A discussion hosted by the Central Asia Caucasus Institute (CACI) at SAIS on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, in the Rome Auditorium.

The event featured Dr. Marlene Laruelle, non-resident Senior Fellow at CACI.

Dr. Svante Cornell, Research Director of the Institute, introduced Dr. Laruelle to the audience, noting the recently published Silk Road Paper written by Dr. Laruelle on the topic, available here.
Dr. Laruelle began her talk by noting that the current Russian rapproachment towards the countries of Central Asia has coincided with the rise of nationalism and xenophobia in Russia. For the most part, Russian public opinion associates Central Asia with mafia, terrorism and Islamism, thereby providing a fertile ground for nationalist movements.

Unlike the 1990s, when it was easy to distinguish between nationalist and moderate elites, Dr. Laruelle observed that nationalism has become a broader sentiment among the Russian population. President Putin, in addition to having greatly increased the general economic well-being of the country, introduced a distinct nationalist rhetoric that has since been adopted by all other political parties. In order to enhance their legitimacy, Russian politicians need to demonstrate a decent amount of patriotism. By doing so, they find it much easier to communicate the rest of their political platforms to the public.
According to Dr. Laruelle, the greatness of the motherland has become part of the social consensus in Russia. In education, patriotism is promoted among the young generation, for example by new history textbooks that rehabilitate Stalin. Rising xenophobia and social tensions express these tendencies, to a point where 60% of Russians now identify with the slogan “Russia for Russians”. Hence, political leaders have changed their tone to fit in, frequently playing on demographic fears and asserting the need to reestablish Russia’s power. It is hard to identify non-nationalist circles, Dr. Laruelle said, noting that even Kasparov has worked with the National Bolshevik Party.

Considered backward, Central Asia has been absent from Russian nationalism, which is much more focused on the Western fringes of the former empire. Nonetheless, Russian imperialism has been based on Central Asia and its colonization. In Dr. Laruelle’s view, this asymmetry does not bode well for the future. If Russia does not fully appreciate the value of Central Asia, it will lose influence in the region over the long run.

Dr. Laruelle went on to discern the three main views harbored by Russians vis-à-vis Central Asia. First, the so-called ethnonationalists consider the region a dangerous zone that causes only problems. They exhibit a strong islamophobia and favor closing all Russian borders to migrants, who are blamed for the rising crime in Russia. Proponents of this view, including a number of intellectuals, have promoted the formation of paramilitary groups and actively encourage xenophobia against all kinds of migrants, particularly gypsies and Jews.

The second view concentrates on the defense of Russians living in the Near Abroad. Its proponents argue in favor of Russia’s influence in the Central Asian states without creating new supranational structures. Their focus is on creating privileged relations with the diaspora, which, in essence, amounts to asymmetrical bilateral relations between Russia and Central Asia. Dr. Laruelle emphasized that this school of thought is well represented by nationalist circles in the Duma, where they are enjoying the support of strong lobby groups like the Russian Institute for Diaspora and Integration.

Neo-imperialism constitutes the third view. Its proponents, among them the Communists and Liberal Democrats in Russia, strive to resurrect their country’s leadership in Central Asia and other post-Soviet states by creating new common political and economic institutions. Dr. Laruelle cited Russia’s union with Belarus as an example. At the same time, she pointed to the various geopolitical contradictions of such a policy, especially in Russia’s relations with China.

In Dr. Laruelle’s eyes, the Central Asian states are Moscow’s most faithful partners when compared to other post-Soviet regions. Russia’s current relations with Central Asia revolve around three main issues
– power, diaspora and migration. Regarding the future of Russian power in Central Asia, few nationalists favor reunification. While they want to enjoy the benefits of empire, they are opposed to supporting these areas economically. Thus, regional cooperation and security treaties seem to be the best way to proceed. For their part, the Central Asian states are intent on pressing for the abolition of institutional barriers. Dr. Laruelle mentioned the EU as an ideal model for these countries.

In the interest of time, Dr. Laruelle skipped the situation of the diaspora in order to focus on the more sensitive issue of migration. The latter does not only concern Central Asia but also countries like China and Afghanistan. A few years ago, Russia realized that it had to change its policy on migration. For economic migrants, the country now has a quota of two million people in 2008. Dr. Laruelle claimed that this number is still too low given the burgeoning economy. She also said that, while lamenting the inflow of migrants, Russian nationalists welcome the effect of cheap labor for the country’s businesses. In a sense, the nationalist movement is split between those who fear Muslim migrants and favor a return of the diaspora or policies aimed at increasing the Russian birthrate and those who advocate legal immigration.

For demographic reasons, Dr. Laruelle considered the closure of Russia’s borders an unlikely scenario in the coming years. Calling the five states of Central Asia an intrinsic part of the Russian sphere of influence, she also noted that, apart from being unstoppable, the migratory flows are not decided in Moscow but in Central Asia. Both the Kremlin and the nationalists are aware of this fact. They should therefore approach the issue of migration pragmatically and come to terms with Russia’s steady orientalization.

In conclusion, Dr. Laruelle underscored the danger of Russia becoming a xenophobic country. Instead, Russia should work towards creating cultural and linguistic expertise on Central Asia, as the region will remain a major partner in the future. It is important, however, that such partnership be based on equality.

The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute is a leading center conducting fundamental and applied research on an important world region. It has offices at SAIS (Johns Hopkins University), Washington, and in Stockholm, Sweden, through a Joint Center with the Silk Road Studies Program (Institute for Security and Development Policy). This Joint Center publishes the Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst (cacianalyst.org), the China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, and the Silk Road Papers as well as books and monographs. Additional information about the Joint Center is available at www.silkroadstudies.org .