Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 26 – As it moves
toward independence, Siberia should not seek a centralized state which could
reproduce on its territory all the problems of
“the Muscovite-imperial ‘vertical’” but rather seek to form a Siberian
Confederation, one with strictly limited central power, according to a leading
Siberian nationalist.
Reacting to an article entitled “Siberia
is leaving Russia” by Maria Mitrenina, the editor of the GlobalSib.com portal,
Kulekhov says that he is not as the editor suggested “a support of ‘a single
Siberia’ or of the idea that “all the lands of Siberia” should be combined into
a single centralized state (globalsib.com/18262/).
Kulekhov
who has called for Siberia to cease being Russia’s “colony” says that
forming such a centralized state in the lands east of the Urals would have the
effect of “reanimating on [that enormous] territory the very Muscovite-imperial
‘vertical’” with all its problems that Siberians want to avoid.
He says that he “does not see a
basis for Yakutsk to subordinate itself to Novosbirsk or Tomsk to Irkutsk. Each land of Siberia and each Siberian
capital has its strong points, its basis for legitimate pride, its ideas about
life, and its foreign policy preferences,” and these must not be ignored
through subordination as those of Siberia now are by Moscow’s approach.
Consequently, Kulekhov continues, “a
Siberian Confederation is preferable,” a state which would “limit itself to
joint military defense and some form of customs union” but which would take full
account of the growing differences among its parts on all other subjects and
fully respect them.
“Only such a variety of potentials
gives energy” to the project, he argues.
Trying to make everyone the same and fit the same pattern “leads to
entropy, that is, it contradicts the very meaning of human existence.
Therefore,” Kulekhov says, he “is for a Diverse Siberia. In our diversity is
our strength.”
In her article, Mitrenina reviewed
recent articles by Vladislav Inozemtsev (kp.ru/daily/26123/3016007/ discussed in windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2013/08/window-on-eurasia-moscow-must-treat-its.html) and Kulekhov
himself bratsk.org/report/show/9285.html, bratsk.org/report/show/9286.html and bratsk.org/report/show/9287.html
discussed in windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2013/08/window-on-eurasia-siberia-can-do-very.html).
With regard to Inozemtsev’s
argument, the Siberian editor says that the Moscow writer is wrong to assume
that the center can come up with any investment program that will keep Siberia
part of a Russian Federation, but she nonetheless says that his article is
important because it show that “the importance of Siberia for Russia is much
higher than that of Russia for Siberia.”
That in turn means, she continues,
that “Siberia in principle is ready for economic independence.”
In speaking about Kulekhov, she
focuses on his remarks concerning the way in which “Siberia without Russia”
should be organized and expresses her doubts that all of Siberia’s regions will
agree to join a single state, given their past experiences. Instead, the editor
says, while the problems of these regions are similar, they “still don’t create
conditions for unity.”
Nonetheless, Mitrenina concludes, “the
chances that in the next decade, Siberians will again wake up in a new state
are great,” and she suggests that as history has demonstrated dealing with
Moscow in that event will be “simpler” for Siberians than dealing with “enormous
Siberia” itself has proved.
Neither writer acknowledges that the
very diversity they point to has been a major obstacle to the achievement of their
goals because it has allowed Moscow to play “divide and rule” politics for more
than a century. But the fact that debate
about Siberia’s future are moving beyond slogans underscores the growing
strength of that land’s supporters.
No comments:
Post a Comment