Dear Liberal Friends, dear colleagues,
On behalf of the Russian United Democratic Party YABLOKO
I would like to express our thankfulness to Liberal International
for the opportunity to make a short speech on the problems
of Foreign Development and Security Policy from the point
of view of Russian liberals, as well as the problems of Russia’s
integration into a single European space. Also I shall speak
very briefly on the political situation in Russia drawing
your attention to the most acute problems.
1. A single EU strategy towards Russia.
I would like to stress once again that, in our view, the European
Union should develop a single consistent strategy for interaction
with Russia based on integration rather than confrontation.
If the EU is able to initiate projects engaging both the Russian
society and the Russian elite into European values and approaches,
this would become a guarantee of Russia’s movement along the
European democratic way of development. And the role of Liberal
International in this process can be very important.
2. Elimination of visa barriers between Russia and
EU, freedom of movement. Agreement on a visa-free
regime between Russia and the EU could become a good example
of such a single EU strategy towards Russia. I would like
to stress that this initiative was for the first time proposed
not by the Russian government but by the democratic opposition
– the YABLOKO party – as early as in 1995. We think that freedom
of movement within Greater Europe is not reduced to facilitation
of trips of our citizens, it implies broader communication
between the citizens of Russia and the EU, which will enable
the Russian citizens to experience the achievements of Western
democracies, see how democratic institutes function in reality,
learn the democracy and build a truly democratic state in
Russia. In addition, the problem of the freedom of movement
has become especially acute in Russia after visa barriers
separated us from our closest Eastern European neighbours
as close interaction with them has always been and continue
to be very important when we speak about European trends in
Russia.
We realise that we have problems with democracy, bureaucracy
and corruption, but it is extremely important for overcoming
such problems to give ordinary citizens an opportunity to
learn and share the European values and the way of living.
Lack of free entrance creates problems only for law-abiding
citizens while criminals easily escape all the barriers. We
do not see large obstacles in the way of setting a visa-free
regime between the EU and Russia which is a member state of
the Council of Europe. We hope that it is the liberals who
will support our initiative not only because it comes from
their Russian colleagues, but also because a visa-free regime
will in the end facilitate the formation of civil society
in Russia and ensure Russia’s development within European
liberal values, which will mean more stability and security
on the continent.
At the recent summit in Rostov-Don Russia expressed its readiness
to transfer to a visa-free regime with the EU and submitted
to the European side a draft agreement on a visa-free exchange,
however, there has been no progress in this issue yet. We
are certain that in the 21st century we all should focus our
attention on elimination of the remnants of the “iron curtain”
and consider this our common strategic goal.
3. Military Security Policy. The ABM system
as a joint project of the RF and NATO. Another example of
realization of such a single strategy towards Russia can be
the ABM system as a joint project by the RF and NATO members.
We think that unilateral stationing of the ABM system in Europe
will, in addition to all other things, add to anti-Western
hysteria in the society and political elite and will hit us,
Russian democrats, as in such a situation it is very difficult
to count on any perspectives. That is why it was our party
and not Russia’s military bureaucracy or Russian authoritarian
leadership who in the early 2000s set forth the idea of strategic
partnership and in the late 1990s the founder of the party
Dr.Grigory Yavlinsky formulated the idea of a joint ABM. We
think that such cooperation for solution of international
and global problems could form a real alternative to the neo-imperialist
approach which is at present popular with Russia’s political
and military elite. At present it depends on the US and Europe
whether Russia’s global ambitions will be realised through
cooperation or confrontation with the West. However, not only
the West but also Russia’s democracy will lose from such a
confrontation, as democracy will not be able to develop in
the suffocating climate of anti-Western, anti-American hysteria
and fierce fight against the outer world in every sphere.
I know that liberals normally do not make any statements
on military issues, but liberal support to the joint Russia-NATO
(i.e., European) ABM initiative would become a most important
contribution into the world security. And we are calling you
to this.
4. Environmental Security Policy. Nuclear
waste imports into Russia. The Lake Baikal problems. Close
international cooperation is also needed in the field of environmental
security. The Chernobyl disaster has clearly shown: nuclear
or ecological disasters can not be local, the consequences
of such events always affect other regions or countries. That
is why YABLOKO has been consistently speaking against nuclear
waste imports and their burial in the Russian Federation,
pollution of the largest reservoir of fresh water on the planet
- the Baikal – by the waste from the pulp plant. (You can
read about our campaigns at our web-site).
Now I would like to draw your attention to the problems of
my country which, from my point of view, are very serious.
5. Situation in Russia. Stagnation. Gorbachev’s
and Medvedev’s reforms. The present political and economic
situation in the country can be characterised as the ongoing
stagnation which began under Putin. Russia’s modernisation
announced by President Medvedev has been taking place in words
only. It has not even started. And in my view, it is absolutely
inappropriate to compare Medvedev and Gorbachev. Mikhail Gorbachev
undertook huge risks and was politically demolished by his
reforms. Dmitry Medvedev does not risk anything, as he virtually
makes no changes. Consequently, he will manage to somehow
remain in power. One thing in common between them is that
they both worked over formation of a stable social base for
modernisation which can be formed only by a powerful middle
class controlling the largest (or at least a very large) share
of income-producing property. Gorbachev made only the first
and an inconsistent step towards this creating cooperatives.
The so-called “young reformers” gave control over such property
to oligarchs, and this property has still remained with the
oligarchs. And Medvedev is not going to change anything there.
6. Human rights. Unfortunately the situation
with human rights in Russia has been deteriorating. Political
murders of human rights activists and independent journalists
turned into tragic reality of Russia’s political
life. Journalists Anna Politkovskaya, Anastasiya Baburina,
journalists and members of YABLOKO Yury Schekochikhin and
Larissa Yudina, human rights activists Natalya Estemirova,
Stanislav Markelov, Magomed Yevloyev, Zarema Sadulayeva, Ali
Jabrailov and head of Dagestan YABLOKO and human rights activist
Farid Babayev paid with their lives for protection of human
rights and speaking the truth to the people. Those who ordered
these crimes still have not been found.
Violation of the constitutional right to freedom
of assembly by the Russian authorities has also
turned into everyday practices. Breaking of peaceful demonstrations
and rallies by police and bans to hold such actions have become
notoriously famous worldwide. YABLOKO’s activists and myself
have been several times arrested for conducting peaceful rallies
and pickets, criminal cases were filed against many of our
activists. One of Russia’s universities even tried to expel
our young activist for participation in YABLOKO’s actions.
The situation is absolutely different for progovernmental
parties and organisations. Permissions to conduct rallies
and demonstrations signing praises to the regime and regularly
held by the ruling party and its youth organisation are given
without delay. Moreover the best grounds (e.g., in the centre
of Moscow with a permission to conduct an action from morning
till night) are provided for such actions. Naturally such
“rallies in support of the authorities” have never had any
problems with police.
The situation with the freedom of speech
has not improved either. Tough political censorship and ban
on any criticism of the authorities have been introduced in
Russia in the early 2000s. The opposition or simply people
dissenting with the current policies can not get a platform
in the mass media for expression of their views. In addition
we can see already all manifestations of the chilling effect
on the freedom of speech (self-censorship) in the journalists
community are also here. The Freedom House rating of countries
that were not free in 2009 shows that Russia was ranked 174th
out of total 195 countries. According to the Freedom House,
Russia's score declined with the judiciary unwilling to protect
journalists from attacks, as well as frequent targeting of
independent media by regulators.
Non-profit organisations are derogated
in their rights facing unjustified bans to receive financial
aid which contravenes with the international practices.
7. Elections. A low turnout at elections
demonstrate a deep ongoing process of deligitimisation
of power within the society due to the continuing
erosion of trust or even loss of trust (confirmed by extremely
low turnout at the October 2009 elections) to the institute
of elections. Absolute distrust to the state, its institutions,
authorities and the law enforcement bodies from a crucially
important part of the population is the most significant trait
of Russia’s modern political system. However, trust is the
key condition for Russia’s progress, real reforms and successful
modernisation. The present high popularity ratings of the
top officials of the state together with extremely low rates
of public trust to all state and public institutions demonstrate
instability of the political system created in Russia and
extreme fragility of the formally announced “political stability”.
That is why the authorities do not let the opposition to
register in election campaigns and elections
are falsified. You all know about the fraud that took place
during election to the Moscow parliament in autumn 2009. Regional
and municipal elections in March 2010 continued this shameful
trend despite statements by the Russian and the world community,
including Liberal International, ELDR and ALDE. The system
of collection of signatures for registration of parties and
candidates in election race turned into a well-adjusted mechanism
for withdrawal of parties and candidates from elections. By
the way, in March 2010, YABLOKO was withdrawn from elections
on the pretext of signatures in two regions where our party
had good prospects. In other regions where we were not withdrawn
from the race we obtained good results, for example, 11 per
cent in Tula. And it was in Tula where we felt the insecurity
of the progovernmental United Russia party which was buying
off the absentee ballots there. This, of course, looks more
like nervous jerks rather than fair political competition.
At October 2009 election in Moscow only about 15 per cent
voted for United Russia. However, low voter turnout allowing
for mass-scale fraud saved this party. According to our analysis
and independent statistical analysis, the ballots of abstaining
voters were mostly stuffed in for the United Russia party.
In our view, these and other problems that the authorities
fail to solve or do not want to solve can lead to a situation
when Russia will pass the “point of no return” after which
the demand for changes will burst out as a riot. A very distant
prototype of such a revolt we have just seen in Mezhdurechinsk
after an explosion at the Raspadskaya mine taking the lives
of 67 miners. And then it will be too late to speak about
evolutional development or modernisation.
8. Corruption. No reforms in the country
(from the reform of the interior to creation of the Russian
Silicon Valley) can be conducted by the commercial bureaucracy
entrusted with their implementation. This refers to anti-corruption
campaigns too. Any such campaign automatically turns into
another means of pumping federal budget money into the pockets
of such commercial bureaucracy. That is why YABLOKO is saying
that a political reform (and without it modernisation will
remain a mere declaration) should be an integral part of the
economic modernisation strategy. It is impossible to conduct
reforms without division of authorities (parliamentary control,
independent court, etc.). And building of a modern state with
division of authorities is impossible without real liquidation
of corruption. In addition, in any projects connected with
state support we at once detect a corruption problem.
Conclusion. Russia’s problems are very serious.
This is connected with Russia’s history and reforms conducted
by pseudo liberals in early 1990s. However, proposing our
initiatives as regards international security, a visa-free
regime, ecology and, most importantly, the EU strategy we
proceed from the fact that these initiatives represent a way
for overcoming Russia’s problems. And we are calling you to
a joint work here.
THANK YOU!
See also:
Russia-EU
Relations
Russia's
ABM Initiatives
Human
Rights
Freedom
of Speech
Freedom
of Assembly
Environmental
Safety
| 