Window on Eurasia

Russia, CIS States Said Undergoing ‘Latin Americanization’

Paul Goble

Vienna, July 17 – Russia and the CIS countries increasingly resemble countries on “world periphery” like Latin America not only because of their reliance on the export of raw materials but also because of the specific pseudo-democratic nature of their respective regimes, according to a Moscow analyst.

Two-thirds of the CIS countries, Aleksandr Khramchikhin wrote last
week, depend on the export of oil and gas: Three – Azebaijan, Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan -- rely on the export of petrochemicals; three others
– Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia – on its transit across their
territories, and two – Russia and Kazakhstan – on both.

The four other CIS countries – Armenia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan – are not able to do so and consequently, except for
Armenia that is being kept afloat by its enormous diaspora, are falling
further and further behind the rest of the world, he writes
[http://www.prognosis.ru/news/modernization/2006/7/13/hramchihin.html].

As the experience of Latin American countries shows, it will not be
easy for Russia or other CIS countries to escape from this situation using
their “own resources” alone, Khramchikhin argues. As a result, both
groups of states are likely to remain “hopelessly” behind the West
“on all measures.”

That is all the more so because again except for Armenia, which has
tried to pursue a democratic course, and Kazakhstan, which is “now
the single example of authoritarian modernization in the CIS, “democracy
to a great extent is not even being imitated” in the ten other CIS
states.

As a result of this situation, even in the event of a crisis, political
events that some might call revolutions will in fact be more like coups
or putsches; that is, they will change some in “the ruling hierarchy
but not touch the essence of the regime, Khramchikin suggests –
again, just like in Latin America.

And there is yet another parallel between the two regions, the Moscow
analyst suggests: the governments understand this situation and thus do
what they can to ensure that people will focus their concerns on
private life and generally remain unconcerned about what goes on in the
political sphere.

In both groups of countries – again, Khramchikhin points to
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan as exceptions – “people have
incomprably greater personal freedom than in totalitarian countries and much
greater opportunities in general not to be involved with the state: by going
into emigration, external or internal.”

As a result, “the critical mass for an explosion – [what some might
call,] ‘civil society’ -- does not arise, [thereby allowing] the
regime to quietly rot over the course of decades,” superficially
stable but in fact weakening politically, economically and most
important socially.

Indeed, Khramchikhin continues, the “stability” of countries in the
CIS, like that of the countries in Latin America, is that of a
cemetary, but alas, given current trends, such a perspective awaits practically
all the countries” in that region. And because of that these
countries are fragile and susceptible to collapse if they are challenged.

Such challenges could come from within or without, the Moscow writer
suggests. Internally, if a group of committed people – Khramchikhin
uses Eurasianist Lev Gumilyev’s term “passionate” to describe
them – emerges, “who do not want to emigrate” but instead to change
things, they might mobilize others and succeed.

Externally, there are a number of challenges: China, which is
“continuing its quiet expansion into Russia and Central Asia,”
taking control of various parts of Eurasia not because of some
“’great mission’” but rather because it can acquire control of
these territories “first de facto and then de jure.”

Then, there is the challenge of “radical Islam” which Khramchikhin
says will continue its penetration of Russia, the Caucasus, and Central
Asia, something that will at a minimum lead to “serious
destabilization of the situation in these regions and in the worst case
to civil war and the collapse of certain countries” there.

In that event, the “peripheralization” of the CIS countries will
become even more pronounced than it is now.

And finally, there is the United States, which has sought to promote
democracy in various CIS countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and
Kyrgyzstan. But Khramchikhin writes, “in the US, already during the
current administration they will understand that the policy of the
foced democratizastion of other countries does not justify itself.”

In fact, he suggests, there are ever increasing indications that “the
examples of Ukraine and Georgia may turn out to be for Washington not
less but possibly even more disappointing than the example of Iraq”
in that regard.

To the extent that proves to be the case, Khramchikhin concludes, it is
almost certain that the United States will rapidly “return to the
old, proven, pragmatic policy of double standards: whoever stands with us is
a democrat -- even if he is eating his subjects alive.”

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 |