09 October 2008
Russian Claims of Privileged Sphere Draw Criticism
Right to defend citizens anywhere appears to violate international law
Washington — In the wake of Russia’s assault on Georgia, its claims of a “privileged” sphere of influence within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union, along with the declaration of a right to intervene on behalf of Russian citizens outside its borders, have drawn expressions of confusion, dismay and outright rejection in the United States and Europe.
“Russia seeks to roll back democratic breakthroughs on its borders, to destroy any chance of further NATO or [European Union] enlargement and to re-establish a sphere of hegemony over its neighbors,” wrote two former Clinton administration diplomats in a Washington Post commentary. Richard Holbrooke, now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, negotiated the Dayton Peace Accords for Bosnia; Ronald Asmus, former deputy assistant secretary of state, is with the German Marshall Fund in Brussels.
“PRIVILEGED INTERESTS”
Despite disclaimers that Russia seeks neither ideological conflict nor a new Cold War, both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have repeatedly made troubling claims of unilateral Russian rights and authority in a number of different public venues. (See “NATO Supports Georgia’s Integrity, Unity Against Russian Action.”)
At the annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow, which brings together Russian experts from around the world, Medvedev asserted that “our neighbors ... represent the traditional sphere of interests of the Russian Federation.”
In interviews with Russian television, Medvedev set forth five principles of international relations, including spheres of influence. “Russia, just like other countries, has regions where it has its privileged interests,” he said, according to a BBC report.
Asked if he was referring to neighboring countries, Medvedev said, “Certainly the regions bordering [on Russia], but not only them.”
Another principle deals with the protection of citizens. “Our unquestionable priority is to protect the life and dignity of our citizens, wherever they are,” Medvedev said.
CITIZENSHIP, PASSPORTS AND LAW
Legal experts express deep skepticism about Russia’s claims to be merely defending the rights of its citizens. In South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Trans-Dniester (Moldova), Crimea (Ukraine), and other regions, Russia has engaged in a systematic pattern of issuing passports, declaring thousands of residents to be Russian citizens, and then asserting its right to intervene in their defense, according to news reports.
The principle of national sovereignty does not allow states to grant citizenship “en masse” to citizens of another country without that state’s explicit consent, according to Oxford University political scientist Natalie Wild.
“Russia’s actions in Georgia not only violated international law and principles, but also demonstrated to what extent the notion of humanitarian intervention can be abused,” she wrote in a recent commentary for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Christopher Waters, law professor at the University of Windsor in Canada and editor of The State of Law in the South Caucasus, finds that large-scale granting of passports in these disputed regions “where Russia seeks influence is self-serving and, in large measure, a sham.”
In an online article, German scholar Andreas Umland, editor of the book series Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, asked: “Imagine Moscow’s reaction if Germany would start offering German passports to the inhabitants of the Kaliningrad region and protecting these new Germans’ ‘rights and dignity’?”
Umland concludes that Russia is distributing passports in South Ossetia and other disputed regions “to accelerate local conflicts, create a pretext for Russian involvement ... and provide justification for territorial annexation.”
RETREAT FROM UNITED EUROPE
Many observers see an ominous pattern running through these comments, pointing not only to Russian actions in Georgia, but the linkage between domestic repression and international confrontation.
In an America.gov interview, Robert Hamilton, defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said: “The concept of privileged spheres and what they call the ‘Near Abroad’ is destabilizing. The Russian relationship with NATO changed because Russian internal politics ... [have] slid toward authoritarianism.” Hamilton headed the U.S. military training program in Georgia for troops serving in Iraq until earlier this year.
Putin has railed against NATO expansion as “a serious provocation” and condemned the current international system as unfair to Russia. Yet, contrary to myth, Russia has not been “humiliated” since 1989, according to Denis MacShane, British member of Parliament and former EU minister, writing in Newsweek magazine.
“In fact, no other former foe of Western democracy has been so welcomed. Russia has been brought into the G7. The Council of Europe has opened its doors to Russia even if the Duma refuses to recognize the European Court of Human Rights. ... Investment has poured into Russia. [President] Bush, [former British Prime Minister] Tony Blair, and [former German Chancellor] Gerhard Schroeder all gushed with praise for Putin when he became president in 2000,” MacShane wrote.
Robert Hunter, former ambassador to NATO and now a senior analyst at the RAND Corporation, observed in a news commentary that recent U.S. administrations have sought two goals: “Take Central Europe permanently off the geopolitical chessboard and draw Russia productively into the outside world. These goals were intended in part to replace ‘spheres of influence’ politics with cooperative institutions based on democracy and economic advancement.” (See “NATO Seen as Strengthening Security for All, Including Russia.”)
For more information, see Standing with Georgia on America.gov.
