RUSSIANS ABROAD COULD SOLVE DEMOGRAPHIC SHORTFALL – TV
Channel One TV, Moscow
17 Dec 04
Russia needs to make use of the huge “gold reserve” of Russians
living in the states of the former Soviet Union to compensate for
its shrinking population, presenter Svetlana Sorokina said in “Basic
Instinct” on Russia’s Channel One television on 17 December. But in
order to do so, it needs to take a close look at how it regards those
Russian-speaking people and at its foreign policy towards the former
Soviet states, studio guests said.
Taking part in the studio debate on how Russia needs to interact with
Russians abroad were:
the editor-in-chief of Ekho Moskvy, Aleksey Venediktov;
the head of the Centre for Strategic Research into Religion and
Politics of the Modern World, Maksim Shevchenko;
a member of the Duma Security Committee, member of the One Russia
faction, Police Lt-Col Aleksey Rozuvan;
the head of the Russian Centre for International Scientific and
Cultural Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, Eleonora
Mitrofanova;
the leader of the Motherland action in the Duma, Dmitriy Rogozin;
a member of the Federation Council, who lived in Turkmenistan for 40
years, Galina Buslova;
the executive director of Moscow Council of Russian Compatriots,
Vitaliy Skrinnik;
the leader of the headquarters for protection of Russian schools in
Latvia, Aleksandr Kazakov;
and a young man from Volgograd, originally from Samarkand in
Uzbekistan, Andrey Zuyev.
Lessons from Ukraine
Asked what lessons in terms of defending the interests of the
Russophone population should be learned from the events occurring
in Ukraine, Shevchenko said that Russia needed to look closely at
exactly what its foreign policy aims were. “The first lesson is
that we should more clearly and precisely formulate both Russia’s
foreign political interests and the role of those people whom Russia
takes under its protection in the light of those foreign political
interests as formulated.” The area of Russophone eastern Ukraine, he
said, is “such a self-sufficient territory that Moscow should perhaps
stop taking it as an instrument for exerting influence on European
or Ukrainian affairs. It seems to me that Donetsk and Kharkov and
Lugansk are in fact entirely ready for partnership relations with
Russia, with Moscow. The problem is that Moscow is not ready to see
them as partners but only as compatriots who are an instrument of
interference or influence, or in some game.”
Venediktov questioned rhetorically whether Russia’s attempt to get
involved in the situation in Ukraine was genuinely in defence of the
interests of Russian compatriots or political manoeuvring. “Genuine
defence of the interests of our compatriots should find expression in
two ways,” Venediktov said. “Either we invite them here – and they
really do represent a gold reserve. Russia’s demographic situation
is very bad. Yet according to various estimates there are up to 22m
people now who regard themselves either as Russians or Tatars or
Chuvash, who have gone through state education here. This is the gold
reserve. Or, we must help them there, so that in the final analysis
they do not lose their links with the language and culture, with the
motherland. Neither of these things has been done.”
Rogozin said there was a need to define the terms used. “In my view,
in the Russian Federation nobody is interested in the subject of
compatriots, we have not even managed seriously to tackle the concept
of exactly who we mean by the term compatriots – what do we mean
– ethnic Russians? Or a Tatar living in Riga for whom the Russian
language is the main language by which he identifies himself? What is
he, a compatriot? Or nothing for us?” There is no official support for
Russians abroad, Rogozin pointed out. The Duma comes out with grand
statements along the lines of “hands off our compatriots in the Baltic
states”, he said, and then forgets about it the next day. Whereas the
USA and some European states regard protection of their compatriots
abroad as a matter of national security, Rogozin went on, “for us it
is PR, in the best case” or an instrument to be used. What is needed,
he said, is some sort of official body to tackle work with Russians
abroad, a point picked up by Mitrofanova, who believes the Russian
Centre for International Scientific and Cultural Cooperation at the
Russian Foreign Ministry should be turned into a federal agency.
Citizenship law
Vendiktov condemned at length what he described as Russia’s
“detestable” and “shameful” citizenship law, which he said closed off
avenues for people to get citizenship. He said the law, which speakers
pointed out had already been subject to considerable amendment,
needed to be further simplified. The case of Andrey Zuyev, a young
man originally from Samarkand in Uzbekistan, who has been living in
Volgograd for four years, was taken as an example of the difficulties
people from the former Soviet states have when they try to return to
Russia. He has been unable to get citizenship, and without documents
he cannot get a proper job. Rogozin promised to look into Zuyev’s case.
Despite the need for labour in Russia, Duma Security Committee member
Rozuvan said, “we cannot simply take in everybody who wants to come to
Russia. Just imagine what would happen!” Having sparked heated debate
on the subject, Rozuvan insisted that there had to be differentiation
between who could be given citizenship. “There has to be this sort
of gradation. Because today the Russian who has landed up outside
the confines of his country should have prior claims to return here
than, for example, an Uzbek or an Armenian who was not born in Russia
at all and never spent any time there but today suddenly wants to
become a Russian citizen.” Pressed on the subject of mixed marriages,
Rozuvan said there nevertheless had to be “a simplified procedure for
ethnic Russians. Under the present law they all have equal rights
and that is not proper.”
Buslova pointed out that details of the simplified procedure for
getting Russian citizenship had not been announced in Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which is why Russians in those countries
were in their present plight.
Turkmenistan
Rogozin took up the “outrageous situation” of Russians in
Turkmenistan. “This is a catastrophe, a complete catastrophe. Because
when we abandoned the agreement on dual citizenship with Turkmenistan –
yes, of course it was a strange agreement, we have dual citizenship
with a country governed by, I don’t know, Saddam Husayn No 2, even
worse, even crueller. Turkmenbasy, I mean, of course. There are
today 95,000 citizens of the Russian Federation there today, Russian
Turkmens, who cannot leave Turkmenistan for Russia on a Russian
passport. They cannot leave Turkmenistan until he, Turkmenbasy, puts
a stamp on their exit visa in their passport. And our people can do
nothing. The Americans take their citizens out of Turkmenistan, all
kinds of European conferences and congresses debate Turkmenistan and
condemn the despotic, fascist regime in Turkmenistan. We have 100,000
of our people there whom we are obliged under the constitution to
protect, and we do nothing,” Rogozin said.
Rogozin went on to add: “Turkmenistan is a state which not only
oppresses its own citizens and the citizens of other states, including
Russia. It is a state which uses the state machine to manufacture
narcotics on an industrial scale and transfer them to Russia in
industrial quantities. Narcotics, especially heroin from Afghanistan,
are a weapon of mass destruction.”
Presenter Sorokina asked “why 100,000 citizens of the Russian
Federation in Turkmenistan have been forgotten by the State Duma”,
adding that she has never heard of the Duma issuing a note of protest
to Turkmenistan.
“Gold reserve”
Asked what should be done now to make use in the long term of the
“gold reserve” of Russians abroad, Skrinnik proposed completing work
on setting up a federal agency for work with compatriots, which should
monitor the diverse situation in different countries. Rogozin commented
that “nobody will respect Russians outside Russia” until the Russian
government itself defines its policy on compatriots. Venediktov backed
up the point, adding that a specific state programme of support for
compatriots abroad was needed, in addition to “a tough response on
the part of the state to all infringements of the rights of Russians
abroad”. Second, he said, specific work and support is needed for
those who have returned to Russia.
Buslova pointed out that a programme of resettlement could be drawn
up to take advantage of abundance of jobs, land and housing in the
Far East, where Defence Ministry accommodation has been evacuated.
Shevchenko pointed out that whilst Russia needed to open its gates wide
to immigration in order to make use of and retain its vast territory,
“we need an internal mechanism of absorption, it seems to me, so that
Chinese, for example, who come to Russia would not be seen as enemies
like they are in America, but as citizens of the Russian Federation
who would like to live in our country”.
Venediktov added that countries which previously had empires,
such as Britain, had special ministries, such as the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, tasked with dealing with the consequences of
loss of empire. Russia should follow their example, he suggested.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress