JULES EVANS, LONDON
PUTIN’S POLICY OF ‘OBNOXIOUS RISE’
I don’t understand why Vladimir Putin feels the need to be so belligerent and obnoxious in international relations.
OK, he’s aggressively asserting Russia’s new economic power, and it plays well with some insecure people at home who prefer to be ‘feared’ by foreign powers rather than free in their own country.
But there’s no need to be so belligerent, and ultimately it defeats his own aims.
We can compare his foreign policy with China’s, which has been pursuing its policy of ‘peaceful rise’ for a decade, and reaping the benefits.
The policy of peaceful rise was first articulated in a speech by Zheng Bijan, vice-principal of the central party school of the Communist Party, in 2003. He pointed out that in the past, a rise of a new power often resulted in drastic changes to global political structures, and even war (i.e. the hegemonic stability theory in international relations).
He believed that this was because these powers "chose the road of aggression and expansion, which will ultimately fail." Zheng stated that in today's new world, the PRC should instead develop peacefully, and in turn help to maintain a peaceful international environment.
What have been the consequences of this policy? Relations with the US are constructive. The two recognize that power is not a zero-sum game, that their interests are closely connected through international trade and finance.
That means American companies can do good business in China and vice versa.
It gives China a good image, as a dynamic, impressive and interesting place, a place where you want to hold international events like the Olympics, a place whose products are attractive to global consumers, including cultural products like literature or cinema. We respect China, are intrigued by its culture, want to go there, find out more.
And then you have Putin’s policy of ‘obnoxious rise’.
Putin seems to have taken it into his head that just because he now can insult the US, the WTO, the EU or whoever it is he's irritated with, he should.
The Kremlin can sometimes behave like the stereotypical worst type of Russian tourist: nouveau riche, vulgar and obnoxious, throwing their weight around in hotels, treating waiters like serfs, and generally annoying the other guests (I'm talking about the stereotypical bad Russian tourist, as we know, there are many lovely ones).
We do business with the Kremlin, because it has lots of money. But we don’t really respect it. Why should we? Its rising power is not the product of some brilliant new economic policies or innovations. It’s just from oil. Not even oil that the state worked to take out of the ground – it just grabs projects that private companies have developed.
The consequence of Russia’s unnecessary belligerence and awkwardness is that Russian companies are less welcome abroad, less able to buy into foreign economies. Russia is less likely to be awarded the right to hold events like the Winter Olympics (I bet you any money Sochi doesn’t win its bid, despite the billions of dollars the Kremlin has put into it). Russia is not seen as a place to visit as a tourist. It’s not seen as a friendly or welcoming place.
Russia’s stock market is the worst performing stock market in the world this year. Why, when its GDP is growing by 7-8% a year? Putin himself asked the same question bewilderedly last month. Why don’t foreign investors like us, when we are so rich!
One of the reasons, perhaps, is because Putin goes around shooting his mouth off and comparing the US to Nazi Germany, and this gives the impression that Russia is some unstable or aggressive place not fully integrated into the international community.
And international leaders are less inclined to turn to the Kremlin for discussion or cooperation. Why should they? Blair and Bush came to Russia for the G8 summit, and Putin openly insulted them, on live TV, when they were standing beside him. The Kremlin sends out its KGB-bribed little kids, Nashi, to harangue diplomats, to harass them in the street, against every decent idea of international relations.
Who wants to be a guest in a country that insults its guests?
Russia thinks that the West’s problems with it are just because Russia is increasingly powerful, and the West doesn’t like it. It prefers it when Russia is weak, because then we’re strong. Power, Russia thinks, is a zero-sum game.
Nonsense.
First of all, Russia is not that powerful. It only has a population of 140 million. That’s 80 million less than Indonesia. Much of its country is still very undeveloped. It needs an incredible amount of capital to re-build its infrastructure, and the state’s puny little $1 billion investment fund ain’t gonna be enough. And its GDP is still smaller than mighty Portugal’s. OK, Russia isn’t a basket case anymore. But it’s hardly an economic superpower.
Secondly, the West doesn’t view other countries whose economies are growing very quickly with fear or irritation. Brazil is a new economic power, so is India, so is China, so is South Korea. We get on fine with them. We actually look up to them, welcome the influx of new ideas and new energy into the international system, admire their products and their innovations. We are not afraid of a multi-polar world.
It’s only Russia, and perhaps Venezuela and Iran – regimes with inferiority complexes – who feel the need to thumb their noses at the West. Such rudeness doesn’t suggest strength. It suggests insecurity.
Thirdly, many people around the world, like me, are only too prepared to welcome Russia’s new strength, to respect the outstanding cultural gifts it has given the world, to warm to its people, particularly people my age, who are so hard-working, so international, so able to adapt to new circumstances.
People are more than happy to welcome the new Russia to a position of international prominence, to like the new Russia and celebrate it. Stop making it so hard for us.
Jules Evans, a British freelance journalist based in Moscow.
June 14, 2007
|
