Role of Stereotypes in British Foreign Policy Towards Russia, Coursework Example

Stereotypes, according to relevant literature, determine the path of international relations and politics. Every nation has a perception about the attitudes, cultures and customs of the other, therefore, national images have a great importance in international policies and politics. The below essay is attempting to review the presence and influence of stereotypes and bias within the UK policies towards Russia. The authors would like to review the historical background of the relationship between the two countries, as well as the current political situation in the light of the long-lasting Cold War.

The role of stereotypes is effectively described by Howard[1], and the below diagram is clearly explaining the different approaches towards international relations and the process of national identity formation.

The process of identity formation in Russia needs to be fully understood before starting to examine how the West constructs its own images about the state and how it influences Russian citizens’ identity formation, in particular focus on the role of stereotypes. Neumann [2] states that there is a need for examining the role Russia played in the formation of the European identity, before examining stereotypes and the formation of Russia’s image as “the other”. However, according to Elbow[3], explaining stereotypes, not all labelling of “other” must be necessarily negative. Identity formation is based on positive interactions, however, equality is not always present within these interactions. Russia, in that term, can be considered as a stereotyped “out group”[4]. Instead of hostility, the global West has several bias against Russians. It is not hostility of discrimination, but “subtle racism”[5], which is explained by Elbow as the lack of positive feelings against the group. This stereotype is greatly influenced by the history of Russian-UK relations and the enemy image of the Soviet Union imposing imminent potential threat on the order of the West that persisted in the West during the Cold War for decades.

The Troubled Relationship of the UK and Russia

One of the main aspects of international relations between the United Kingdom and Russia is the lack of confidence, according to the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. [6]

Business and energy relations are the most important fields of conflict within the relationship between Russia and the United Kingdom. State to state relationship is slowly developing, and both parties lack the expertise to clearly outline priorities. However, the main problem, according to Monaghan [7] is the seriousness of “value” differences between the nations. The states have a completely different approach towards society, control and the role of the government. While Moscow is still aiming to control societal development [8], London is supporting the development of a civil society, and has done so in the past fifty years.

Smith [9] concludes that human rights issues influence the decisions made on both sides regarding political and economic collaboration. Both parties consider the other state’s human rights policies unacceptable. This results in several accusations of the Russian Government by the UK parliament of human rights violations. As Baroness Tarsi stated the position of the European Court of Human Rights’ position, “We remain deeply concerned about grave human rights violations in the North Caucasus region, including allegations of extra judicial killings, torture and disappearances of individuals.” [10]

Neumann [11] examines how the image of Russia was constructed by the rest of Europe in the past 500 years. He also concludes that identity formation of a person or a nation is based on and determined by a context. This involves historical, political, ideological and cultural aspects and perceptions. Using Foucault definition of a “discourse”, he states that it is what mostly influences bias and stereotypes related to Russia and the Russians.

At the present, the author states that the “West” sees Russia as a “learner of European economic and political practices”. [12] Stereotypes have the unique aspect of describing the other group as inferior. This also indicates that based on democratic and liberal values of Western Europe and especially the United Kingdom, Russia is inferior and is lagging behind in implementing the political, economic and ideological approaches of the West.

Making[13] talks about the discrepancies between projected and perceived images about Russia. While it is evident that international policies in the United Kingdom take into consideration Russia’s military power, they do not consider it as an empire any more, after the collapse of the Soviet bloc.

British Policies of Russia Since the End of the Cold War

The main focus of Western and British policies after the end of the Cold War shifted from the protection of power balance to human rights and military issues. The formation and expansion of NATO, and in particular the level of involvement from the United Kingdom was completed in response to the threat of the Russian Federation taking control (political or military) of the surrounding region again. A good example of this power struggle is a recent case of Ukraine, a former state of the Soviet Union. Sherri[14] states that the country is unable to think beyond engagement with Russia. It is likely that this attitude and interdependence made Ukraine say no to joining the EU. This also implicates that there is evidence of present power struggles on the economic, political and military fields. This also indicates that the stereotypes about Russia in the future are likely to include descriptions like: manipulative and power-hungry.

Another possible approach of Russia’s stereotype in the West is described by Eye-level[15] who states that the West believes in Russia’s involvement in Iranian nuclear programs. Even though Tehran and Moscow seem to comply with the international regulations regarding nuclear power, the memory of the Cold War threat is still vivid in the global West. However, to fully understand the belief of the West in Russia’s involvement, one needs to understand that the power struggle between Eastern and Western Europe in Africa and Europe is still an important element of international relations.

According to Monaghan[16], there was an opening in the end of the 20^th Century from both parties. The relationship between Putin and Tony Blair seemed to flourish initially, but soon problematic issues arose. One of these was the incompatibility of the Russian judicial system with the Western type. This was viewed as a handicap by the United Kingdom’s government. However, the stereotyping process is also influenced by the perception that Russia has a greater level of economic interest in collaboration with the United Kingdom that vice versa. The attempts of collaboration, however, are constantly distracted by spy scandals, value differences and import-export policies within and outside of the European Union. International relations, on the other hand, are also disturbed: the United Kingdom is unable to understand the Russian approach towards the case of Syria, just to mention one recent case. While for the historical West, and in particular for the United Kingdom, human rights and democracy are the top priorities in international relations, this is not the case in Russian Parliament. The visit of David Cameron in 2011 to begin trade talks with Putin and President Medieval highlighted the common economic interests, however, the economic relations should not be simplified. [17]Russia and the United Kingdom are currently competing for the same markets in Europe, and the rich mineral resources of Russia provide the country a strong negotiation position in the Eastern region.

Images of Russia as a Nation

According to Voluble[18], the relationship between Russia and Western Europe is based on stereotypes and real-world events at the same time. The stereotypes are based on the political attitudes, the communist past and the lack of international dialogue between Eastern and Western Europe during the Cold War. However, the main aim of international relations with Russia is historically to balance out power between the East and the West. After the Second World War, the Soviet Empire tried to minimize the impact of the West on its nation and individual citizens, as they reflected capitalist values; the opposite of communist politics and state – citizen relationship. [19]

One of the recently emerged ideas regarding the stereotypes and bias regarding the image of Russia in Western Europe is called labelled “Russo phobia”. [20] The stereotypes and bias present in Western society are based on the term: “otherness”, based on the differences in the 20^th Century political past and unique religion.

The role of European media in the formation of stereotypes about Russia is discussed in detail by Vitriolic. [21] The author quotes several articles from the United Kingdom, referring to Russia as a corrupt, over-particular and describing the government as controlling and anti-democratic. One of the quotes from the Daily Telegraph says: “Given the deep-seated corruption of the Russian security forces and bureaucracy, this is unlikely to be the last incident of its kind.”[22] implicating that the Russian government is unable to control its system. The overall attitude of Western European media towards Russia is based on stereotypes built upon the idea of  “rejecting the other”.[23]  The author’s main statement regarding the role of media in Russia’s European identity formation is that “The unforgivable sin of the Russians, in the eyes of the Western media elite, is that they are still defined by their ethnic, cultural and religious identity.“Curter, Manatee[24] confirms that “ Moscow’s own actions are only part of the story” when it comes to stereotypes. The common phrase of “Putin’s KGB regime” has a great impact on public opinion, even if it does not fully depict today’s Russian reality. The discriminative expression does not take into consideration the democratic transformation of Russia that has been taking place for two decades. Still, simplifying issues and trends is a prominent feature of stereotypes. However, judging a country based on our own values can never be adequate. This might also indicate that there are two different political and international relation approaches crashing into each other in the case of Russian-UK politics: liberalism and realism.

Inhumane [25] describes Russia as Europe’s Other, concluding that “Russia has consistently been seen as an irregularity.” He also talks about the long lasting struggle between “Westerners and Acidophiles”[26] Vitriolic[27] states that according to the West, Russia “effectively rejects the legacy of the Western civilization” and this contributes towards the stereotype that assumes that the country is going against Western values.

Later-Zyberk [28] also confirms that the UK media picks up on every possible “Putin conspiracy theory”, creating a myth that influences stereotypes and bias about modern Russia. The conspiracies are based on perception that Russia’s KGB service is still active and is attempting to undermine the achievements of the Western civilization. The disinformation of Livingstone about the state of Russia has also impacted the stereotypes about the country and created strong bias in UK-Russian international relations. The Snow den-case in 2013 did really highlight the ideological differences between the two countries. The UK government started a witch-hunt for the whistle blower, while Russia offered him asylum.

Bacon[29] states that the end of the Blair-Putin era brought around the decline of international relationships between Russia and the United Kingdom. While negotiations about trade agreements, UN and G8 conferences continue, the Chechen conflict has greatly impacted the perceptions of Britain against Russia. In this case, the UK government did not clearly identify Russia as one of the aggressors, and concluded that the state was a victim of repeated terrorist attacks.

The Impact of the Chechen and Terrorism

As it has been concluded above, Bacon[30] states that while the United Kingdom focused on human rights issues in the region, the Russian approach was reduced to maintaining national security, order and power. Once the second conflict started back in 1999, some political analysts started to draw comparisons between Kosovo and the Chechen conflict. This also resulted in a mainstream opinion in Russia that NATO involvement would be dangerous and impact international relations. Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom was fast to confirm that there would be no NATO bombings in Moscow. This decision can best be understood in the light of the long-lasting Cold War. The threat of conflict between the two competing empires is still vivid in the memory of people, and it is a great motivator for avoiding military intervention. However, after the 9/11 bombing, the Chechen conflict and the terrorist attacks against the United States have created a common ground for fighting terrorism. A new cooperation started between the “West” and Russia to win the “war on terror” together.[31] However, this cooperation soon ended as a result of Russia’s opposition to the Iraqi invasion.

Russell[32] also highlights the importance to draw a line between the counter-terrorism operations of Putin in the second Chechen war and the military actions of the United States- NATO after 9/11. However, the author implicates that it is important to differentiate between traditional and modernizing societies. In the post- Cold War era, the impact of globalization was strengthened and supported by the United Kingdom, while Russia showed a clear resistance against modernization of society and opening up. One more aspect of stereotypes created around the nation and state of Russia is based on the perception that the country is persistent and authoritative in implying power on other countries. While this perception has a strong foundation lying in the long history of the Soviet Union and the tight ruling methods of the state in the USSR, the stereotype’s over-simplifying feature is clearly visible. It is hard to understand the Chechen- Russian relationship from a Western perspective. For Russia, propaganda was essential to win the war, and this inevitably included media control. This correlation is not easy to understand for British politicians. That is the main reason for the presence of bias and stereotypes in Russian-UK international relations.

Bibliography

Bacon, E. “The UK-Russia Political Relationship” In: The UK and Russia – A Troubled Relationship Part I.

Gladstone, R. “Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions”, New York Times, 19 July 2012

Golubev, A. “Russian and European Mutual Perceptions”  In: Taras, R. (ed) Russia’s Identity in International Relations.  Routeledge, 2012

Golubev, Aleksandr.  “Russian and European mutual perceptions. Foreign policy stereotypes in historical perspective”. In Russia’s Identity in International Relations. Images, perceptions, misperceptions. ed. by Taras, Ray. Abingdon. Routledge, 2013 . 53-72.

Howard, Peter.  “Triangulating Debates Within the Field: Teaching International Relations” Research Methodology. International Studies Perspectives 2010. 11, 393-408.

Lebow, R. “Identity and International Relations” International Relations 2008 22: 473

Plater-Zyberk, H. “Misunderstanding Russia: Alexander Litvinenko” In: Monaghan, A. (ed.) The UK & Russia – A Troubled Relationship. Conflict Studies Research Centre. Russian Series. 2007

Neumann, I. “Russia as Europe’s Other” Second Pan-European Conference in International Relations, Paris, 13-16 September 1995

Makinen, S.  “European Perceptions of Russia’s Image and Identity”  A summary of the lecture for the Summer School/ Scientific conference “Europe and the European Union: Development of Identities” at Belokurikha, Altai region, 24-28 June 2013

Matveeva, A. “Battling Russphobia” The Guardian.  Saturday 13 December 2008

Monaghan, “The UK & Russia – A Troubled Relationship” Conflict Studies Research Centre. Russian Series. 2007

Russell, J. “A War by Any Other Name: Chechnya, 11 September and the War against Terrosism”, In: Sakwa, R. (ed.) Chechnya: From Past to Future. Anthem Press, 2005

Sherr, J. “Ukraine and Europe: Final Decision?” Chatham House. 2013

Smith. B. “UK Relations with Russia”,  House of Commons Report. 2012.

Trifkovic, S. “Multicultural vs. Stereotypical: Russia and the European Media” International Conference Russia and Europe: Topical Issues of Contemporary International Journalism, Paris, November 24, 2011

Yevseyev, V. “West Stereotypes of the Russian?Iranian Cooperation in the Nuclear Field”. International Politics, Vol. 3, No. VI, Summer & Autumn 2010

[1] Howard, Peter.  “Triangulating Debates Within the Field: Teaching International Relations”, 405

[2] Neumann, I. “Russia as Europe’s Other” ,5

[3] Lebow, R. “Identity and International Relations”, 473

[4] Ibid, 479

[5] Ibid, 480

[6] Monaghan, “The UK & Russia – A Troubled Relationship”, 4

[7] Ibid. 4

[8] Ibid. 4

[9] Smith. B. “UK Relations with Russia”,  2

[10] Gladstone, R. “Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions”, New York Times, 19 July 2012

[11] Neumann, I. “Russia as Europe’s Other” ,4

[12] Ibid, 5

[13] Makinen, S.  “European Perceptions of Russia’s Image and Identity”, 4

[14] Sherr, J. “Ukraine and Europe: Final Decision?”, 5

[15] Yevseyev, V. “West Stereotypes of the Russian?Iranian Cooperation in the Nuclear Field

[16] Monaghan, “The UK & Russia – A Troubled Relationship”, 10

[17] Smith. B. “UK Relations with Russia”,  5

[18] Golubev, “Russian and European Mutual Perceptions” , 71

[19] Ibid , 69

[20] Makinen, S.  “European Perceptions of Russia’s Image and Identity”, 3

[21] Trifkovic, S. “Multicultural vs. Stereotypical: Russia and the European Media”

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Matweeva, A. “Battling Russophobia”

[25] Neumann, I. “Russia as Europe’s Other” ,2

[26] Ibid, 3

[27] Trifkovic, S. “Multicultural vs. Stereotypical: Russia and the European Media”

[28] Plater-Zyberk, H. “Misunderstanding Russia: Alexander Litvinenko”

[29] Bacon, E. “The UK-Russia Political Relationship”

[30] Bacon, E. “The UK-Russia Political Relationship”, 16

[31] Ibid, 16

[32] Russell, J. “A War by Any Other Name: Chechnya, 11 September and the War against Terrosism”,  240