|
|
|
|
|
|
10.05.07
|
Russia Profile Weekly Experts Panel: A Symbolic Battle
|
|
|
By Vladimir Frolov
|
Contributors: Steven Blank, Eric Kraus, Andrei Lebedev, Andrei Tsygankov, Andrei Zagorski
In the run up to this year’s Victory Day on May 9, Russia and the West exchanged new icy statements and exposed their already strained relationship to new tensions with little gain for anybody.
It all started, like all major geopolitical conflicts, in a tiny EU nation: Estonia, where the newly formed government removed a World War II monument – a bronze statue of a Soviet soldier –from the center of Tallinn and dug up the remains of the fallen Soviet servicemen that had been buried underneath the monument.
This action created a firestorm of street protests in Tallinn by Russian-speaking youth, which resulted in the death of one protester (a Russian citizen) and hundreds of arrests, with Estonian police demonstrating unusual brutality.
Russia warned the Estonian government that action against the monument would adversely affect bilateral relations, while the State Duma and First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov called for a boycott of Estonian goods. Moscow also appealed to the EU to dissuade Tallinn from committing this act. Nevertheless, the statue was removed and relocated to a military cemetery in Tallinn.
Then on April 27, the Estonian Embassy in Moscow woke up to find itself under siege. Hundreds of protesters from different youth groups like Nashi and the Young Guards of United Russia camped around the embassy in downtown Moscow holding vigils and chanting anti-fascist slogans. The Estonian ambassador’s car was regularly followed and blocked by youth groups. The whole affair acquired an ugliness that was difficult to fathom just a few years ago.
This finally caught the attention of the EU and Washington. They expressed “serious concern” over the demonstrations at the Estonian Embassy in Moscow and they called the removal of a World War II monument in Tallinn “Estonia’s internal affair.”
Some argue that Moscow overreacted to this incident in Estonia. After all, the Bronze Soldier was simply relocated to another cemetery, not destroyed, and the government promised to rebury the remains after their identities were established. And the siege of the Estonian Embassy could have escalated into a more serious crisis. But what was Moscow left to do after its protest were thoroughly ignored?
So what does this ugly affair tell us about the future of Russia’s relations with the West? And what does it tell us about the trajectory of Russia’s internal development? Has Russia been justified in reacting this forcefully? Why did the West choose to ignore Russia’s sentiments and to dismiss its complaints about Estonia’s behavior?
Andrei Zagorski, Professor, MGIMO-University, Moscow:
Both Tallinn and Moscow share responsibility for the current crisis. The controversy over the Tallinn war monument has been waged over the past year, culminated during the past weeks, and left no room for conciliation.
Since May last year, the dispute over the Soviet monument overshadowed the initial rationale for the Estonian law, which was to exclude the glorification of Nazi and Waffen SS troops, as well as those of the Soviet Union. This theme deserves a separate discussion, but Moscow could and should have shown more sympathy for the feelings of Estonians who had suffered due to the country’s annexation by the Soviet Union.
Both the rhetoric in Moscow and the elections in Estonia have very unhelpfully focused the debate exclusively on one monument, preventing a solution from being reached at an early stage of the debate. The Estonian government did not do enough to diffuse the tension and it was certainly bad timing to move the monument right before May 9.
However, Moscow did even less to diffuse the tension. The very concept of moving a monument to another place is not unusual in Russia itself. When recently a war monument was moved in the Moscow satellite city of Khimki, no one in Moscow found any reason to protest. And, applying a double standard, no government-sanctioned media in Moscow reported the fact that, at the same time as the Soviet monument was moved in Tallinn, three monuments dedicated to the Estonian and Belgian soldiers of Waffen SS were not moved, but removed in Estonia. Instead, in the attempt to punish Tallinn, Moscow exaggerated the way Estonian police acted against the demonstrators. And turning into a hero a young man who, in fact, was not killed by the police, obviously went beyond any rational reaction.
If Moscow had left the situation as it was, the riots in Tallinn would have remained just a moment in Russian-Estonian relations. It was the siege of the Estonian embassy in Moscow that provided the incident with a different dimension. It was the aggressive behavior of the Kremlin-sponsored crowd tolerated by the police – the opposition to Putin could only dream of such tolerance – which consolidated both the EU and NATO and forced them to protest collectively.
As a result, Moscow did not win much. Estonia has ultimately joined the Russia skeptics in the EU who are calling for a postponement of the negotiation of a new agreement with Moscow. Furthermore, the incident has ruined any hopes for a constructive meeting between Russia and the EU during the forthcoming summit in Samara on May 18.
Andrei Tsygankov, Associate Professor, International Relations, San Francisco State University, San Francisco:
The story with the monument indicates, once again, that Estonia and other Western nations are more than willing to hurt Russia’s sense of pride and national memory. By humiliating Russia, Estonia seeks to provoke it into a disproportionate response in order to persuade European nations, such as Germany, that Russia is not a reliable partner. The carefully chosen words by Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip about Russian “drunkards and looters” buried inside the tomb, as well as the timing of the affair – immediately before Russia’s celebration of Victory Day – clearly demonstrate that the calculus was to have a maximum humiliating effect. Isolating Moscow, Tallinn feels, is a good strategy for sabotaging the Northern European Gas Pipeline and perhaps diverting the world’s attention from issues such as discriminatory treatment of ethnic
Russians. The strategy of making Russia into a scapegoat is being tried by Georgia, Poland and some others, not without some short-term success. It may not work in the long run, however.
The Western elites that have fully backed Estonia have somewhat different objectives. They do not want to isolate Russia completely, because they can well imagine what an isolated Russia might mean for their own security. Yet they are quite uncomfortable with Russia’s recent successes in reviving its economic and political potential in the world and are more than happy to put Russia where they feel it belongs in order to continue to extract concessions from it.
The unholy alliance of a tiny Russophobic nation and Western great powers puts Russia in a tough position. Clearly, the Kremlin cannot let this one slide. So much is at stake – national memory, solidarity with ethnic Russians in Estonia who bravely defended the honor of Russia, investigation of death of a Russian citizen. But the response must be a measured one. Russia is only beginning to recover its great power potential, and this recovery is dependent on relationships with Europe. In addition to tough political statements addressed to both Estonia and Western nations, Russia might try some targeted sanctions to see if they have an effect. Moscow should also strengthen its ties with those in the Baltic States who continue to value their ties with Russia. Further, the Kremlin should work with Western nations bilaterally and through international organizations (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council Europe and the UN) explaining the harmful effects of Estonia’s provocations against Russia.
Most importantly, Russia should continue to do what it has been doing for the last six years – accumulating domestic strength to return to world politics as a genuinely powerful nation. Without recovering its status of a great power, as the monument affair shows all too well, Russia may soon enough be deprived of its history and its future.
Andrei Lebedev, Senior Associate, the State Club Foundation, Moscow:
If there were any doubts among the Russians about the biased nature of Western policy towards our country, they were surely dispelled by the EU and U.S. reactions to the Bronze Soldier crisis.
Through the whole event, there were numerous erroneous moves on both sides – of those defending the integrity of the memorial and of those trying to remove it. Or, at least some moves attributed to one of the sides, since street riots and marauding in Tallinn look too provocative to happen spontaneously by people moved by patriotic feelings. The not-so-diplomatic actions directed at Estonian diplomats in Moscow probably went a little too far, though most of them were perfectly legal.
On the other hand, gross violation of human rights and international law took place. The brutal force of the Estonian police led to the death of a Russian citizen. Hundreds of protesters were detained and subjected to humiliating and savage treatment. Contrary to the protests of the relatives of the servicemen buried in Tallinn, contrary to the protests of Russian authorities, official Estonia decided to act unilaterally.
All of this was ignored by Brussels and Washington, and referred to as “internal affairs of Estonia.” Calls for dialogue between Estonians and Russians only followed after young activists in Moscow had expressed their strong feelings against the course undertaken by Tallinn officials. Remarkably, the U.S. State department called on Moscow to “carry out responsibilities under the Vienna Convention concerning diplomatic premises and diplomats,” but never mentioned the Estonian duty to negotiate its decision concerning a military grave with the parties concerned.
Nothing of these events helped to relax tensions in Russian relations with EU and the United States, already strained as they are. Forget about restoring relations with Estonia for decades ahead. The laying of the wreaths at the Bronze Soldier by Estonian leaders should be noted, of course, but taking in the account the circumstances, this looks more like an attempt to smooth the consequences of Tallinn’s irresponsible conduct than a sincere change of mind.
Interestingly enough, another thorn in the side of relations between Russia and the West was accepted as almost naturally comforting by both sides. In Russia, another upsurge of patriotic feelings wouldn’t be excessive in the wake of parliamentary and presidential elections. In the West, there are many proponents of a toughened policy towards Russia, looking for any misgiving, be it real or imagined, to be used as a pretext.
Summing it up, one more irritating factor was added to arguments about gas pipelines, ABM silos in Poland and Russian electoral system that will mar Russian-Western relations for months, if not years, ahead. Psychologically, this factor is weighty, strengthening the “siege mentality” in Moscow. Growing pressure will certainly cause Russia to dig its heels in, thus making it easier for the West to portray Russian authorities as intransigent and unworthy of trust. To save the day, extraordinary efforts of extraordinary leaders from both sides would be necessary.
Steven Blank, U.S. Army War College, Carlyle Barracks, PA
(Dr. Blank’s views as expressed to Russia Profile do not represent those of the U.S. Army, or the U.S. Department of Defense):
I fully believe that it was a misconceived notion on the part of Estonia to remove the statue from its place and that it represents an unnecessary affront to Russia. But the actual scenario of events here is not as many Russians have portrayed it. Omitted is the fact that there were violent demonstrations in Tallinn that led to the immediate removal of the statute, which were generally believed to be orchestrated and organized from outside Estonia. Similarly, the reaction of Nashi which functions, truth be told, as a kind of new pro-Putin Komsomol, was clearly organized by the Russian government. Furthermore, this episode has a long history behind it.
Russia wants to portray itself as being again an aggrieved party, which is regularly insulted and injured by Western countries that have no regard for its interests. But that argument does not stand up to scrutiny. It is very clear that Russia and Estonia have had bad relations for a long time, because politicians on both sides gain from exploiting tensions. But it also true that Moscow has tried regularly to pressure and intimidate all of the Baltic States and restrict their freedom of action and politics or to subvert them from within. Russia still refuses to accept its role in the Baltic after 1939, preferring to focus exclusively on the liberation of the area from the Nazis in 1944-1945, but not on the unending series of crimes that were committed by the Soviet government. Its press still publishes justifications for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and for the take over of the Baltic States, all betraying a larger failure to come to terms with history.
The larger contrast and comparison with Germany and Japan is telling. Germany has openly and repeatedly announced the responsibility of its predecessors for their crimes and it acknowledges that Germany is forever burdened by those crimes. As a result, Germany is not feared internationally and is fully integrated into Europe. Japan, on the other hand, refuses to come clean about its crimes in the period of 1931-1945, and as a result is still regarded with suspicion across Asia. The Putin regime, eager to whitewash the NKVD, KGB and crimes of the Stalin era, still cannot bring itself to open up the archives and tell the truth. Until the Russian government does so, Russia will be regarded by all of Europe with suspicion, and at home it will not be able to overcome the shackles of Leninism and Stalinism. While Estonia may have acted provocatively or in misconceived way, until Russia comes to terms with its past, its future will always remain under a shadow.
Eric Kraus, Managing Director, Anyatta Capital, advisor to the Nikitsky Russia/CIS Opportunities Fund:
The Estonians were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union, at the end of World War II, in which many of them fought shoulder to shoulder with the Nazi armies. In defeat, the Balts paid the price of having picked the wrong side in a global conflict.
Several generations have passed, and the sins of the fathers are not to be visited upon the sons. The Baltic States are right to have reclaimed their independence which, after a long and turbulent history, is no longer threatened – neither by Germans, nor by Russians. This forgiveness of historical wrongs should equally extend to their Russian minorities - who committed the great sin of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
One-third of the population of Estonia is Russian. They have no other home, and it would have behooved the Estonians to treat their defeated ethnic minority with some humanity. The provocation was both vicious and entirely gratuitous. Estonian independence is under no conceivable threat from Russia.
The global reaction was sadly predictable. That the Americans – who trained the Death Squads of Latin America, taught Saddam the art of making poison gas, then smashed Iraq to protect the world from his WMDs – should find reason to get involved is hardly surprising. Their predictable, self-serving hypocrisy hardly raises eyebrows anymore. Equally, the Western press has matched its own low standards – raising a huge hue and cry over “police brutality” in Moscow, where several demonstrators were roughed up and fined as much as $25, but glossing over a brutal repression in Estonia where heavily armed paramilitary police killed a protester, injuring hundreds more.
What is somewhat more surprising is that the European Union has chosen to forfeit whatever scraps of moral authority it may have retained in Russia with a double standard, not just tolerating, but openly supporting, the treatment of Russian ethnic minorities as second-class citizens. The Brussels bureaucracy, fierce in its defense of the rights of every other national minority – from Hungarian Gypsies and Spanish Catalans to Kurdish asylum seekers, systematically turns a blind eye on the apartheid policies of the Baltic states whereby their Russian minorities are deprived of statehood, voting rights and state employment on purely linguistic grounds.
Russia cannot ignore the brutal repression of Russian ethnic minorities by countries ostensibly meeting the human rights standards of the European Union, and is right to make Estonia pay the price. Safely outside the WTO, Russia has every legal right to deprive overtly hostile states of access to Russian markets, trans-border shipments and energy supplies. While it seems most unlikely that this pushback will lead to a restoration of the monument to its rightful place, it will probably cause other Eastern European countries to think twice before poking a thumb in Russia’s eye. Sadly, in the longer term, Russia must get over its obsession with the West, turning East, towards Asia and the future. |
| The source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The virtual community for English-speaking expats and Russians
