Category: Russia-Postsoviet Relations

Eurovision 2009: More Drama as Georgia Withdraws

I really like and respect Georgia. Despite my usual sarcasm showing in the past few post, I think it’s a great country with an impressive history. Its problem is its unfortunate geopolitical situation: It is very difficult to be a small neighbor of Russia these days. Russia wants it to be obedient (and share some of the territory), and another superpower wants to use it to put pressure on Russia. Having seen Ukraine deal with a similar predicament, I can’t help but feel sorry for it.

Georgia has participated in the Eurovision only twice before. So when Georgia pulled out of this year’s contest yesterday, I felt bad for it. But what is the deal with all the hypocrisy?

Here is what MSNBC quotes Georgia’s representative as saying:

“Our song … does not contain political statements and the public broadcaster is not going to change the text of the song and refuses to go to competition in Moscow,” the head of production at Georgia’s state broadcaster, First Channel, George Chanturia, told a news briefing.

Many countries in the past expressed and enforced their political views through using or banning popular music. National anthems are composed to sound grand and solemn to inspire patriotism. The Russian’s use of the old Soviet score for theirs was a definitive political choice. But politics and music intertwine more often than an average Russian hears the anthem: Presidential candidates everywhere enlist pop singers to campaign for them. Western Ukraine banned playing songs in Russian in public places a few summers ago (all other languages were fine). The Beatles were banned in the USSR at some point — as a propaganda tool of the “decaying capitalism.  I have seen North Koreans study Britney Spears CD’s as a way of learning about America’s culture.

There is nothing wrong when a band from a country that feels oppressed performs a song that claims they don’t want a president of the oppressing country. I mean, North Korea does it with George Bush. Wait, that’s a bad example. All similar ones I can think of right now were written by the Communist propaganda masters.

Anyway, there is also nothing wrong when that song gets distributed worldwide through the wonder that is YouTube. But it is somewhat strange when that song gets entered into a competition that is supposed to be non-political by nature, that will be held in the ‘oppressing country’s’ capital, — and when the official representatives claim it is clearly non-political and act all indignant.

If there were no rules in place that ban songs of political nature to be performed at Eurovision, I would not mind ‘We Don’t Wanna Put In being performed this year. Freedom of speech is a jus cogens to me. Truth be told, Eurovision is a very politicized events, and the way voting is structured allows countries to block against other countries etc.

Judging aside, from a political scientist viewpoint, I think that this song situation did not work in Georgia’s favor. Georgia knew what the rules were, it knew that everyone would hear ‘Putin,’ not ‘Put In’, it could probably predict the song would be banned by the Eurovision organizers. I would guess that it was looking for some sort of political martyr reputation, but instead, it came across as being petty. Georgia just needs a new political strategist.

Russia: The Eurovision Drama Unfolds

In my last post, I blogged about Georgia’s tongue-in-cheek anti-Russian song for this year’s Eurovision. The Eurovision drama just got more like a Mexican soap opera: the Russians made their pick to represent Russia. Get this: it’s a Ukrainian (but a Russian citizen). Singing a song in both Russian and Ukrainian. It totally warms my heart, as I can actually understand the lyrics. But hey, Russia and Ukraine are in the state of a miniature Cold War, so that’s an achievement.

The song’s title is “Mamo,” which is how one addresses one’s mother in Ukrainian. It’s a regular sentimental song, but at least it’s not politics-laden. Now, that’s refreshing.

The best part of Russia’s choice is that the lyrics were written by an Estonian, and the music was composed by a Georgian.

Here is the song:

Here is a link to a YouTube video of what I think is a TV screen record, with the actual performance.

Although I can’t be bothered to look up the statistics (I am on the spring break, after all), I believe around 13% of Russians, myself included, are actually ethnic Ukrainians. A Ukrainian has as much of a right to represent Russia as a representative of any common ethnicity in Russia. As a Russian-Ukrainian, I am absolutely ecstatic (plus Eurovision falls on my birthday this year).

I was semi-expecting more political gestures at this year’s Eurovision, but this is actually a gesture of goodwill. Take that, Georgia.

Georgia’s Eurovision Song: We Don’t Wanna Put In. And We Don’t Wanna Putin.

Eurovision, the all-Europe song annual song contest, has always been somewhat politicized. While in the past, most post-contest arguments pertained to what nation voted for what candidate, recent developments indicate a new Cold War in Europe: that between Russia and some of it’s post-Soviet neighbors.

In 2007, Ukraine’s Verka Serduchka sang what s/he claimed to have been “Lasha Tumbai” (a meaningless combination of sounds, really), but everyone heard “Russia, Goodbye.”

In 2008, Russia responded with Dima Bilan, who sang alongside an Olympic golden medalist Yevgeniy Plyushchenko to the accompanying Hungarian violist Edvin Marton. Dima Bilan became the first Russian to have won the Eurovision (Ukraine has two victories under her belt).

As the preparations for the 2009 contest are on the way, things are getting political. While most countries have not held the qualifying finals for their participants, Georgia announced its candidate, the band Stephane&3G that was specifically tailored to enter Eurovision. The country has only been participating in the Eurovision since 2007. Here are some of the lyrics:

We don’t wanna put in

The negative move

It’s killin’ the groove

There is a really awesome YouTube video of this song:


It certainly has a Eurovision winner potential: it is catchy, clearly inspired by American pop bands, and it has three girls with an exotic accent in tight PVC tops and mini-shorts. And it mentions drinking moonshine. That, along with the song’s message, will probably guarantee it many votes from the amused Western Europe and Russia-hating Eastern European countries.

Ironically, this year’s Eurovision will be held in Moscow (Russia’s Dima Bilan won last year), so “We Don’t Wanna Put In” will sound even more provocative. If the Eurovision organizing committee does allow this song to be performed (there were questions raised as to its appropriateness), I wonder what the Kremlin’s reaction will be.

I can see why the Georgians are so tongue-in-cheek regarding their behemoth neighbor, but that’s a petty way to deliver a protest, isn’t it? Georgia, if you are still mad over Abkhazia and Ossetia, go to a court of law, not the performance stage.

Russia, Ukraine, Natural Gas, and Thomas Schelling

The Russia-Ukraine natural gas conflict reminds me of a classic Thomas Schelling situation: the dynamite truck dilemma. There are two dynamite trucks moving towards each other on a narrow road. If they keep moving and clash, the drivers will blow themselves up. So they have to stop and to make a decision who will yield to whom. That way, they won’t be late with their deliveries — and they will both make out of this situation alive. But both drivers have a previous history of conflicts with each other. Let’s say they belong to two different ethnic groups who hate each other, so neither is going to accommodate the other one’s needs. Additionally, the driver who yields will ‘lose face’ and be disgraced forever with his/her people, and, say, lose a bonus from their company.

Schelling proposes a solution: to get a third arty to come in and act as an arbiter. A ‘bystander’ is interested in helping the drivers solve the situation — mostly to save her own life from a dynamite explosion (let’s say this bystander can’t run or walk away). The drivers are somewhat rational; they don’t want to los their lives, so they want some solution. It’s just that they can’t reach one themselves.

Russia and Ukraine are the ‘truck drivers.’ Europe is the bystander aka the ‘third party.’ Of course, Europe is not going to die in a gas explosion, but not getting enough natural gas is pretty bad for it.

As both a Russian and a Ukrainian, I have no desire to judge which country is right or wrong. I have been watching the situation, and it has been pretty predictable so far. I expected President Sarkozy to be negotiating the situation, but he seems to have found himself a more exciting conflict to work on. Well, whoever acts as that ‘bystander,’ I hope that Schelling was right about a dynamite truck situation being totally solvable.

NB: Check out Steve LeVine’s wonderful explanation of the problem.

Latvian Ex-President Encounters a Heated Debate at Pierson: A Very Belated Post

This post is way overdue, but better late than never.

At  Pierson College’s Master’s Tea, Latvia’s ex-President Vaira Vike-Freiberga participated in a talk with the crowd constisting mostly of Yale grad students and professors. A couple of Russian undergrad students, including myself, were present.

In Russia, Dr. Vike-Freiberga is usually portrayed as a stern, anti-Russian leader who made miserable the lives of many Russians living in Latvia. I went to that meeting hoping that maybe Russian media actually exaggerated their portrayal.

Dr. Vike-Freiberga is a very charismatic, well-spoken lady who seems to be able to make the audience happy. In the beginning, she talked a lot about Latvian history and of it being annexed and occupied by the USSR. Most Russian media disagree with that, but I believe she absolutely right describing the Soviets as ruthless invaders. The USSR (NOT Russia) did invade Latvia. But a side note: isn’t’ this how most of the world history is made anyway?

Dr. Vike-Freiberga’s hostility towards USSR/Russia is sadly based on her country’s history in general and her family’s history in particular. At the same time, Russians suffered just as much (and, as one of the guest who was siding with the Latvians admitted in a private discussion after a talk, Russians had suffered much more). Her family was escaped to Germany to avoid the Nazis; my grandfathers, both in Russia and Ukraine, were killed in the concentration camps.

During her two terms at the office, Latvia joined the EU and NATO – which is a big achievement for a post-Soviet country. Well that’s all warm and fuzzy and the audience was feeling happy for a small nation re-gaining its national sovereignty and pride.

Things got heated when the issue of the Russians in Latvia was raised. 20% of the Latvian population are Russian. Many never learned a word of Latvian, because they simply never had to. Everybody (including ethnic Latvians) spoke Russian in the USSR, of which Latvia used to be part. Schools and universities were taught in Russian; office and government work was done in Russian. Latvian was one of the official national languages of the USSR — along with Russian. Any Russian speaker has as many rights to speak Russian in Latvia as he did to speak Latvian. Most preferred Russian though, since it was a lingua franca of all fifteen republics of the USSR. In many mixed Russian-Latvian marriages, Russian was a language of choice for spouses and children.

These days when Latvia is a sovereign state, there is a clear attempt on the government’s part to oust Russians and Russian speakers out of the country. This campaign was largely initiated by Dr. Vike-Freiberga, who (coincidentally, of course) possesses an interest in linguistics and Latvian folklore.

Now, in order to obtain a job, the Russians have to pass what Dr. Vike-Freiberga referred to at that meeting as ” a minimal language proficiency exam.” She also claimed that “if someone lives in a country, they should speak a language of that country.” That “minimal” exam requires fluency in a language. And most developed countries have either no state language (e.g., the U.S, where people manage to live without speaking a word of English and where speaking Spanish is often an essential skill for employment in some parts of the country), or state programs that allow immigrants to learn the language (Germany, Israel, you name it).

Interestingly enough, after my questions to Dr. Vike-Freiberga, several Yalies approached me to discuss the issue. Russia was often portrayed as “the evil one” in this case, but many Yalies changed their understanding of the matter after that meeting.  Yay for breaking stereotypes!