ROPV CONTRIBUTORS
by Nick Sluchevsky
In the
contemporary world where mainstream media go out of their way to provide
‘balance’, it is truly extraordinary that the New York Times persists in its Russia
reporting with such an apparent negative bias. For a liberal and intellectual
newspaper that is expected to be a beacon of excellent journalism – which, for
the most part it is – I continue to find this perplexing.
Clifford
Levy’s recent article is a perfect case-in-point. The Oct.18th lead
informs readers that “Nearly two decades after the collapse of the Communist Party, Russia’s
rulers have hit upon a model for future success: the Communist Party.” This is
both sensational and completely incorrect. Frankly, I found it rather
embarrassing. To begin with, China’s
primary economic model is pure capitalism, as evidenced by their colossal
success over the years. For an American audience this should prove to be a
positive comparison. But that is not the comparison Levy seeks to make. The use
of the pejorative ‘Communist Party’ clearly attempts to draw the reader to the
belief that Russia
– especially under Putin – has been sliding back to its Soviet roots. By
extension, this approach seeks to establish a conflict situation between the US and Russia along ideological grounds.
This is
inherently dangerous, not to mention morally indefensible, for a journalist to
do. Frankly, any simplistic and reductionist thinking on this scale is bound to
be. Let’s be perfectly clear: there is nothing remotely ‘communist’ in Russia’s
current thinking. They have become, for better or for worse, true believers in
capitalism. Following the disaster of the 90s, Russian leadership has also
become quite wary of the West’s ‘help’ and have become highly pragmatic. They
are results driven – hence the Chinese model they seek to ‘emulate’.
Converting
the Russian people into this new model is an extremely difficult process, which
Levy and others ignore. Ingrained habits, corruption at an unimaginable level,
and a vast legacy of SOEs (state owned enterprises) make this a painstakingly
slow process. A considerable legacy of the Soviet Union exists in Russia’s
bureaucracy, not in their leaders’ ideology.
There is a
great deal more that could be said here, but the greater point to be made is
the bias issue and where it comes from. I believe it is too simplistic to say
that this bias is a holdover from the Cold War. There seems to be something
more ominous at work, although I admit being at a loss as to what this might
be. I use the word ‘ominous’ only due to the fairly ubiquitous nature of such
journalism, with identical bias noted in the Washington Post, the Wall Street
Journal, and the Economist.
Perhaps
Levy and others of his persuasion are merely Friedmanesque (Milton) economic
imperialists who felt betrayed by the failure of Russia to become an American vassal
in the 90s [see Stiglitz, Joseph “Globalization and Its Discontents” and Klein,
Naomi “The Shock Doctrine” for excellent coverage of the complex issues]. While
this may explain, to some extent, Michael McFaul’s [senior director of Russian
and Eurasian affairs] worldview, it does not fit with well with Levy and his
colleagues. What, then, is the reason? This is well worth pondering.
Nicholas V. Sluchevsky is Chairman
of the non-profit foundation “Stolypin
Memorial Center”,
based in Moscow.
The Stolypin Memorial
Center, named after Piotr Stolypin,
the reformist Prime Minister under Czar Nicholas II, is dedicated to issues of
government development and growth of civil society in Russia.
Comments