ANALYSIS

A transforming resignation: Boris Yeltsin leaves the scene

by Paul A. Goble
RFE/RL Newsline

Boris Yeltsin's resignation as president of Russia appears likely to fundamentally alter the relationship between Moscow and the West - at a minimum putting cooperation between the two on hold for a certain period of time and more likely reducing the level of cooperation over the longer haul.

There are three reasons for that conclusion. First, as has been true for much of the last generation, the West's relationship with Moscow has been more personal than political. That is, it has been between individual leaders in the West and the man in charge in Moscow. That was true in Leonid Brezhnev's time and in Mikhail Gorbachev's time, and it has been true in Mr. Yeltsin's time as well.

Every change at the top in Moscow has required the establishment of new personal ties. That inevitably takes time and, hence, inevitably becomes the occasion for intense deliberations about what kind of a relationship it should be. That is especially likely now because of acting President Vladimir Putin's past as a security officer and his current actions in Chechnya.

While Western leaders have praised Mr. Yeltsin and promise continued close ties with Mr. Putin, virtually all of them will be under pressure from politicians and analysts in their own countries who viewed President Yeltsin at best as a fallen hero because of his actions at the end of the Soviet Union and who see Mr. Putin as an openly authoritarian figure opposed to many of the things that the West wants.

Second, precisely because of President Yeltsin's ties with Western leaders as well as his past services to the dismantling of the Soviet Union and moves toward democratization and free market economics, Western leaders have been restrained in their reaction to a variety of recent Russian moves that otherwise might have drawn far more criticism and might have led to a reduction of assistance.

Moscow's opposition to the NATO campaign in Yugoslavia and its moves to seize Pristina ahead of allied forces, its increasing ties with Iran and Iraq and other radically anti-Western countries, and its war against Chechnya and open discrimination against people from the Caucasus are all policies that many in the West disagree with and oppose.

But as long as President Yeltsin was in office, most political leaders refrained from taking any genuinely tough actions. Now that Mr. Yeltsin is gone, the situation will change. Some diplomats and leaders will of course argue that the West must proceed steadily and carefully, and thus they will argue against any break. But others will now be able to raise their voices to argue that this is exactly the right time to send Moscow a message.

And third, both Mr. Yeltsin and to an even larger degree his Western supporters have put great store in the idea that he would be the first Russian leader in history to finish his term in office and then be replaced through a democratic election. Now that is not going to happen, and the fact that it won't will tarnish both his place in history and Moscow's standing in the West.

As his supporters will no doubt point out, Mr. Yeltsin's resignation is constitutional. That is, it is provided for in the Russian Federation basic law of December 1993 that he helped to craft. But by resigning rather than serving out his term, Mr. Yeltsin raises questions about himself, about his successor and about Russia's standing as a country moving toward democracy.

Some in both Russia and the West are likely to view Mr. Yeltsin's action as deeply political, as a way of giving his hand-picked successor, Mr. Putin, the best chance to rule Russia in the future by allowing him to call a snap election before the boost he has received from the initial fighting in Chechnya disappears.

But these same people are also going to ask whether the former president did this so that Mr. Putin could keep Mr. Yeltsin, as well as members of his family and entourage, from facing embarrassing legal questions in the future.

Others are going to focus on Mr. Putin himself. Last month, one Moscow magazine featured the new acting president on its cover as "the spymaster of all Russians." Mr. Putin's background in the intelligence agencies may lead some to conclude that he has staged a kind of palace coup, pressuring Mr. Yeltsin to go now as the price of guaranteeing the outgoing president that he will not have to face criminal charges for his past actions.

Even if such speculation is baseless, it seems certain to become part of the internal debate as Western countries decide how to deal with the new president of Russia, a man who has defined himself only to the extent of launching a war in the Caucasus and denouncing the West's efforts to end the bloodletting in Kosova.

But perhaps most importantly for the future of East-West ties, many Western governments are certain to view Mr. Yeltsin's resignation and, even more so, Mr. Putin's elevation as evidence that Russia has not made as much progress toward democracy as they had hoped or even claimed.

These are the questions that are almost certain to be on the minds of Western statesmen as they deliver their already prepared messages of praise for President Yeltsin and his past contributions.

Paul Goble is the publisher of RFE/RL Newsline.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, January 9, 2000, No. 2, Vol. LXVIII

| Home Page |