• Interviews
• Reviews
• Editor’s Column
• Weapons
• Health
• Science
• History
• Letters to the Editor
• World Security
• Justice System
• Combating Corruption
• Terrorism
• Crime and Politics
• Ecological Security
• Economic-Business Security
• Personal Security
• Official
• National Security

Washington Post Editorial and "Cross-cultural Intermediation"

By Sergei Roy

On Dec 6, 2008 the Washington Post published one of its typically Russophobic editorials offering President-elect Barack Obama all sorts of corny advice on how he should behave vis-à-vis Russia. Essentially, it told Mr. Obama to carry on in the Dick Cheney - Condoleezza Rice spirit.

This line would fit in well with some of the things that Obama himself had said about Russia during the election campaign. But they clearly run counter to the spirit of "Change!" that was Obama's battle cry. These counterproductive aspects were criticized in my essay "A Bad Case of Humbagama" (at the time, it also appeared on JRL and elsewhere).

Now I am happy to see that such a critical attitude accurately reflects the absolute majority of replies to the Washington Post editorial that appeared on JRL in response to David Johnson's request for JRL readers' opinion (see Comment on Washington Post editorial).

In fact, these responses were critical not just of Fred Hiatt's stance but of much of the U.S. media establishment:  "the "Eastern Establishment" press (New York Times, Wash. Post, New Yorker, New York Review of Books, Los Angeles Times, etc., etc.) presents a one-sided, often totally distorted picture of realities in Russia" (ibid.).

I would go even further: in spirit and often letter, these dozen or so responses were an indictment not just of the biased U.S. media but of the failed unilateralist policies of the Bush administration on the world arena in the past eight years. Just one quote from a letter reflecting a sober-minded, realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation: "Russia/USSR has dissolved its alliances and shrunk dramatically in the past couple of decades, while the US is involved in - dare we say it - imperial wars in the Middle East and in expanding [military] alliances" (ibid.). So who is the neo-imperialist that Fred Hiatt is talking about?

Accordingly, advice proffered to the incoming administration is overwhelmingly in a realistic, forward-looking spirit: the U.S. should not "cling to policies of the previous Administration that have clearly failed.  Instead, the Obama Administration should inject a new note of realism into the relationship.  As a first step, we should accord a much higher priority to U.S.-Russian relations than has existed in the recent past, and set up early meetings with Putin and Medvedev to clear the air" (ibid.).

And the commentators on the ill-fated WP editorial say clearly that the atmosphere in U.S.-Russia relations would be much improved if the U.S. accepted certain obvious facts of life: that the people of Ukraine are dead set against their country joining NATO; that Georgia might be willing but is absolutely not ready, with its unbalanced leader capable of dangerous provocations and a regime with extremely doubtful democratic credentials. As regards elements of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense system in Eastern Europe, approval has been expressed of President-Elect Obama's statement "that he would want to make sure that any missile defense system actually worked before it was deployed." In view of the John Podesta report, I would call this statement a face-saving device, but that is my personal opinion that can be easily chalked up to my general cantankerousness.  

As summed up here, JRL responses to the Washington Post editorial are highly encouraging and bode well for the future of U.S.-Russia relations - if the president-elect is sensitive enough to the spirit expressed in them. If he, in fact, adds yet another "Yes, we can!" to the long list of things waiting to be done.

Most authors of those responses were fairly articulate, sometimes strikingly so, and I do not intend to argue for or against the views expressed in them - with one single exception which is, in fact, somewhat tangential. It is a kind of side issue raised in the debate: cross-cultural experiences and their possible impact on politicians' conduct and contacts.

A contributor whose business is "Russian Mindset Consultancies. Cross-Cultural Intermediation Between Russians and Americans" comes up with several musts for Mr. Obama when he meets his Russian counterparts. I understand that drumming up business is a serious matter, and for that purpose even the president-elect's name can be invoked - even if he is hardly likely to study such free advice. But Johnson's Russia List is a widely read source, and I fear that the sort of advice offered by the contributor can do more harm than good to American-Russian "cross-cultural intermediation." Let me take it point by point.

1. "At your first meeting with Putin, DON'T SMILE... Russians see smiling as a sign of weakness, or idiocy..." Well, if I did not want to be extra-polite I'd sooner say that it's this sort of advice that is a "sign of idiocy." There are smiles and smiles and smiles. Russians, like everybody else, take an idiotic smile as a sign of idiocy, an apologetic smile as a sign of apology, a vacillating person's smile as a sign of weakness, and so on.

Cross-cultural differences are complicated enough without muddling them up with this kind of "expert" nonsense. Sure, Russians, just like many Europeans, do not hold with a permanent toothy grin to be worn on all social occasions. Smiling in Russia, as in much of Europe, has more to do with a person's eyes than teeth exposure. Displaying a few thousand dollars' worth of dental work more or less continuously is a typically American (or rather, American politicians') idiosyncrasy.

However, it is generally recognized as precisely that, and not as a sign of idiocy or weakness or anything else - not just by Russian politicians or businessmen with decades of cross-cultural experience but even by the ordinary Russian man in the street who has been nurtured on Hollywood productions and various American personalities' TV appearances for years and years. Barack Obama is an American politician, and he is expected to produce the American politician's smile - which he is sure to do. If he did not, his Russian counterparts would merely wonder, What's with this guy today? Must have eaten something that disagrees with him for breakfast.

Sure, I once offended, maybe even insulted, someone in Central Asia by smiling at an awkward moment. Smiles have a different value in that culture. A friend of mine got in a fight in Karachay-Circassia because he took a second look at a young Karachay's girlfriend (only the first look is OK, and even that must be brief and oblique, and smiles of any sort are out of the question). These little local oddities of etiquette do exist. But to project them onto the elevated circles of which he speaks merely calls in question the advisor's credentials.

2. To go on:  "if the first meeting is with Medvedev, he (coached by his advisors on the "American smile") will probably walk into the room beaming broadly. Then we'll have a nice contrast and an immediate American psychological trump: in the face of an unsmiling Bama, Dima will end up looking (to his fellow countrymen) ludicrous, demeaned."

This is even worse than the above "signs of idiocy." If the American president really wants to improve U.S.-Russia relations, why should he want "Dima" - that's President Medvedev of Russia, I assume - to "end up looking ludicrous, demeaned"? What would a "ludicrous, demeaned" Medvedev be expected to do next, genuflect? Go away in a huff? Or ignore the inane facial tricks and proceed with negotiations critical to the state of the world?

This whole scene, the product of "expert" imagination, is plain silly. So far, neither Medvedev nor Putin have looked either ludicrous or demeaned in any "cross-cultural intermediation," nor is Mr. Obama's play of facial expressions likely to make them appear so - especially since he is certain not to try any of this tomfoolery.

3. But - more tomfoolery is in store for the reader: "President Obama: walk into the meeting and look Vlad-Vlad [what's this? Bogus Russian?]  in the eye, unsmiling, firm. Make sure you stand very close to him during the photo ops, so it will be apparent how much taller you are. Putin has a complex about his height."

Well, maybe the "expert" has some confidential sources of information on Putin's complexes, I don't know. As a rather remote observer, I can only say that someone who grew up as the toughest kid on the block is hardly likely to have any complexes about anything. I can merely speak for myself: if I had Putin's magnificent, much photographed physique and decades of rigorous judo training, if I knew - like everybody else does - that I could with perfect ease wipe the floor with any premier or president of whatever height or poundage, I would not be much bothered about my unimpressive inches in any photo op.

But the expert knows better: Putin has that complex "because he heard that the brash, and somewhat unbalanced Georgian leader had nicknamed him "Liliputin."" Tell you what: Saakashvili's name very easily lends itself to at least two barely printable variations (with my apologies to his mother). I've been told by a compatriot of Saakashvili's that the roots of his Russophobia lie in his childhood when he was sent by his loving parent to the highly privileged Young Pioneers Camp in Artek, the Crimea, where other kids - children can be the most ruthless brutes - called him by those obscene, intrusive variations. I'd bet my bottom ruble that no taunt from this source, whom a writer on JRL referred to as a "tie-chewing wacko," could touch Putin, in many respects a cocky macho of unshakeable self-assurance.

4. Some more "expert" advice: " President Obama: don't come up with any nicknames for Pooty-Poot. Call him, unsmilingly, "Vladimir Vladimirovich." I know it's a mouthful, but he'll appreciate hearing it."

I quite agree that the "Pooty-Poot" bit was stupid and vulgar, we have a French-Russian phrase for such things, ami-cochon'stvo. Putin must have shrugged his broad shoulders and said to himself, "Well, it's George Bush." As for being appreciative of Obama calling him Vladimir Vladimirovich, I very much doubt it. He would rather be stumped. What does he call Obama in response, Barack Husseynovich? Who knows what B. Husseynoivich's reaction might be.

You see, the rules of Russian etiquette on Christian names, with or without patronymics (incidentally, I would advise the advisor to learn how to spell that word first; it's definitely not "patryonimic") are extremely complicated and highly nuanced, and certainly not to be introduced into diplomatic protocol. Luckily, the guys up top have plenty of experience in groping for exactly the right mode of addressing each other, from "Mr. President" -- gospodin Prezident - gospozha Kantsler down to whatever level of familiarity or the reverse they consider to be fitting. Best leave these things to them.

There is one bit of advice from the expert cited here which has little to do with "cross-cultural intermediation" yet with which I heartily agree. It's this: "President Obama: FIRE

ALL YOUR RUSSIAN ADVISORS. NOW!" Especially "Zbig, whose Polish background gets him going ape-shit every time he even hears the word "Russia," and McFaul, who has been beating the same old worn drum on all things Russian for years," as well as that "battered Cold Warrior with little in-depth knowledge of Russia," Ms. Rice.

That's sound advice indeed. Judging from the array of letters in response to the Washington Post iniquitous editorial, there is no lack of individuals in America who have realistic, well-thought-out views on America's proper role in the world in general and its Russia policy in particular. If Barack Obama heeds these attitudes, he - and we - will be OK.

As for "cross-cultural intermediation," that is obviously a minefield, judging by the curious advice here analyzed. However, it is by far not as critical as all the other issues in U.S. - Russian relations. Crossing it is not all that hair-raisingly hard as the discussion above may have given the impression.

You know, it may even be fun.