On the plane over, I was reading The Economist, which ran a number of articles on Russia last week. Here are a couple of the tag lines: "How bad is Russia's oil industry?" and "Enter, pursued by a new bear." I didn't notice or take issue with the reportage at all - this is, after all, the general tone of most articles on Russia in the Western press. Quasi-totalitarianistic government, corrupt business, hostility towards the west, and bear metaphors: this is about the extent of the nuance afforded to 95% of Russia reporting.
When we were sitting around the apartment a couple days ago, Katya starting reading the magazine and looked over at me: "Why do you guys hate us so much?" Her question made me sit up and take notice to the general journalistic approach taken in regard to Russia in much of the press I read every day. Despite communism being buried close to 20 years now, there is still a lot of fear in the media about this newly-revived global power. Whether it's shady assassinations, government control of media, unrest in Chechnya, problematic political friendships in Georgia, Ukraine, Serbia, or other post-bloc regions, the average American media consumer would be led to believe that Russia is a really scary, threatening place that is out to thwart good old Euro-North American liberalism. Even though the official line is that the leaders of Russia have "good souls" (Bush's often-mocked comment after meeting Putin), they are probably our most feared and reviled "friend" (although lately China might win this distinction). Journalists have never quite gotten over their old Cold War habits, it seems, complete with the same frosty metaphorical language.
I don't want to take too long discussing this, but a few things need to be said. I don't claim to support Putin's policies; I certainly don't want to justify the murders of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko, which indeed appear to be politically inspired. However, we need to acknowledge that an accepted Western media coverage that is knee-jerk and fear-filled is not just influencing the positions and emotions of Western readers - Russians notice it too, and feel like the West is trying to keep them out of the rich-and-powerful club of nations. From my understanding of the situation, Russia is poised at a critical juncture right now: they supply much of Europe with its energy, their wealth is increasing at a brisk pace, and they have emerged fully formed from the fits, starts, and chaos that defined the era immediately following the collapse of the USSR. But this success is precarious. The oil profits that are fueling this blitzkrieg of growth may start to taper off soon (see current Economist issue); relations with the West are turning chilly. On top of this, a new president just took over, even if he is a puppet of Putin (which is itself a fact that has yet to be seen, despite bellicose proclamations from the Western press).
If people here perceive that the West welcomes them in to the prosperous modern world with open arms, warts and all, I imagine that people will want in all the more; if the media keeps taunting with fear-mongering assessments about interminable problems with the mighty bear, we will have a different geopolitical reality on our hands, or at least a huge PR problem. All of this is to say that Western powers run the distinct risk of alienating an important, fledging nation right during the time of transition to a more Western-friendly system of doing things. This would be a bear-sized pity, indeed.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
An interesting reading, Zach, of current Russian/western affairs. Your point of departure seems to be Katya’s question ‘Why do you guys hate us so much?’ which is, of course, polemical and about as informative as just about any average Chinese person asking the same question today. The media organs are government-controlled and, given a dictatorial government’s incentive to bash the west as a distraction from (in Russia’s case, growing) lack of freedoms at home, it is sadly understandable how a person like Katya could ask such a naive/loaded question, but has little bearing on how the west should ‘manage’ relations with such resurgent powers.
You also seem to overlook that for many years following the – for the nomenklatura, at least – humiliating collapse of the Soviet Union, that western arms were indeed very open, in the media and elsewhere. Such a friendly attitude, it can be argued, should not be maintained indefinitely irrespective of a nation’s direction. Emboldened by oil revenues, the Russian bear has recently behaved in very disturbing ways with regard to important global security issues of Iranian nuclear development, the independence of ex-Soviet satellites, European rights of self-defense against rogue missiles, so on. All diplomatic and other actions have to be calibrated, but an exaggerated fear of antagonizing a country heading down a confrontational path with the west could encourage, instead of discourage, that eventuality. Given Russia’s stranglehold over European gas supplies, among other sources of leverage, I think it might be a net plus that western media – which, admittedly, seems to act often with a pack mentality – is raising concerns about the path Russia’s increasingly autocratic leaders are taking it on.
Point taken. I am also surprised at times at how the Economist, a well-written and well-researched publication is so consistently anti-Russia, and uses so many pathetic bear analogies. However, I would disagree that Russia is starting to take on a western way of doing things. While Ukraine is not Russia, it was appalling to me how backwards the way of doing things (at least politically speaking) seem to be in that region, and how many of the worst aspects of Ukraine were due to Russia, such as the Russian puppet President Kuchma before the Orange Revolution, and the closed-door sale of Ukrainian factories and assets to Russian friendly oligarchs at a small fraction of what they were worth, which further impoverished the country.
It is true that it is never fair to treat or view the citizens of a country the same way as you view its government. (I remember resenting the anti-American comments I received in Australia just because they associated me with George W.). However, it is also worth pointing out that, while George Bush's approval ratings are still in the dumps, most Russians still whole-heartedly back Mr. Putin and his crooked policies.
Thanks for the thoughtful and critical commentary - points very well taken, Bens. Both of you are absolutely right: Putin's policies are concerning, and the growing belligerence of a resurgent Russia, fueled on high oil prices, is a challenge for everyone.
The primary point I bring up (which really just comes from anecdotal encounters with Russians) is that Russia seems poised between two worlds right now: as a member of the prospering Western club of nations and as a quasi-renegade doing things its own way. We should try to remember that they are new-comers to democracy and a free-market system, and a transition of this magnitude is bound to be riddled with problems. I don't mean to white-wash the negative aspects of Russian policy (which are many), but I also think that the West needs to offer a larger carrot to the fledging nation, and consistently fear-filled media coverage is only making strong and healthy diplomatic relations more difficult to achieve.
This is a really tough question, though, as there really are some crooked things going on in Russian politics. It is true. I'm shying away from offering any conclusive assessments because, really, I don't know enough about the issue. Just tossing out impressions during my stay.
Thanks for your thoughtful critiques!
Post a Comment