On pragmatic love by the Russian elite for Mr. Mugabe

Source: Pavel Voshanov, 25.07.2008

The tactic reason of the Russian position – “gentle chiding without punishing” – towards Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is unlikely to be related to apprehension that starting with the Zimbabwean model of “will expression” the West might go at the Kremlin with its “sovereign democracy”. The major motive for our veto in the UN Security Council, put on the US-British proposal of resolution about sanctions to be imposed on Zimbabwe, where non-alternative Presidential elections were held – that motive was “an eye for an eye” principle. Washington ignores Moscow protesting against anti-missile defense system in Europe, while London insists on accusing Moscow of having organized the Litvinenko’s murder. In revenge, Moscow has demonstrated it also may do something. The message was got.

At the same time, the Russian “no” to sanctions against the dictator Mugabe speaks about many other things. For example, it proves that many-year-long searching for the new global order has led us to the original point, where nothing matters as much as “military-political and economic expansion of the West”.

Here is a fresh confirmation of such a renaissance: practically all the G8 members have a bone to pick with the standing Syrian ruler Bashir Asad. And only for the Kremlin he remains a “reliable friend and partner”. Why does Moscow have its own opinion about this topic? Why doesn’t it notice the readiness by Syria to get in war with Israel or doesn’t see its hand in Lebanon developments? Why doesn’t it condemn the strange relations with Islamic radicals and repressions towards the opposition and the human rights activists? It’s because Moscow needs this friendship so that to be able to oppose the US and NATO in the Mediterranean area. That appears to be a deal done on equal terms. Moscow turns a blind eye to everything that is noticed by other G8 partners. (An eloquent is the fact for example that it was only in 2002 that Syria granted a pardon to children aged 7-18 years old!). Asad is supposed to show reciprocity. What can be done about that? For example, the Syrian port Tartus may become a site for permanent location of the Black Sea Navy bases. Such could be our “adequate response” to the West and to some arrogant CIS partners considering themselves to be the only pebble on the beach!

Once again Russia keeps aloof, relying on the allies who support her not because of convictions, but out of necessity. What is it for? One of the reasons is that having defined the world to consist of “us” and “them”, the Russian ruling elite has managed to get necessary controllability of the society. The idea of Russia joining NATO being rejected as “antinational” one, the idea of opposing this bloc has taken possession of the masses. The syndrome of the “besieged fortress” has made Russians be politically lenient. Now they would not show any discontent even in case they got dissatisfied with something, in the situation where the “enemies” are making designs for our freedom and rich natural resources! No one inside the country wants to look like a non-patriot. Possibility of outside threat works as best political preservative. This is why Russian rulers are willing to spend all their life near this point, without any significant changes made.

So do many of their counterparts from near abroad. Everyone has something to name to be the reason for excluding any undesirable changes. Saakashvili has Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which he is trying loudly to return into Georgian statehood. He would not be able to keep on his presidential office without that, considering the hot temper of his compatriots.

Yushchenko “presents” a permanent conflict with malignant “Moscow people” going on just about anything: gas price, Sevastopol and Black Sea Fleet, or Ukrainians wishing to join NATO. With almost anyone there considering that people have made a bad choice electing him to be the head of the state, Yushchenko still has firm position while the conflict goes on. And similar is situation of Moldavian President Voronin “combating” with Transdnestria and Ilkham Aliev, who inherited Azerbaijan from his father Geidar, and who must be interested in the conflict of Karabakh.

It would be very strange if any of the post-soviet leaders condemned Zimbabwean President for using the administrative resource and tempering the elector’s votes. There are Mugabes everywhere! In Russia the phenomenon is collective, not personified – that’s the Kremlin. What it does at any elections just cannot fit any law. From times to times, the opposition attempts to dispute the outcomes, but every time it fails. And this is so not only because the authority has the court in its pocket. There is even more weighty reason, as Russians have been trained to obedience (without much resistance shown). And so they just keep silence pretending all the happening is not their business.

People in Armenia did not want to put up, and it came to deaths, mass arrests and national emergency. Today the opposition, who does not admit the victory by Serge Sarkisyan, puts an action to the Hague tribunal. However, one should not doubt that at the end the official Yerevan would play the card of “active opposing the NATO interests in Transcaucasia”, which would ensure Sarkisyan to become considered the only real political force in the country. And which is more important, the most part of population, not wanting to risk the earnings gained by their relatives working in Russia, would not wish the resignation of Sarkisyan and would oppose any changes.

This is true that Mugabe has put the squeeze on democracy. But the truth is also that any post-soviet president used administrative resource at the unfair elections. The opponents to President Nazarbaev still try to keep their distance away from Astana (Kazakh capital city) and only protest far away from the electorate, cheated by the authority. The president of Kyrgizia came to power nearly using the war path, having banished the predecessor with all his relatives from the country beforehand. The government by Saakashvili is an endless train of loud protesting meetings, pickets and hunger strikes by his political opponents requiring cancellation of the election outcomes. In Azerbaijan the elections ended up in trial on a big group of opposition activists arrested for organizing mass protest actions. The opponents of Tajik President Rakhmonov still argue that he was not given the right to hold this office for the third time, according to the Constitution.

Robert Mugabe having been ruling in Zimbabwe 28 years, this fact is considered by the UN to be the proof that his regime is non-democratic. Well, such a long term cannot impress us, Russians, with our governors being in power for 20 years. Some of the old-timers were pensioned by Putin and the regional elite were a bit renewed, but one should have no doubts that the new appointees would be holding their offices for long and would become political old-timers in the future.

I read about Zimbabwean nepotism in a newspaper. Allegedly, a Mugabe’s nephew got to possess some workshop in the vicinities of Harare. Well, his uncle is just a skinflint after that! If that guy were a relative to some of our top staff, he would learn what a real success is. We have some head in whose kindred three dollar billionaires have appeared during the time of his office. And there is a “Harare” where sons, nephews and other relatives control up to 70% of the domestic economy. And if you try to say that’s nepotism, you’ll get suited for slander, as you would not be able to prove with any documents that this person promoted his kindred while being “servant of the people”. It only remains making a helpless gesture and admitting that the relatives of such people are really lucky businessmen – every mother’s son!