#7
The Russia Journal
July 19-25, 2002
U.S.-Russia Relations, Anti-Americanism
By IRA STRAUS

It happened at a seminar at an elite foreign affairs institute – not the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, I hasten to add, to avoid any misunderstanding. The topic was Russian and American interests and strategies in Central Asia. Three Americans, as well as Russian scholars and students from the institution, were invited to speak.

The Americans were as varied as could be. I spoke in favor of combining American and Russian influence in Central Asia, arguing that Russia’s weight in the region is good for America’s security interests and urging Russians to make use of the opportunity after Sept. 11 to educate Americans about this. A former U.S. government official – and former emigre from the Soviet Union – spoke as a moderate, with regard for the interests of both sides. The third American seemed a bit like a leftie WASP; he spoke bitingly against American leaders and policies and urged Russians to take a stronger stance against American involvement in Central Asia.

Then four Russian students gave their take on the situation. Two of them gave somewhat balanced, moderate comments. Two others sounded like they were simply practicing their anti-American lines – saying America was out to dominate everything, taking over everywhere, never supporting Russia in anything, getting ahead at Russia’s expense, always scheming to damage Russia.

A fifth student chimed in with the prize argument: not the crude anti-Americanism of the earlier two, but anti-Americanism under the guise of praising America. Look how strong America is, she said, always pursuing its own interest! Look how patriotic the Americans here are! We Russians should follow their lead.

At the end of the session, one of the institute’s Russian instructors chimed in with a similar speech. Look how strong and patriotic the Americans are, he said, pointing to the three of us. They think about America’s interests and defend them at every opportunity. Russians should learn to do the same for their country.

The speech is inherently paradoxical. But the paradox was made more extreme on this occasion by contradicting what we were actually saying. It showed a complete failure to understand the comments of the Americans present. Not a single one of us was "patriotic" in the unilateral, nationalist sense of the word.

For these two Russian speakers,we might as well have not been there at all. They simply recited their standard formula, and attributed a crude patriotism to us as needed to fit us into the formula. It seems they didn’t count on the response of the third American, who bristled at being called patriotic and responded with a warning about "the dark side of American patriotism." It was as if they had not heard a word we were saying. It probably wouldn’t have mattered if we had said the exact opposite. They just plowed ahead and gave themselves a lecture on the need to be more national-patriotic, "like the Americans."

I heard the same lecture many other times in the course of the last year – not just from students and professors, but from articles published in normal, moderate-liberal newspapers. Last week I again heard its main theme, this time from the editor of a respected newspaper.

It seems to be a lecture that Russians frequently give one another. It is the only moral demand they seem to make of each other: the demand to be more nationalistic.

I did not hear any Russians warning about the need to avoid the evils and excesses of patriotism. I also did not hear a peep about the need to be more realistic: the need to take stock of their country’s real interests, without letting themselves get blinded by nationalist passions or popular prejudices.

It leaves an imbalance in moral demands. And when people have an imbalance in their moral demands, there are inevitable effects, and these effects were quite visible on that particular day. A couple of the students made intelligent comments, but more were merely practicing their anti-American lines. And at the end, they got a lecture from one of their professors about the need to be even more nationalistic.

The tale is sad for what it tells about a subculture in Russian thinking. It is sadder for its role as a substantial subculture within the elite, and sadder still as a subculture in the foreign affairs elite. Saddest of all is the fact that it holds rhetorical hegemony, at least when it comes to discourse about patriotism.

(Ira Straus has been Fulbright professor at MGIMO, the Foreign Ministry-connected institute of international relations in Moscow.)

BACK TO THE TOP    #216 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE