Back to Belavezha?

A union between Russia and Belarus with Putin as president? Those are the rumours presently at sway in Moscow, as Dmitri Medvedev has just been nominated Putin's successor as Russian president. According to Ekho Moskvy, Putin is to sign an agreement on a full political union between the two countries during his visit to Minsk this week.

One would normally be inclined to agree with the Kremlin spokesman who characterised these rumours as coming "from the realm of speculative fantasies," but one never knows what might come out of Moscow these days. Still, the idea seems far-fetched and appears to arise from those who simply cannot imagine a Russia without Putin. Fears are wide-spread among the security structures that the choice of Medvedev as new Russian leader might topple the delicate balance Putin has ensured. Still, in recent years, the security structures have gained many of the system changes they have so eagerly wanted.

Putin's presidency has been an era of stabilization for Russia. However, from 2005 the influence from security structures have been felt by the so called new democratisation or the development of sovereign democracy - effectively ridding Russia of political rights and freedoms. Now, having attained stability and control of the country, Russia's next project is modernization, as expressed by the so called Putin plan. Then, the choice of Medvedev comes naturally.

Letting go of influence to enable socioeconomic development is no minor matter for the security structures, especially if it means giving power to so called liberals. As has however been demonstrated, there is little liberal politically in Russian elite liberalism. Or, as James Carville once put it: "It's the economy, stupid!" Russian elite liberalism today is all about economic growth and development and has little to do with liberal rights and freedoms.

Still, despite an impressive economic growth in recent years, there is a long way to go yet and many obstacles to overcome. The main problem on the way ahead might actually be to deal with the consequences of dismantling Russian democracy. Paradoxically, the greater political control the Kremlin has gained, the more severe are the potential consequences for the economy. As surveys from the World Bank has shown, the 2005 policy of new democratization coincides with a general downturn for the systems supporting a good business climate. Would this trend continue, it might become a mounting obstacle for the economic growth and diversification envisioned by the Putin plan as the coming era of modernization. Then, both security structures and Kremlin liberals are in for trouble.

To even consider a union with Belarus under these circumstances appears mere wishful thinking by soviet nostalgics, but might well be a test-balloon to see what room there is for a new political project by the security structures. Reunification of the Slavic lands - Belarus, and perhaps eventually Ukraine and even Kazakhstan - would be exactly the kind of task that would topple the construction of a new and successful Russia the entire Putin presidency has been about. If Putin were to sign an agreement on political union with Belarus, it would be as if reverting the 1991 Belavezha accords, signifying the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That would be a thoughtless revanchist act of the magnitude of Compiègne, but perhaps those are the sentiments in Russia presently.

A union between Russia and Belarus fundamentally contradicts the Putin plan's policy of modernization, and the only reason why it might still be seriously considered, would be as a concession from the liberals to the security structures for letting Medvedev succeed Putin as president of Russia. The question one must then ask, is if the ongoing Kremlin power struggle has been allowed to go so far, as to enable even the craziest ideas. If the union and similar ideas would materialise, people will in a few years time look back with nostalgia to the relative peace and quiet of the Putin era.

Yeltsin: Selling out Russia

Now it is official what everyone in the business has known for the last 15 years. Back in 1991, Boris Yeltsin offered Finland to buy back Karelia - lost to the Soviet Union in WW II. This public secret has now been "revealed" by Finnish paper Kainuun Sanomat, which breaks a silent understanding in Finnish establishment of suppressing public debate on relations with Russia.

In late December 1991, the Soviet Union awaited its final dissolution. Earlier in the month, the Belovezha agreement had effectively torpedoed the USSR, and republic after republic ceded from the Union. On 25 December, president Gorbachev resigned, and by New Year the red flag was lowered from the pinnacles of the Kremlin. In its place, the Russian tricolor was hoisted, signalling a Russia of uncertainty. As a new nation, Russia was in dire need of recognition as a sovereign and successor state of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, its economy was in free fall, with food shortages and an industry in total disarray. In both respects, Russia needed to become a player on the new world stage.

All this is well-known history now, but still serves to contextualise the situation when Yeltsin - allegedly - offered the return of Karelia in exchange for much needed money. On an ideological level, Russia's new leadership needed to part with the past and the injustices of history to build a new nation. Yeltsin had thus previously supported the independence of the Baltic states, partly out of personal conviction, and partly to further undermine Gorbachev's position. There was also a liberalising belief that one way out of the problems was by local and individual initiatives. Thus, in June 1991, Yeltsin had urged Russia's regions to take as much sovereignty as they could digest. Also, a similar offer was made to Japan for the return of the Kurile islands, which the Soviet Union had conquered in 1945. The offer to Japan was still on the table until May 1993, when Yeltsin cancelled a visit to Japan for further talks on the issue, whereafter no mention has been made on it from the Russian side.

According to Kainuun Sanomat, in response to the Russian offer, Finnish president Mauno Koivisto appointed a secret group to analyse the costs for regaining Karelia. An initial cost of reconstruction was estimated to 13 billion euro, but subsequently the price tag increased to 71 billion euro. Obviously, this was too high a price to pay for Karelia, and - even though Russia repeatedly reiterated the offer during spring 1992 - president Koivisto in the end told Yeltsin in July 1992 that "Finland cannot afford Karelia."

Obviously, there were also security policy considerations, as the return of Karelia would bring Finland within sight of St. Petersburg - a problem that Russia historically had taken issue with. Also, Finnish public opinion seemed ambivalent or straightout negative to the idea, so it might have proven politically hazardous to raise the issue publicly. Still, regaining Karelia was publicly discussed in Finland at the time, even though few may actually have realised that there was a concrete offer on the table. Then, the main proponents for the this cause were nationalist Karelian exile organisations, which only served to make the generation having lived through the war increasingly apprehensive. The price in human lives and suffering had been too high to once more risk the chance of having Finland's great neighbour too close at hand. The price once paid by the loss of Karelia - 10% of Finnish territory and 400,000 refugees - was simply too high to risk its reiteration in the future. A final reason why the Russian offer was turned down might have been an impending economic crisis - partly due to the total loss of trade with Russia after soviet demise - bringing mass unemployment to Finland.

So, how has the Finnish establishment reacted to these news? Well, denial seems to be the word of the day in Helsinki. Despite the fact that Koivisto on numerous occasions has both said and written things, strongly supporting that there actually was a Russian offer, he simply states through his secretary that these news "do not feel familiar." Also, most high-ranking politicians and diplomats of those days vehemently deny anything of the sort of a Russian offer to return Karelia. It is more than obvious that official Finland now closes it ranks in face of an alternative to official history.

Why the Karelia affaire is disclosed right now is unclear. Ever since 1991, information about the Russian offer has been covered by media and documentaries, although often more as a footnote than as the main story. The difference this time over though, seems to be that now there may be detailed information exactly about how the entire affaire was handled. Another motive may be that some Finnish interests now want to discredit the last moral justifications for Finland's post-war appeasement policy in relation to the Soviet Union. With an increasingly menacing Russia at its borders, and a debate on Finnish accession to NATO out in the cold, this may prove an opportunity for NATO-adherents to undermine proponents of more accomodating relations with Russia, in contrast to what would be the result of Finnish NATO-membership.

So, why these massive denials. If there was a Russian offer on the table - as much now indicates - it seems the only decent and sound decision would nevertheless have been to turn it down. Opting for status quo instead of staggering costs in a dire and uncertain economic situation in addition to the great uncertainties of how a future Russia would develop, seems the most secure and responsible decision to make. If so, president Koivisto would once more have risen to the task of being a statesman of the best Finnish tradition.

Still, memory is short, and presuming that the public in retrospect would be able to correctly assess the situation in the early 1990s is perhaps too much to ask for. Therefore, what is at stake is the reputation and historical verdict of an entire generation of politicians in Finland, which only serves as a driving-force to making the Karelia affaire into a true scandal. Perhaps, the right thing to do - instead of continued denial - would simply be to proudly confess that this was the only responsible thing to do given the historical circumstances. This would though not be in line with Finnish tradition, which perhaps is the reason why it is good that this affaire now comes out into the open. As Russia is returning to the past it parted with in 1991, Finland may need to part with a past it never totally left behind. As long as this is not the case, Finland will continue to walk a thin line in its relations with Russia.

Finally, as for Yeltsin's part in the Karelia affaire, most Russians would today claim this as further evidence that he sold out Russia. Yeltsin's sense of a historical role and obligation to part with and try to make good for the crimes of communism is something current Russia wants to forget. Paradoxically, exactly this morale and courage of the early Yeltsin, to stand up for his beliefs in a democratic and just Russia, is what he will go down in history for. To this should also be added Yeltsin's attempts to put Finlandisation behind in relations between Moscow and Helsinki.

С Днем Победы

Today marks the 62nd anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. It is a day to commemorate the victims and sacrifices of the insanity of war, regardless of nationality, religion, or ethnicity. May the memory of the fallen never be tainted by the exploitation of states and politics. May they live on in eternal memory of man.

Come Rob a Botanical Garden!

"Shut up! It's a hold-up, not a Botany lesson. Now, no false moves please. I want you to hand over all the lupins you've got." Thus said the highway-robber Dennis Moore in the absurd Monty Python sketch by the same name. Taking from the rich - giving to the poor, Moore contributes to socioeconomic redistribution by robbing lupins (la. Lupinus polyphyllus). The mere thought of robbing flowers is a masterpiece of absurdity, but what few know is that reality presents an even more absurd historical parallel.

In the 1930s, the racist Nazi ideology transformed all walks of German life - and so also biology. When historians today speak about racial biology, they usually refer to the absurd idea of purifying human races, motivated by a belief in the superiority of their own race, as for example the Aryan race in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. What we today often fail to realise is though the full meaning of racial biology in Nazi totalitarianism. As the word indicates, totalitarianism signifies the full ideological control of a society in all respects. Therefore, even flowers and plants fell victim to Nazi ambitions of racial and genetic purification.

The idea was to genetically develop grain, vegetables and fruit, so that they would yield increasingly larger crops to feed a growing population in the ever-expanding Lebensraum of the German people. Consequently, as the Nazi army prepared to conquer the East - the Soviet Union - an expert team of racial biologists was assembled to form the "botanisches Sammelkommando der Waffen-SS" - the SS-Commando for botanical collection. Its task - to rob botanical gardens!

With botanist Nikolai Vavilov, Soviet botany became world leading in the field from the 1920s up till just before the Second World War. Vavilov organised botanical expedtions that were sent all over the world to collect samples, the results of which laid the foundation for his various botanical theories. Extensive research was done at the genetic institute in Leningrad that today carries his name. Botanical plant stations were built up throughout the Soviet Union to test and develop genetically modified plants. In 1940, the Vavilov institute held the world's largest botanical collections - seeds of plants, flowers, fruit etc. However, everything was not as bright as it seemed. Enter villain!

Trofim Lysenko was the Soviet biologist of the times who came to say what power and ideology wanted most - a theory on the inheritance of acquired qualities. In its most absurd versions, knowledge and skills were passed on to new generations, which fitted the image of building a new Soviet Man - Homo Sovieticus. Coming from poor circumstances, Lysenko was just the "barefoot scientist" that the Communists needed to clamp down on and discredit "bourgeois science." Being a biologist, the obvious first target was genetics. Consequently, Lysenko started a campaign to eradicate genetical science in the Soviet Union, leading to a policy of political extermination of scientific opponents. Thus, in 1940, Nikolai Vavilov - as the most prominent geneticist of his time - was imprisoned for "bourgeois pseudoscience" and eventually died of malnutrition in jail in 1943.

Then, what about the SS-Commando for botanical collection? During Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, the SS-Commando was deployed to collect as much as possible of the plant samples from plant stations of the Vavilov institute throughout the USSR. Its mission resulted in the greatest theft in history of the genetic inheritance from a single nation. Samples were collected and brought back to the Third Reich for cultivation. Led by German botanist Heinz Brücher, who had long experience from expeditions to China and Central Asia, the Commando succeeded in gathering samples from most Vavilov plant stations in the USSR, though never being able to conquer the Vavilov institute itself in besieged Leningrad.

After the war, Brücher escaped to Latin America, where he continued his research. As the Cold War began, focus turned away from Nazi crimes and Brücher could gradually regain his position as a revered scholar. In secrecy, he returned to Europe to collect the samples he had robbed from the Soviet Union and recultivated in Austria. In 1972, Brücher even became an expert on agriculture and biology for UNESCO. Rumour even has it that he visited the USSR and that the KGB then extorted him into handing over some of his research results along with plant samples he had once robbed the Soviet Union of.

As in many other cases with Nazi crimes, apologists have tried to belittle also this massive theft of genetic resources. Thus, Brücher is said to have saved the Soviet genetic heritage from certain destruction, as Lysenko's policy eventually would have been sure to eradicate the majority of genetic collections in the USSR regardless of the war. However, such speculations do not change the question of guilt. Brücher therefore goes down in history as the greatest genetical robber yet.

Perhaps as a sign of remorse, he used the last years of his life to develop the virus estalla - a virus that was intended to hit the coca plant, and thus cocaine production in Latin America. In 1991, Brücher was brutally murdered in his home in Argentina. There have been speculations that the murder was ordered by Colombian drug barons, fearing that his research results would threaten cocaine production.

Although the image of robbers carrying off entire botanical gardens, seems ludicruous at first thought, the Brücher SS-Commando was the first recorded case of "biopiracy" in history, and to this day also remains the largest.

In 1993, the United Nations adopted the Convention of Biological Diversity for the protection of the genetic heritage of all nations. To this day, however, drug and agricultural companies explore nature to find plants, which they can put to commercial use, developing new drugs or crops. Of course, the biggest unexploited genetic depositories are in developing countries, which themselves are candidly bereft of their resources. Some things never seem to change.

Perhaps, the Monty Python hero of Dennis Moore has greater relevance today than ever - "taking from the rich - giving to the poor" - the genetic heritage that history and present has taken from the poor and helpless. This is equally true for the peoples of the Soviet Union in history as it is for the peoples of developing countries today. So, hand over the lupins!

Reading recommendations:

"Potatisens genetiske revolutionär" Svenska Dagbladet, 1 December 2008.

"Sovjetisk frösamling hett krigsbyte", Svenska Dagbladet, 2 December 2008.

Yakovlev - An Architect of the Perestroika

On 18 October 2005, one of the great architects of the Perestroika, Aleksandr Yakovlev, passed away. In commeration of Yakovlev, I here publish my account of his lecture from a visit in Stockholm, Sweden, in March 2003.

Confronting the past
"Why delve into the past? Yes, why annoy people with what has been? What has been - has been." These questions were the starting-point of Aleksandr Yakovlev's Stockholm lecture. In analogy with L.N. Tolstoy, he pointed to the inability of himself and others to fathom the horrors of the past: "That will only happen when we admit that we are sick."

Over the past 15 years, Yakovlev has dedicated himself to the crimes of the soviet era; as chairman in the Commission for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression; and since 1993 through his own Yakovlev Foundation (Mezhdunarodny Fond Demokratsii). By this work, some 4.5 million innocently convicted have been rehabilitated, among those Raoul Wallenberg. Still 400,000 cases remain to scrutinise. The work encompasses documented cases, which have undegone legal trial and often been convicted in accordance with § 58 of the soviet penal code. Of course, a lot more people were executed without trial. The lack of documentation, however, complicates rehabilitation in these cases. Still, it is in the area of documentation that an important part of the work has been made. The Yakovlev Foundation has until now published some 30 volumes of historical documents, of which 16 are available on the Foundation website.

"Who is guilty?", Yakovlev asked. This recurrent question in Russia is often given a misdirected answer. When we point at Lenin, Stalin, and the Bolsheviks, we avoid to touch on our own guilt. We hide our heads in the sand, and pretend that it wasn't we that shot all those people; that it wasn't we that betrayed the neighbour to save ourselves. The truth is that the guilty are as much among us as they are in hell.

Although we succeeded in crushing Stalin's fascist totalitarianism, its heritage lives on. Then the book-fires burnt under supervision of Krupskaya. Then the churches were plundered. Then twelve-year-olds were sentenced to death.

The socialist construct - the great modernisation projects - rested on the shoulders of slave-labour. The camp system that arose from 1943, employed millions of people - from legislative system to camp prisoners.

An example of the continuity of the system was given at a visit in Magadan a few years back. Yakovlev, who was to inaugurate a monument to the victims of totalitarianism, got a cold reception. The explanation was that the liquidation of the Magadan camp system had led to massive unemployment. Of the 350,000 people in the camp system, 200,000 had been put into the street. "Why should they love you?" was the question confronting Yakovlev. In the same way, there is a "Magadan" inside us all.

It is not enough that our history is built on false documents. As we today are trying to get hold of the right documents, we are met by resistance from bureaucrats and passivity from the state. Many documents have also been burnt in individual attempts to cover ones own tracks. Other material was lost in 1941. Probably, we will not get access to all archives for a long time to come. This is not very strange. Just look how the US still hasn't opened up all the archives on the Kennedy assassination.

In the field

"History is made by coincidence." At Gorbachev's visit in Canada in 1983, it so happened that the host at a visit to a farm, was delayed. Yakovlev, then soviet ambassador to Canada, was given an opportunity to speak with Gorbachev between four eyes. The walk the two men made in the field, came to decide Yakovlev's role in the future reform process, which came to mean the end of the Soviet Union. While Gorbachev complained about the disintegration of the agricultural sector, Yakovlev got an opportunity to criticise soviet foreign policy. Three months later, Yakovlev was called back to Moscow to lead IMEMO. [On IMEMO's role in the change of soviet foreign policy see: Checkel, J, 1997, "Ideas and International Political Change", Yale UP, New Haven]. The role of Yakovlev and IMEMO, initially, was to produce analyses and alternatives for Gorbachev's action, primarily within foreign policy.

The road to power

The day Chernenko died, 10 March 1985, Yakovlev got a visit by Primakov, who informed him that Gromyko's son wanted to speak with him. Without involving his father, the son wanted to explore the possibilities for cooperation between Gromyko and Gorbachev. In a following discussion, it turned out how fed up Gromyko was with foreign policy, and that he would like to reatreat to a post in the Supreme Soviet. He was, therefore, prepared to nominate Gorbachev for Secretary General. Yakovlev, who didn't want to play a fool in a political game, however, agreed to speak with Gorbachev. The message was received as much with caution as with interest. Gorbachev was prepared to work with Gromyko, but asked himself whether this feeler in reality was a provocation. Yakovlev, however, thought that Gromyko had no room for such games. In further talks between Yakovlev and Gromyko, the message was sent that conditions for Gromyko's nomination remained. At the Polit Bureau meeting on 11 March, Gromyko immediately nominated Gorbachev for Secretary General. The proposal was seconded by Grishin, who had been subject to speculations as potential successor to Chernenko. The decision to elect Gorbachev to Secretary General was thus unanimous [Soglasny - vse]. Lack of discussion and unanimity in decisions was a social heritage within the party since Lenin's days.

Reforms

The assumption that all proposals made, have been sanctioned from above, was eventually to become an important instrument for Yakovlev in the reform process. Ideology was, however, not the driving-force behind his reformatory role. Certainly, Yakovlev had been posted as ambassador in Ottawa because of his alleged liberalism. He was to be distanced from the ideological struggle. Yakovlev, all the same, doesn't characterise himself as an ideolgoue. He passed his exams in Marxism-Leninism, but that was all. Capitalism and socialism are words beyond his comprehension. Why put an ideological label on a country? Every country lives according to its own traditions. Instead, it was practice during Stalin that upset him.

Still, it was Yakovlev who introduced the concept of "Glasnost". He thought that the system would collapse, when people found out the truth about the crimes that had been committed. That was - as we all know - also what happened. How then, did we succeed in puttin down the soviet monster? A direct attack was unthinkable. One would be confronted by a "Magadan". If Yakovlev had been clear about his true intentions, he wouldn't have survived the day. Therefore, one had to deceive [obmanyvat] the nomenklatura. The party was convinced that reforms would renew and improve socialism; that the speed of development would increase. Only after a few years, they started to understand what was about to happen. The decision, on closed elections with several candidates, which was made at the January 1987 January plenary of the Central Committe, became an alarm-signal for the nomenklatura. The realisation that one was not about to be elected led to discussions on "Bolshevik principles". Of course, power was central.

What concerns the reforms, many mistakes were made. "We are masters at stepping on the rake." The fight against alcoholism is one example. Alcohol cannot be fought with slogans. The fight against corruption turned out to become an attack on old ladies selling carrots in the square. A system for quality control did not improve quality. Disappointment spread and the anecdotes also about this regime began to flourish.

One says that "time is a difficult companion." As soon as we are not in pace with time, misery overtakes us. The same thing happens as we are trying to catch up. The conclusion can only be that Russia is particularly difficult to reform.

The end

During 1991, the danger of a conspiracy became all the more apparent. As the August coup evolved, Yakovlev had already resigned. He warned Gorbachev four times - in writing - about what was to happen. Gorbachev, however, underestimated how enterprising and courageous his oppinents would be, and simply chose to go away on vacation. So the coup d'état and its failure came about.

It was obvious that the Soviet Union must be transformed into a confederation on a voluntary basis by agreement. The Belovezha summit was, still, illegitimate. Confronted by fait accompli, only the unavoidable decisions remained to be made. Gorbachev and Yeltsin met in the Kremling and Yakovlev was called there to assist. One hour before their meeting, Yakovlev was called for. He still doesn't know why. They sat another eight hours together. The nuclear portfolio and the top secret documents were turned over. It was generally a quiet and considerate discussion. Just think if they would have been able to cooperate like that all the time! Then, at least, the state divorce could have passed by in more civilised forms. The situation as it now was, mostly appeared peculiar. When everything had been finished, they all went for a meal. Gorbachev retired to rest a little. Yakovlev and Yeltsin sat on for a while, before Yakovlev joined Gorbachev. What struck Yakovlev was that the otherwise talkative Gorbachev, with tears in his eyes, only said "Vot tak, Sasha" [That's it, Alexander]. Thus, a great era had passed. To this day, Gorbachev's exploits are unrecognised in Russia. In due course, the young will though learn to understand and appreciate his role.

Power and future

During his time in the Polit Bureau (1987-1990), also Yakovlev experienced how it was when the people paraded by with his portrait. It was a feeling neither of joy or moral distancing. The human is weak and power transforms her. Subordinates are soon regarded as inferior. Therefore, it is better the more often people in power are exchanged. Regrettably, current developments are going in the opposite direction. The nomenklatura has learnt to win also democratic elections. The communists party has forgot its ideology in the strive for power. The important thing is to keep ones hold of the Duma. Accordingly, there are also discussions to allow the president to run for a third term. If one succeeds in that, there will soon be talk of a fourth term. It is all like a psychological disease, but Tolstoy also claimed that the state governs as one governs lunatics. Warning signs abound - from anthem to Dzerzhinsky statue - and tendencies are dangerous. Even if Yakovlev fears a re-totalitarianisaton, he holds it unlikely in today's information society. Steps towards a law-governed society have also been made, among which are that court decisions have become mandatory for arrests and that minors receive redcution of penalties. Thus, the future is as hopeful as it is worrying.