Paul
Goble
Staunton, April 1 – A story Moscow
media outlets put out yesterday claimed that an advisor to the governor of the
US state of Alaska had said that “Alaska might be better developed now if it
were under Russian control” has not only been proved false but has outraged
residents of the Republic of Sakha.
As the Moscow Times reports, Craig Fleener, the official in question, did
not say what the Moscow outlets suggested. He only said that if Russia had
retained Alaska, it “wouldn’t have abandoned the region entirely” given its
natural resources and strategic location (themoscowtimes.com/articles/clarification-how-the-russian-media-distorted-comments-by-an-alaska-state-official-57608).
That
Russian propagandists distort or even make up quotations to push their agendas
is not news: it happens too frequently to fall into that category. But such
people and their bosses may discover that such practices not only give Russia a
black eye in terms of reputation abroad but also infuriate Russian citizens
when they are involved, as in this case they were.
Stepan
Petrov, leader of the Yakutiya – Nashe
mneniye movement, said that what the Moscow media claimed Fleener had said
could only be taken to mean that conditions in the Russian North are now better
than conditions in Alaska, something that is completely untrue as the residents
of the Russian North know all too well (regnum.ru/news/polit/2257058.html).
In fact, he told the Regnum news
agency, “the very worse conditions of life of residents of the northern
countries” – the US, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and
Russia – “are to be found in the North of Russia,” as any visitor or websurfer
could confirm without difficulty.
The far-eastern regions of the North
like Chukotka, Sakhalin, Kamchatka, Sakha and others devastation and
hopelessness rule,” despite the fact that the natural resources of these areas
are making people in distant Moscow rich while leaving their indigenous
population worse off than ever.
This is the result of the unjust
distribution of incomes from the sale of natural resources, a problem that was
the focus of the Arctic Form this week (nazaccent.ru/content/23617-territoriya-nereshyonnyh-problem.html). More than half of the taxes and almost all of
the corporate income leaves the region and never returns.
The companies involved, Petrov
says, “do not bear any social responsibility. In the majority of cases, they
don’t hire people from the local population.” Instead, they come in from the
outside, take as much out as they can, and then leave without repairing the
damage that they inevitably inflict on the land and its people.
But it isn’t just the companies that
are at fault, he says. The Russian government is to blame as well: Moscow does
not respect the federalism enshrined in the Russian Constitution and generally
ignores the opinions and needs of the indigenous policy while favoring “greedy
oligarchs and corrupt officials.”
If Alaska had remained part of
Russia, it would have been subject to the same treatment. Monthly pay would be
about 200 US dollars, not the 4,000 Alaskans receive; and pensions would be 100
US dollars, not the 1300 that Alaskans get. And Alaskans might be forced into
credit slavery – paying interest rates of 900 percent or more – in order to buy
food”
If Alaska were part of Russia now, Petrov continues, “Alaskans in Russia would live in aging wooden houses and
be using outhouses at minus 50. They couldn’t in our country make use of the
benefits of developed private aviation and would lose the opportunity to
receive free food products that US policy allows.
“And of course,” he says. “residents
of [a Russian] Alaska couldn’t dream about a permanent fund which is made up of
profits from oil there. Some 25 percent of the profits of oil companies in
Alaska is put there, and half of the income from it is shared directly among
the residents of Alaska.” In a Russia Alaska, all that money would go to
oligarchs and officials.
Alaska because of its location is
not fated to be as wealthy as New York City or Silicon Valley, the Sakha
activist says; “but it is obvious nonetheless that present-day life in Alaska
[which is part of the United States] is much better than it would have been if
Alaska had remained within Russia.”
No comments:
Post a Comment