Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 12 – Because
Academician Vitaly Tishkov hasn’t responded to his criticisms of the draft law
on the Russian nation and because the Moscow media have dismissed them without
detailing them, Maksim Shevchenko, a member of the Presidential Council that
has been preparing them, has released an open letter outlining his objections
and concerns.
Having expressed his respect for the
other members of the commission, including the chairman of the working group,
Tishkov, and all their work on this project, the Russian journalist says the
current draft law contains provisions which he believes are dangerous and that
he cannot in good conscience accept (kavpolit.com/articles/o_zakone_o_rossijskoj_natsii-34746/).
His main concern, Shevchenko says is
with the language in the preamble which attributes to the Russian people, its
culture and language a special unifying role as the historic foundation of the
Russian state, a defining one in the affirmation of all-Russian
self-consciousness (identity) and the strengthening of the unity of the multi-national
Russian Federation.”
Such language, which may be
appropriate for a political speech, is not only completely inappropriate in a
draft law but also “extremely dangerous” because when included there, it
inserts “a mine under this very state, the bear of sovereignty and source of
power in which, according to [the Constitution] is called ‘the multi-national
people.’”
“I understand,” Shevchenko
continues, this use of terminology “about the special role of the ethnic
Russian people corresponds to the specific nature of the moment – rapprochement
with China where in fact, the Han-Chinese are a state-forming people.” But, he points out, “the Russian Federation
isn’t a Han empire” that is supposed to absorb all others.
Instead of being like the Chinese
state, the commentator says, Russians are “rather the political and historical
heirs of the mortal enemy of Great Han China, the Hun and Mongol empires which
denied in both cases ethnic domination and introduced the term of political
nation as the basis of statehood.”
“Mongol is a political term,”
Shevchenko argues. And evidence of that is that “the first Mongol take prisoner
near Balaton by European knights was an Englishman who had joined the army of
Batu Khan in Crimea and became ‘a Mongol’ after taking an oath.” The Europeans were so horrified that they
immediately killed him.
These are not simply historical “details,”
he continues. They matter in principle. “All
the peoples of the Russian Federation have made their particular contribution
to the establishment and strengthening of Russian statehood. And separating out
the ethnic Russian people as special will have in the future the most serious
consequences.”
In the event of a crisis, the other
peoples of Russia will be inclined to blame the Russian people for any problems
rather than accept common responsibility.
The issue of Russian language is different, however. “It is the main
political language of Russia,” and it should be defined as such in the law.
Shevchenko continues: “The essence
of Russia and the Russian political nation is not to divide but to unite
peoples. Not to set them at each other’s throats but to bring them together.
Therefore, we are a federation and not the Heavenly Kingdom.”
But “there is another detail [in the
draft law Tishkov has promoted] which is striking,” Shevchenko says: “Peoples
are nowhere named as the subject of nationality policy.” That is either a mistake or something that
has been overlooked and will be the subject of criticism as the measure goes
forward.
“We must think how to include the
people (peoples) among the subjects of nationality policy in the Russian
Federation and also, possibly, include those regions of the Russian Federation
which have the status of nationality subjects.”
Failing to do so now will guarantee serious problems later.
No comments:
Post a Comment