• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The Masks of Proteus: Russia, Geopolitical Shift and the New EurasianismAuthor(s): Graham SmithSource:
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
New Series, Vol. 24, No. 4 (1999),pp. 481-494Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with theInstitute of British Geographers)Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/623236
Accessed: 20/07/2009 09:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
 Blackwell Publishing
and
The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
arecollaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers.
http://www.jstor.org
 
The
masks
of
Proteus:
Russia,
geopolitical
shift
and
the
new
Eurasianism
Graham Smith
Despitethegrowinginterest within international relationstheoryandpoliticalgeographyincriticalgeopolitics,therehasbeenlittleengagement-other thanfromWesternperspectives-withtherelationshipbetweengeopoliticsand nationalidentitiesinRussia.This article examinesthisrelationship by focusingontheemergenceof Eurasianism withingeopoliticaldiscourse,and themannerinwhichsuchrepresentationsofRussia as a distinctiveEurasiancivilizationandpowerinformgeopoliticalthinking, particularlyinrelationtotheshift inRussia'sforeignpolicysince aroundearly1993. The article firstexplorestheemergenceofcompetinggeopoliticaldiscoursesamongstpolitical opinion-makersbeforeturningto considerhowparticularsites-'the NearAbroad','Europe'and'Asia'-have beenofficiallyreinscriptedaspartofRussia'sunderstandingof itself as aEurasianpower.Thearticle drawsuponthegeopolitical writingsofprominentRussiantheoristsandstatesmen and Russiangovernmentpolicystatements anddocumentsfrom 1993toearly1999.keywordsRussiageopoliticsEurasiadiasporaZhirinovskyZyuganov
manuscriptreceived 25June1999
Introduction
Russia hasundergoneasignificantshift inforeignpolicysince around 1993.Interpretedas a moreassertive andnationalistic stance withinglobalaffairs,most commentatorsattribute this seachangetoRussia's disenchantmentwithits short-lived Westernorientationintheearly1990s andtoagrowingperceivedneed withinforeign-policy-makingcircles to be more assertive withregardtonationalsecurityinterests(Tsygankov1997;Mezhuev1997).This shiftinsecuritydiscourse hasalsobeen linked to theYeltsinadministration'sattempt politicallytooutbid both thenational-isticallybellicoseFarRightand theCommunistParty followingtheirsuccessesinthe1993and1995parliamentaryelections(andastronglosingperformanceinthe 1996presidentialelection),toendtheformationwithin theparliamentarylowerhouse(Duma)of a'Coalition ofPatriotic Forces'madeupofbothblocks(Malcolmand Pravda1996).While this isnotalwaysmadeexplicit,thereisalsoageneralconsensusamongstWesternanalyststhatthe reformulationof Russia'sforeignpolicyreflects amoresystemiccrisis ofnationalidentity,of whatitmeans to beRussianfollowingthe demiseof theSoviet homeland(Sovetskayarodina)andof thedifficultythatmanyRussiansfaceinreadjustingtothe loss ofglobal superpowerstatus(Smith 1999a).
Editor's note:Graham Smithfinished thispaperforTransactionsjustbefore histragicdeathearlier thisyear.Given
thecircumstances,hepapercould notbe refereed in thenormalway,butIamindebted toMike Bradshaw(Birmingham),MarkBassin(UniversityCollegeLondon),GerryKearns(Cambridge)ndAndrewWilson(Schoolof Slavonic and EastEuropeanStudies,London)forlookingthroughit,and fortheiradviceandcomment.Thepaperwaswrittenbeforetherecent eventsinKosovo.Itispublishedhereasatribute to GrahamSmith'soutstandingcontributiono the field ofpoliticalgeographyngeneral,andto'Soviet tudies inparticular.hepaperisfollowedbyanappreciationofGraham'sworkbyGerryKearns.
TransnstBrGeogrNS24481-500 1999ISSN0020-2754RoyalGeographical ociety(withTheInstituteofBritishGeographers)999
 
482WithinMoscowforeign-policycircles,theplaceascribedtoRussiawithinglobalaffairs has becomeincreasingly scriptedaspartof anexplicitly geo-politicaldiscourse basedoncompeting representa-tionsofRussia asinextricablyboundup,bothgeopoliticallyandculturally,withtheideaofEurasia. While the 'Eurasian idea' canbetracedback tonineteenth-centurySlavophilism,sincetheearly1990s it hasemergedtooccupyaprominentplacewithin thegeographical imaginationofRussia'sintellectuals,politiciansandforeign-policy-makers-especiallyinthosegovernmentalinstitutions concernedwithinternationalaffairs,notablythe RussianForeign MinistryandMinistryofDefence,and the Duma'sGeopoliticsCom-mittee. Basedonthenotion thatRussia shouldfollow its distinctive societal andgeopolitical pathseparatelyfromEuropeand theWest,the 'newgeopolitics'also accordstoRussia,as the self-proclaimed leadingEurasianstate,aspecialrolewithinpost-Sovietspace.However,whilestressingits distinctiveness aspartof Eurasiancivilization,Eurasianists differintheextentto whichtheyemphasizeRussia'splacewithin Eurasian civiliz-ation asconstitutingeitherapotentialculturalandgeopolitical bridgebetweenEuropeand Asiaorsimplyanalternativeto both. In theprocess,Eurasianist thinkershaveappropriatedandreframed thewritingsoftheself-styledinter-warEurasianists,a school madeupofyoungRussiandiasporicintellectualsbasedlargelyinPraguewhodrewheavilyuponboth latenineteenth-centurySlavophilethoughtand the ideas of Westerngeo-politicians.Yet,despitetheirattemptto redefineRussia,asLaqueurnotes,they[theoriginalEurasianists]never madeitclearwhetherheyhadareal,existingEastor anabstractioninmind;whethertheywanted asynthesisofEuropeandAsia orrejectedoth,whether heirdevotionotheOrthodox hurchwasdeeperhan theiradmiration orIslamandBuddhism.Laqueur993,175)Whilethe New Eurasianismembodiesa similarambiguity,its advocatesacross thepoliticalspec-trum shareanuneasewithRussiaemulatingtheWest,andwith the formofforeignpolicythatMoscowpursued duringits so-called'Western-liberal'periodof 1991-93.While the suddenandunplannedend of theSovietUnionmighthavebeenexpectedtohavethrownMoscow'spracti-tionersofstatecraftintoconfusion,in fact whatswiftly emerged duringthisperiodwasaclearGraham mithglobalsecuritydiscourse that welcomedanewbeginningfor Russiawithinworld affairs. Based onabandoning'theimperial past',itsoughtto safe-guardRussia's intereststhrough cooperationwiththeWestandwithitspost-Soviet neighbours byprioritizingitsfull and activeparticipationininter-nationalpoliticalandeconomicorganizations.Theideaof Russiabecominganequalpartnerof theWest,workingwithAtlanticismandsharingitssecurityconcerns,wasrapidlyinscribedinofficialgovernmentdiscourse.Russia,it wasclaimed,wasnotonlyrejoiningthe West but'returningto civiliz-ation',againbecoming'anapprenticeofEurope',andsoconnecting upwith aWesternizingtraditionbeguninRussiainthelateseventeenthcenturyunder Peter the Great(butwhichthroughoutmostofthe twentiethcenturyhad beeninterrupted bystate socialism: seeKozyrev1994;1998).This newforeign-policyorientationwas consideredintegralto thecountry'stransitionto the market andtosecuringvital Western assistancefor Moscow'sdomestic reconstruction.As AndreiKozyrev,Yeltsin's firstministerofforeignaffairs,putit,this
'return to civilization... is aboutapragmatic
politics,ofhelpingmeet the internal needs ofRussia'(Izvestiya2January1992).InreturningtotheWest,thenewgeopoliticsalso heraldedadistancingfromthepast. Imperializing practices,interpretedasbothTsaristandSoviet, were,forRussia'sliberals,to become closedchaptersinthecountry'sgeopoliticalhistory.Inabandoningempirerebuildingambitions,what was to becreated wasa Russian(Rossiiskii)nationalstateinwhich even the idea ofthereintegrationof thesurroundingCIScountrieswas not consideredtobeinRussia's national interests(Yakovenko1997).Aboveall,the NewEurasianismhas frameditselfinrelationto both WesternliberalismandAtlanticism.But the revival ofEurasianistthinkinghasgonehandinhand with theemergenceofdifferingnormativegeopoliticalvisions ofRussia'srelationshipwith notonly 'Europe'and 'theWest',but also 'theNear Abroad' and'Asia'.1 ThusunderstandingEurasiaas a mask forlegitimatingparticularstancesonforeignpolicyalsoentailsgraspingitsimportanceasageopoliticallyconstructedand contestedexercisein moraljustification.As O'Tuathailwrites moregenerally,
To evokea'civilization'is to callupa foundationalidentity,amysticalandmythicaltranscendentalpresencethat isvague yetabsolutelyfundamental. To
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...