Foreign policy failures of Moscow lead to decrease of its authority in the international community. At the same time, every new failure is conditioned with low level of its influence on international events because of negative image characteristics in view of the world political bon monde. In the light of such situation, the issue of improvement of perception of Russia abroad is actual as never before.
In this sense, creation of new 24-hour channel for western audience in English “Russia Today” corresponds to demands of foreign policy situation. Moreover, some apparatus groups intend to keep and strengthen their positions due to its creation. To all appearance, Kremlin’s “experts” count to prove their usefulness for the authority also in international aspect.
Creation of new information instrument serving for provision of complex pro-Russian propaganda indirectly supposes compensation for last failures in this direction. Until today the problem of search for persuasive forms of optimization of Russia’s image in the international community has been solved in inconsequent, situational and often inefficient way.
The problem of optimization of dialogue between Russia and the West is no less acute. Low image indicators of Moscow are resulted in regular attacks on Russia by European and American human rights protectors, mass media and middle-ranking officials. General negative perception of Russia by the Western public influences interstate relations of the RF and Western partners.
In this connection, the Kremlin worries about search for forms of propaganda influence on Western public opinion. A number of pro-state official mass media, such as RIA “Novosti”, Interfax, ITAR-TASS, have to show political events from Kremlin’s position. Thus, besides information, real function of these mass media is reduced to formation of positive image of Russia authority both within the country and abroad.
It is interesting that all these information resources have offices in many foreign countries and are translated in main foreign languages. So, news at the site of RIA “Novosti” can be read in Russian, English, German, French, Portuguese, Spain, Persian, and Arab languages.
On the whole, RIA “Novosti” closely connected with PA, is gradually establishing post-state informational policy. That is, in particular, shown by recent series of actions with RIA “Novosti” participation and the Kremlin’s backing.
So, in this April in Washington there was a presentation of the social-political edition “Russia Profile” issued in Russia since March of 2004 in English language that was set up by RIA “Novosti” together with publishing house Independent Media. “Russia Profile” is a monthly magazine as well as web-edition targeted on the western society.
Main target of the new project is improvement of the image-characteristics of Russia abroad and tackling with the task of Russian cultural expansion. At the same time, regardless of the wide-advertised concept, there are evident threats for “Russia Today” even before the project’s launch. Firstly, there is a real possibility of turning it into the Kremlin’s “trumpet” that will inevitably push away western public (it is not without a reason that its creators emphasize the independent expert board to control the material’s objectiveness).
Secondly, it is not excluded that non-obtaining of the instant result (and such result is not possible by definition) will diminish the Kremlin’s interest to the expensive project and thus, its financing may be ceased. Anyway, failures of all the previous similar projects cause anxiety about the new ideological instrument of the Kremlin even before its launch.
Victory of “orange revolution” in Ukraine has dramatically changed the mood of the Moscow-Kiev dialogue. New Ukrainian elite demonstrating its pro-western preferences at foreign policy frequently neglects Russian political and economic interests. Mutual irritation reached the critical pick resulted into a gas scandal.
Gazprom’s executives meeting with Ukrainian Naftogaz at the onset of this week was just a precursor for even more violent arguments that formed the background of the previous week. The pivotal demand of the Russian side is to come down to European prices for gas-delivery since 2006. In the new environment Russia proposes to formalize the relations in the transit part as well, coming to money payment for it, while since 2002 till 2004 Gazprom annually delivered 23-26 bln.c.m. of gas to Naftogas of Ukraine as transit-payment.
Moreover, Russian side put its claims on the Russian gas loss in the underground stocks of gas (USG) of Ukraine. Gasprom’s executives insist that Ukraine should purchase this gas from the Russian supplier post-factum.
At the same time, it is not excluded, that boosting up the story with the lost gas is being used by both sided in order to hide selfish interests of the both companies’ executives. It is not without a reason that in the current circumstances Moscow again turned to the proven means of the international diplomacy – gas lever. It is known that in May Russian president declared that Russian will come to the European prices for energy carriers, at this, political background of this initiative was proven by the fact that Belarus was a priori excluded from this “black list” as major “counter revolutionary” partner of Russia at the post-soviet space.
Nowadays, Ukraine threatens to put a question of liquidation of the consortium on administration and development of gas transporting system of Ukraine, however, at those terms that were recently proposed by the Ukrainian side, the very Gazprom does not need it. The idea of the consortium stipulated for development and administration of the whole system while the gas-pipeline Bogorodchani-Uzhgorod that is proposed by Ukraine to limit consortium’s activity was interesting to Gazprom only for the initial stage.
At the same time, Kiev turned to establishment of an organization alternative to the mentioned above consortium, that will deliver Turkmenian “blue fuel” into Ukraine and the EU countries while Ukraine would have control package. Regardless of the obstacles on this way (Yushchenko’s visit into Ashkhabad in this March did not gain positive answer from the Turkmenian side, and Germany officially refused from its participation without Russia in May), Kiev does not abandon its intention to enter into the European gas markets bypassing Russia.
It is not accidentally that on the eve of the Moscow visit the executives of Naftogaz claimed that it intended to purchase gas from Turkmenistan without Gazprom’s mediation and to make an agreement with Gazprom about alteration of previously coordinated scheme of Turkmenian gas transit (at the same time, this project is utopian by definition – in this case gas will be pumped via Gazprom’s pipes and Moscow is unlikely to give its territory, infrastructure and resources without guarantees of strategy influence upon the project).
A series of “colour revolutions” in post-Soviet space has ambiguous consequences. Besides external contradictions related to change of foreign policy identification of “new democracies” (Kyrghyzstan is still the only exception), “post-revolutionary” republics face a number of internal contradictions, main of which are inter-elite clashes of “revolutionary”-winners and ongoing struggle against former elite.
Thus processes in the Ukraine and in Kyrghyzstan are similar in many respects. In the Ukraine questioning of ex-Prime Minister Victor Yanukovich is continuing. He was again summoned to the Department on struggle against organized criminality (UBOP) on the case of illegal giving of means of Donetsk regional administration. It is interesting that after questioning Yanukovich said he had been questioned on so called case of separatism.
This circumstance emphasizes new authorities’ intention to struggle against everybody disloyal to Yushchenko’s team. The questioning was not the last one. Next time a loser of presidential elections will have to testify on increase of payments to winners of the Olympic games in Athens.
But soon it could be seen that pursuing of old elite and pro-Western orientation are the only thing uniting the new Ukrainian authority. Despite the attempts to conceal contradictions among main actors of Ukrainian politics, they can become apparent in the most inappropriate moment.
Kyrgyz ex-Prime Minister Nikoly Tanaev was claimed for search in CIS countries and through the Interpol on accusation of financial machinations. General Prosecutor of Kyrghyzstan Azimbek Beknazarov gave warrant to arrest of the former Prime Minister of the country. In this Central Asian republic pursuing of old elite is completed with traditional clan competition (Beknazarov is a “southerner” and Tanaev is a “northerner”). Thus stability of pre-election tandem of “southerner” Kurmanbek Bakiev and “northerner” Felix Kulov is doubtful.
Besides typical “post-revolutionary” contradictions, Islamist threat is sword of Damocles for Central Asian republics. Moreover, the authorities of the country are not influential enough for keeping internal situation in legal frames. And while the situation in Kyrghyzstan is formally calm, internal situation in Andizhan is not fully controlled by the authorities.
So, last week in several hundreds km from Andizhan, in Samarkand region, in the Babura state farm more than 600 people took part in the meeting for protection of activist of oppositional party “Ozod Dekhkonlar” Norboy Kholzhighitov arrested recently by Uzbek national security service for calls to revise results of privatization of the state farm.
Though, according to Uzbek mass media, police broke up the meeting, it is clear that high degree of public dissatisfaction is a direct threat to Karimov’s regime. Situation can be aggravated because of interference of the international community into Uzbek domestic political processes.
Though after breaking up of the May meeting the world leaders preferred shutting eyes to Karimov’s strict actions, agreeing with the official version of Uzbek authorities of “Islamist track” in what was going on, a month later the West in fact directly accuses Karimov of feint of rebellion and demands international investigation of tragic events.
So, the State Department called Tashkent to pursue new independent investigation of Andizhan events. It was done just after publication of Human Rights Watch report consisting evidences that Uzbek authorities had provoked the slaughter in Andizhan. Proceeding from this, Islam Karimov’s regime is more and more criticized.
It is interesting that right protectors call for revision of relations with Uzbekistan and refusal from strategic partnership with Tashkent. However, other development of events is more probable. It includes change of US tactics. Probably, in the near future the issue of violation of human rights and low level of democracy will be taken as a basis of campaign in favour of next “colour revolution” in Central Asia.
Meanwhile, in counterbalance to the international community, Russia demonstratively took part of Tashkent insisting on the “Islamist track” in Andizhan’s events. To spite to the USA Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov made it clear that Russia was against international investigation of Andizhan’s events. Thus, Moscow probably tries to prevent next “colour revolution” in the CIS, and further clashes between Russia and the world community are possible on this issue.
