Window on Eurasia

Moscow Fails to Define Who is a Compatriot – and Who is Not

Paul Goble

Vienna, July 17, 2006 – Even as Moscow very publicly appeals to what it calls its “compatriots” abroad to move to the Russian Federation, neither the Duma-passed legislation that serves as the basis of this program nor President Vladimir Putin’s decree implementing it provides a legally precise definition of the term.

In a legal analysis of these acts posted online last week, Eduard
Korneyev points out that the failure of the authorities in Moscow to
define this term carefully not only means that they have raised more
questions than they answer but that they have created a situation that
invites arbitrary abuse by officials.

The problems begin, Korneyev notes, with the fact that what Moscow
apparently intends is in no way equivalent to the German “heim ins
Reich” policies of the 1930s and 1980s and ‘90s but rather “the
voluntary resettlement of compatriots” in the Russian Federation
[http://www.apn.kz/publications/print4712.htm].

Russians began speaking about “compatriots” in Gorbachev’s time,
using that word in combination with the term “former” to designate
those who up until that time had been called “emigres,” a group
that included those who had fled abroad from Soviet power as well as their
descendents.

But neither that usage nor the current one provides “precise criteria
concerning who has the right to receive help” to come to the Russian
Federation. Indeed, the current act’s specific paragraph apparently
intended to answer that question only highlights the problems ahead.

That act declares that compariots ar those “educated in the
traditions of [non-ethnic] Russian culture, who speak Russian and do not want to
lose a connection with Russia” and that they should be provided with
the help to allow their rapid inclusion “in the system of positive
social ties” of the [non-ethnic] Russian community.

Korneyev suggests that this language immediately raises but does not
provide an answer to three serious questions:

First, “do compatriots exist outside of these frameworks, that is, do
they include those raised not in the traditions of [non-ethnic] Russian
culture or not knowing the Russian language?”

Second, “are compatriots to be considered those who have lost
connections with Russia but want to reestablish them?” And just what
“connections” does the law intend to establish or reestablish?

And third, “is it permissible to provide assistance for the
resettlement of those compatriots who are not able in the greatest
degree ‘for adaptation to and the most rapid inclusion in the system
of positive social ties’ (and in generally how are these abilities to
be determined?)?”

Unless these and other questions of definition are clarified, Korneyev
says, there are going to be major problems ahead. On the one hand, such
lack of clarity almost certainly guarantees that officials will be able
to behave arbitrarily and corruptly in deciding who gets help and who
does not.

And on the other hand, this lack of precision is certain to generate
cynicism both among the compatriots, however defined, about the utility
of moving to a country that can’t draft clear laws and among Russian
Federation citizens, many of whom are likely to view this as the latest
example of overblown rhetoric as a substitute for a real policy.

But the definitional problems are not exhausted by these issues alone,
Korneyev continues. There is the question of amnestying illegal
immigrants already in the Russian Federation. Are they to be given
preference over compatriots, however defined? Or are the latter to go
to the head of the line because they would integrate more easily?

The recent discussions of the amnesty program, Korneyev says, do not
offer much comfort. They appear to have been driven less by a careful
consideration of Russia’s demographic problems than by a desire of
officials to give “the appearance” of action in response to the
events in France, events very different than those Russia faces.

In support of that conclusion, the legal analyst points out that as
soon as the French events quieted down so too did conversations in Moscow
about the possibility of some kind of “mass immigration amnesty.”

And then there is the question of numbers, Korneyev continues. Russian
officials continue to insist that there are still as many as 25 million
compatriots in the former Soviet republics and Baltic countries alone.
But the use of that figure is itself highly problematic, according to
specialists in the field.

Indeed, if Moscow continues to speak of that number, then, Korneyev
says, it is including in the category “compatriot” “not simply
[ethnic] Russians and members of national groups with their own
national formations in the Russian Federation but generally any former USSR
citizens,” many with only limited ties to Russian culture.

Such an approach, Korneyev argues, represents “an analogue to the
West European post-imperial models of interrelationship of the former
metropolitan country with its [former] colonies.” If Moscow adopts
that pattern, it may be viewed in a positive light by Europe, but it
could also create for itself some of the problems Europe now face.

And even more significantly from the position of the Russian
government, it could lead to a situation in which those who would choose to
identify themselves as compatriots might be precisely members of non-Russian
groups that many ethnic Russians feel threatened by.

Consequently, Korneyev concludes, the Russian government needs to go
back to the drawing board on this legislation. Otherwise, he suggests,
it almost certainly will become the victim of the unintended
consequences of its own poorly drafted laws and policy pronouncements.

Latest Window on Eurasia stories | Religion Archive | Islam in Russia and CIS Archive | Orthodox Church in Russia and CIS Archive | All Window on Eurasia Stories Archive |