Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 5 – Russians are
usually presented as divided on Central Asia because some hope that Moscow will
be able to draw those former Soviet republics into a new union state while
others fear that immigration from that region threatens to “transform Russia
into one big kishlak.”
But according to Rosbalt commentator
Viktor Yadukha, it is long past time to recognize that what might be called “Russia’s
Central Asian problem” is “neither geopolitical nor interethnic bur rather one
of class” conflict within the society of the Russian Federation itself (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2013/03/04/1101644.html).
It
is time for those who want to restore the empire to understand “that there will
not be any reunification, in the first instance because the Russian bourgeoisie
doesn’t want it.” That class, he suggests, “does not have any geopolitical
ambitions.” Instead, it measures everything in terms of profit.
To
be sure, the owners of Russian firms “are interested in Asian resources” as a
way to earn money to put in bank accounts in the West, “but it is not prepared
for the tough struggle for access to them.”
As a result, he says, Moscow will continue to “defend its interests” in
Central Asia not too insistently” lest that provoke a break with the West.
Central
Asian elites don’t want any reunification either. Even Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan which are
closer to Russia aren’t interested as shown by Astana’s decision to warm its
relations with the Turkic world and drop its Cyrillic-based alphabet in favor
of the Latin script. The elites in all five of these countries, like the one in
Russia, are “oriented to the West.”
“To
the regret of Russian imperialists, Yadukha continues, “Central Asia is not ‘a
battlefield of thee great powers.’ It is ‘a battlefield of the great powers,’
in which Russia is not involved.”
Russia
is becoming a Central Asian kishlak, however, “in the first instance because
that is what the Russian elite wants.” Low-paid gastarbeiters not only cost
them less but act as a the appearance of Central Asians in Russian cities
because such people already live “with one leg abroad,” spending time in Russia
only to make money.
What this combination means, the
Rosbalt commentator says, is that the resolution of the problems that Russians have
with Central Asia depends on their first settling accounts with their own
elites, something he clearly believes ordinary Russians could do but as yet do
not understand their need to do so.
“The sharpest conflict of interests of the
population and elites of the Russian Federation is just here – and this is a
class conflict,” Yadukha concludes. “It is time for those who think that the
problems of migrants can be resolved by means of ‘Slavic patrols’ of the streets
[in Russian cities] to understands this fact.”
While many will be tempted to
dismiss this argument as nothing more than warmed over Marxist-Leninist
analysis and agitation, it is important in a double sense. On the one hand, it
helps to explain why Vladimir Putin has moved so cautiously in this area at a
time when he has been seizing upon so many Russian nationalist themes.
And on the other, it suggests just
how dangerous the immigrant issue is for political stability in the Russian Federation. Those in power who believe that they can
maintain themselves by setting Russians against Central Asians may ultimately
be disabused of that idea when ever more Russians reach the conclusion that
Yadukha already has.
No comments:
Post a Comment