战略与国际研究中心-PONARS-Policy-Memo-156_9页_95kb

Summary of "Russia's Periphery in the Global Arena: Do Regions Matter in the Kremlin's Foreign Policy?"

Core Content

This policy memo, authored by Mikhail Alexseev in October 2000, examines the role of Russia's regions in shaping the country's foreign policy. It challenges the conventional belief that regional decentralization after the collapse of the Soviet Union has led to the emergence of autonomous regional foreign policies. Instead, it argues that while regions have engaged in international activities, their influence on Moscow's foreign policy decisions remains limited.

Main Points

1. Impact of Center-Periphery Relations on Foreign Policy

• Decentralization and Quasi-Foreign Policies: Regions like Chechnya, Tatarstan, and Primorsky krai have attempted to assert their own foreign policy initiatives, such as declaring independence, appointing trade representatives, and delaying border agreements.
• Marginal Influence: Despite these efforts, the impact of regional actions on Russia's overall foreign policy has been minimal. For example:
  • Chechnya's independence claim was not recognized by other Islamic states.
  • Tatarstan's support for NATO's Kosovo campaign did not alter Moscow's stance.
  • Primorsky krai's border disputes with China were resolved in favor of Moscow.

2. Economic Underpinnings of Military Power

• Revenue Redistribution: In the 1990s, regions negotiated with Moscow over tax, subsidies, and resource control, leading to a weakened central capacity to fund the military.
• Military Reform: This economic fragmentation has contributed to the push for military downsizing and reform, as the federal government feared losing control over key resources.

3. Perceptions of Economic and Demographic Vulnerability

• Economic Disintegration: The CSR report highlighted concerns that regional elites could undermine Russia's common market by fostering independent economic ties.
• Demographic Challenges: Regions encouraged illegal migration, which threatened the national labor market and federal law enforcement systems.
• Economic Drain: Migrants contributed to a drain of approximately $7.5 million from regional budgets.

4. Threats from Separatist Claims

• Ethnic Migration: The CSR identified potential separatist movements due to cross-border migration of ethnic Kazakhs and Armenians.
• Chinese Migration: Regional leaders, such as those in Primorsky krai, warned of "creeping Chinafication" and the risk of Chinese annexation in the Far East.

5. Domestic Response: Centralization of Foreign Policy Control

• Coordination Framework: Moscow implemented measures to centralize control over regional international activities, including:
  • Power-Sharing Treaties: These treaties gave regions more autonomy but required coordination with federal agencies.
  • KonSovet: Established in 1994, it aimed to train regional officials and monitor their international activities.
  • Law on Coordination of Foreign Relations: Enacted in 1999, this law imposed strict controls on regional foreign interactions:
    • Pre-Approval Requirement: Regions must notify the foreign ministry before engaging in international negotiations.
    • Activity Regulation: Federal agencies can intervene in regional foreign policy decisions.
    • Status Regulation: Regional offices abroad cannot have diplomatic status or immunity.

6. Regional Differences in International Engagement

• Magnet Regions: Cities with diversified economies and strong infrastructure (e.g., Moscow, Tatarstan) dominate foreign trade and investment.
• Resource Exporter Regions: These regions contribute significantly to Russia's foreign trade but receive minimal foreign investment.
• Border & Maritime Regions: These areas are more open to international trade but still face high transaction costs due to federal oversight.
• Hinterland Regions: Characterized by poor infrastructure and limited economic diversification, they have the least international engagement.

Key Findings

• Moscow's Dominance: Despite regional efforts, the federal government maintains disproportionate control over foreign policy.
• Economic and Geopolitical Vulnerabilities: These have driven Moscow's concern over regional autonomy and led to increased coordination and control.
• Limited Regional Influence: No region has substantial economic or political clout to influence key federal foreign policy decisions.
• Transaction Costs: Federal coordination mechanisms increase costs for regional international initiatives, leading to a "wait-and-see" approach.

Policy Implications

To reduce transaction costs and enhance regional engagement in international activities, the memo suggests:

• Establishing a Russian version of the US BISNIS center to provide free information on international economic opportunities.
• Developing intranet and conferencing facilities to expedite approval processes.
• Supporting regional economic internationalization through infrastructure, technology, and economic diversification.

Conclusion

While Russian regions have engaged in international activities, they have not significantly altered the Kremlin's foreign policy trajectory. Moscow's institutional responses to regional autonomy have reinforced its control over the country's international relations, highlighting the central government's continued dominance in shaping Russia's global role.