Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 11 – Vladimir Lenin,
the founder of the Soviet state, said that there were two dangers in
nationality policy – “local nationalism” among non-Russians and “great power
chauvinism” among Russians. These had to be fought, he said, by the
non-Russians and the Russians respectively rather than be the subject of mutual
attacks.
For most of the Soviet period,
Moscow did far more to combat “local nationalism” than it did to counter “great
power chauvinism” because it viewed the basic characteristics of the latter as
a lesser evil since it was thought to promote the unity of the state and the
former as the greater evil because it was viewed as a threat to that unity.
With the demise of the USSR, these
two terms largely disappeared from public discourse. Instead, the new Russian
leadership focused on “nationalist extremism” as such, finding it primarily
among non-Russians such as the Chechens but also at least on occasion among
ethnic Russians as well.
Now, in what may be an unexpected
development, complaints about “great power chauvinism” have resurfaced; and in
what is certain to spark controversy, a representative of the non-Russian
segment of the population is calling on the Kremlin to fight it, an appeal that
has the potential to further divide Russians and non-Russians, something Lenin
tried to avoid.
Anatoly Grigoryev, president of the Karelian
Congress, has sent a letter to Putin calling on him to help combat “great power
chauvinism” among Russians in the Karelian Republic and help the Karels and Finns
for whom the republic was created (finugor.ru/news/karelskiy-aktivist-prosit-prezidenta-rf-okazat-pomoshch-karelam-i-finnam
and nazaccent.ru/content/21554-putina-poprosili-zashitit-karelov-i-finnov.html).
In his appeal, copies of which were
sent to the presidents of Estonia and Finland as well, the Karelian activist
says that “the russification of Karels and Finns is being actively carried out
in a way that shows that nationality policy there is guided by rather than
directed against “’great power chauvinism.’”
At present, Grigoryev says, Karels
and Finns form only two to three percent of the population of their republic. The
majority of them do not speak their native languages. In the republic
parliament, there are few deputies from these national groups and none of them
know their own peoples’ languages.
Moreover, he continues, “the only
Finnish national theater in Russia (in Petrozavodsk) has become a
Russian-language institution” and the authorities have refused to support the
continued publication of the journal “Carelia” in its former size and
frequency.
But what is most distressing, he
suggests, is that the social and economic conditions of the Karels and Finns in
Karelia is “clearly worse than the position of the Russian language majority.” And that too, he argues, is contributing to their
“moral degradation and ethnic degeneration.”
Grigoryev reminds Putin that all
this “violates” Russian law and Russia’s international obligations and
constitutes “a threat to the state security of Russia.” Given the Kremlin
leader’s concerns about that, he must “provide the necessary state support to
Karels and Finns living in the Republic of Karelia.
The Karelian activist has sharply
criticized Russian policies in Karelia for many years. (On this, see windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/08/ussr-helped-numerically-small-peoples.html,
windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2012/12/window-on-eurasia-karelias-decision-to.html
and windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/04/moscows-russification-policies-not.html.)
But his decision to issue an open
appeal to Putin, with copies to the leaders of Estonia and Finnland, and his
use of the term “great power chauvinism” suggests not only the increasing
desperation of the minorities in Karelia but also his own willingness to
elevate their fight to a new level, one that seems certain to present real
problems for the Kremlin in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment