www.iamik.ru/?op=full&what=content&ident=39863).
The Arctic is increasingly becoming an apple of discord not only for the five countries bordering the region – Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, and Norway – but also for three states near the Arctic – Iceland, Sweden and Finland – and for more than 20 other countries, including South Korea and China, which have interests there.
As the map recently released by University of Durham shows, many of these countries have made claims for economic exclusion zones far larger than the normal 200 to 300 kilometers from shore, but no country has sought to exploit one provision of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea more thoroughly than the Russian Federation.
According to that accord, which all the countries involved except the United States have ratified, a country can claim that part of the continental shelf extending from its shores if it is able to demonstrate that the undersea shelf is “an extension” of its own territory. So far, only Russia and Norway have tried to do this, with Russia making the far larger claim.
In 2001, Moscow made its first claim on the basis of the provision, asking for international recognition of Russia’s control over 1.2 million square kilometers of the Arctic seabed. Then in August 2007, it more than doubled its claim after dropping a metal copy of its national flag to the sea floor 4,000 meters deep.
In response, the then Canadian foreign minister Peter McKay called this action “a return to the 15th century, adding that in Ottawa’s view, the Arctic is “Canadian property.” Denmark also responded by announcing its claims, while the United States pointed out that the dropping of the Russian flag onto the seabed “does not have legal significance.”
Last month at a hearing in a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, defense department officials past and present called for an expansion in spending on the building of ice breakers and other equipment suitable for operations in the far north given Russia’s lead in this regard. At present, Russia has seven icebreakers; the US has only four.
Ted Allen, commander of the U.S. Coast Guard, told the congressmen that “we are losing [our] positions in the global competition [in the Arctic]. Russia next year will complete its program of constructing the next generation of icebreakers,” something that will allow Moscow to project power there to 2020.
Over the last several weeks, geopolitical and even military competition in the Arctic has heated up. The Russians launched a new expedition to establish their claims, and the Americans and Canadians dispatched ships to conduct seismic studies in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and the Yukon.
(To make this joint operation possible and in the face of rapidly expanding Russian activities in the Arctic that threaten all other Arctic countries Washington and Ottawa agreed to set aside for the time being their own long-running dispute about the division of that sea north of the Alaskan-Yukon border.)
One of the reasons that the various Arctic powers are taking so many actions there is that according to the UN’s special commission on the continental shelf, they are supposed to agree on the delimitation of the Arctic by the end of May 2009, an accord that in the current circumstances seems implausible.
And thus it is both disturbing and significant that “Delovaya Nedelya’s” Maisur Khabarov should entitle his article posted online today “A Caspian Scenario for the Arctic,” which of course refers to the ongoing diplomatic arguments about the post-Soviet division of the Caspian but after the events in Georgia points to a fundamental change in Moscow’s approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
