Part 8 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Do you foresee Ukraine splitting into smaller countries as a result of this crisis?

VS: I don’t think it would split. The areas, even though we might see a majority of Russians or a majority of Ukrainians, it’s mixed. They’re not monolithic. They’re so many ties between people there. There are no neat lines that you could draw that could split. There are differences, but in any country, there are some differences. Cultural, ethnic, linguistic, ideological, but they’re not the reasons to split up. There are all these negotiations with different interests. I don’t see how Ukraine could be split up. As I said, the people who participated in the protests were of all ethnicities. And once again, for Putin, that may be one of his inspirations. For him, it works to think of Ukraine as being an artificial construct that can break along ethnic and cultural lines. That’s what he hopes to do. That demonstrates his deep-seated notion of thinking Ukraine is not really a state. By exercising military force and instigating disturbances in eastern areas, that obscures the picture. If he continues doing that, and if he is allowed to continue with it, then yes, partition would be possible, but it would not be because of Ukraine made the choice. It would be because Putin decided it. Without him in Ukraine, I don’t think Ukraine would split. There are no clear lines that it could follow.

JS: Do you think Russia will retaliate against U.S. citizens living within Russian territories, such as deporting them or restricting their visas?

VS: Once again, if he continues and doesn’t to listen to scenarios and causes Russia to enter some kind of Cold War, then he might. He might put restrictions on peoples’ travel and whether they can enter or exit Russia. If this becomes ideological warfare, it becomes quite possible that he might restrict visas. He’s already targeting certain journalists. As you might know, there were some cases where journalists weren’t allowed to enter. So something like this can easily happen. The first thing he might do is he might limit Russians’ ability to enter and exit, which is now a complete norm. But if he starts building an iron curtain again, then yes, absolutely. He could do that and make it difficult for Americans.

Part 7 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: I understood your stance regarding economic and diplomatic responses, but I just want to clarify that when it comes to the military, you think the United States should refrain.

VS: I honestly don’t even know. It’s terrifying to think about it because warfare in the modern world, it’s apocalyptic. It’s impossible. It’s going to be either some kind of cold war or isolation of Russia, which I think that’s where the steps the U.S. is making leads to with the talk of economic sanctions, stopping military alliances and statements from NATO. 

So there’s either going to be some kind of cold war, which might lead to some kind of lack of communication between countries and diplomatic warfare similar to the scenarios we saw during the Cold War. Because if it gets to military, I honestly don’t know how to picture that since Putin has nuclear weapons and he knows that. 

That’s of course why everyone is concerned. It seems like the world is suspended watching and not really knowing what to do because what would you do. Putin has that button. He’s got one hand on the gas and oil which is his control over Europe and he’s got his other hand on the button and that is what gives him the idea that he can go and bully small nations around and the world is stunned and doesn’t know what to do because how can you risk starting the third World War?

JS: Kind of gives the impression that this situation might likely play out like 2008 when the United States didn’t involve itself militarily in the Russo-Georgia war. 

VS: The U.S. did not, because in some way, before the Russo-Georgian war began, Russia was able to use a pretext. It was not a sufficient pretext to engage in war but at least Russia had a pretext of the Georgian government ordering its military to mobilize. 

There is nothing like this in Ukraine. It’s clearly a manufactured pretense, that to make it as anything else, just shows a complete misunderstanding of events or dishonesty. There was not a single case documented against a Russian, and this is in the age of the Internet when information spreads quickly. Everything is being manufactured through Putin’s channels. If you look at Russian television, and he controls federal channels and radio stations and newspapers, they have to make up everything. 

There was no violence against ethnic Russians in the Crimea. There are no refugees from Crimea. It’s just not happening. It’s completely manufactured. If this is not the case for a strong international intervention, then I don’t know what is. What else does dictator have to do to provoke an outrage. 

If the world waits this out and tries to placate or appease him, to find excuses, they can't because there is no excuse at all. During the protests, perhaps, the Ukrainians expected more support but the West was cautious because they didn’t know who was the driving force, who was coming to power, would he be a legitimate president to negotiate with. 

But here, I don’t see how it’s possible to frame it any other way than a complete violation of one country’s sovereignty, and that’s a cornerstone of international law. If this is allowed to happen, then it’s the whole concept of international law will have to be redefined – how we live with each other, and negotiate, and make agreements. I think it’s a very clear case of a violation and a very clear response should be forthcoming or we’ll be in a different world. It’s hard to say what kind of world it’s going to be but it will be different.

Part 6 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: The Turkish government granted permission to the U.S. for a U.S. warship to cross into the Black Sea. Building on the idea that, let’s assume for a second, the crisis turns hot and shots are fired, do you think the conflict will remain between Ukraine and Russia just as the 2008 Russo-Georgian War stayed between Russia and Georgia, or do you think the United States might intervene? Or do you think the European Union will enter the conflict at the risk of losing its supply of gas from Russia?

VS: For Ukrainians, it’s a frustrating situation because they sense the reluctance of the European Union to give a more definite response. Such scenarios are terrifying to consider. This crisis is a real crisis, who knows what’s going to happen. No one wants war to happen. It’s terrifying to think Russians and Ukrainians, two very closely related people, would begin killing each other. This conflict will redefine lines, maybe even ethnically. Right now, it’s not an ethnic conflict but it will be if Russians are perceived as occupants and killers in an actual war. 

As far as U.S. interference goes, on the one hand I think there should be a very clear and unambiguous response to what Russia is doing, and perhaps all options besides military should be explored, and they should be explored very carefully. There should not be any hesitation as to what to do. I think the west kind of hesitated during the protests in Kiev. It wasn’t clear who was in charge of the protests. There were fears that it might be some right-wing group leading the protests. 

So Ukrainians don’t perceive much support besides voiced concern about violence from the west. What has been achieved is due to the Ukrainians themselves. They got rid of their corrupt criminal government themselves trying to move towards the west. The west has to meet them halfway. The west has to support them because there are unequal forces. Tiny little Ukraine and the huge country of Russia with all its military power. 

Moreover, Ukraine actually signed the agreement called the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 and it was between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and Great Britain where Ukraine agreed to get rid of all nuclear weapons and become nuclear-free in exchange for protection of its integrity and sovereignty. So the United States, Great Britain and Russia signed that agreement and now Russia has violated it among other international laws. 

For western countries not to interfere, it would mean that a country like Russia could break international law and avoid retaliation, and that no protection would be afforded for the country that trusted in the agreement, which could change the world’s understand of international law and how it works. What’s allowed and what’s not allowed. Other nations are going to look at this and think, “It doesn’t work. We need to have our own weapons. Because in the situation when we need help, when it’s clear to everyone, it’s a very arrogant violation of law but other countries will just say, ‘we are concerned’ or they’ll do little or nothing else.” So some kind of intervention could happen.

Part 5 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Do you think the people of the Crimea want to be annexed or remain under Russia’s sphere of influence?

VS: That’s tricky. Crimea is the population of Ukraine, I think it’s the only region of Ukraine, where the majority of the population is ethnically Russian. It is pro-Russia. Even though there is 24 percent Ukrainians and originally the land belongs not to Russians and not to Ukrainians but Crimean Tartars who were forcefully deported from Crimea in 1944 by Stalin, and then prohibited from returning to Crimea. 

So now Crimean Tartars, who represent, I think, 12 percent of the area’s population, claim the land as an ethnic group and they are very anti-Russian. They have already requested the Turkish Government to interfere on their behalf. It’s somewhat unique in terms of its history, it has a complex historical background and cultural history, and its ethnic majority is Russian. 

That’s what Putin is using as a pretext, to defend the rights of the ethnic Russians, but I think his presence obscures the picture. It’s very difficult to really understand what the people of Crimea want with Russian troops being right there. And so they’ve created this temporary government of Crimea, but it was already formed with the Russian presence there. It doesn’t give a clear picture of what’s happening. 

In order to understand what the people of Crimea would want, and these are things the newly formed Ukrainian government should carefully listen to, and to understand the complexities of this region, that it is different, somewhat, to a degree from other areas, but with Russian troops there, with the pressure, with the blocked airways and blocked military bases, with soldiers in unidentified uniforms in administrative buildings, who claim that Crimea wants to be Russian, it’s not a true picture. 

In order to understand what Crimea wants, Russia has to get out of there. It’s actually two different questions. One question of Crimea’s complexity which has to be taken into account but by Ukraine. It’s a Ukrainian matter and it’s something the Ukrainian government has to decide what to do about it. What Russia is doing, it is violating international law and violating the sovereignty and integrity of another country. It has no business being there and interfering in the question of what Crimean people want. It’s between the Crimean people and the Ukrainian government. 

And then being there makes it immediately inadequate, whatever picture they’re seeing. From what I know there are monitors and representatives from international organizations coming into Crimea to try to understand what is happening because there is no way to get an understanding at all. 

The Ukrainian military has actually shown remarkable strength by not giving in to the provocation. Because it seems Putin is looking at everything for a pretext. Russia is executing full-force psychological attack there and there are many reports from journalist saying Russia is not firing shots but is not allowing the military to function. Russia is blocking the peninsula. It’s outrageous. Russia is supposed to leave and then talks can commence about Crimean complexity, about ethnic make-up, about linguistic make-up and cultural differences, but not with Russian troops there.

Part 4 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Following up on Crimea, I understand the largest, or the most important part, is the naval bases in the Crimea, such as at Sevastopol. Do you think by the end of this crisis, Russia will resort to extreme measures, such as igniting a war in Ukraine with other parties like Ukraine, the European Union or the United States, in order to annex the Crimea? Russia used to have control of the Crimea, up until Khrushchev handed the Crimea to Ukraine. Do you think Putin will make a power play to retake the Crimea from Ukraine?

VS: I think that’s what he’s trying to do. That is what he’s trying to do right now. And I think the world is stunned in a way by what he is doing, and I think that’s why it’s so hard at this point to figure out what will happen. I think that everyone is very concerned, troubled and shocked by what he is doing. I think his intention is clear, although I’m not sure about the form of his specific vision, but moving military troops into the territory of an independent sovereign country is aggressive. 

He has a pretext. He tried to make his case in front of the safety council of the United Nations that he’s protecting the Russian population of Ukraine and that he wants to take the area under control, that Yanukovych is the legitimate president and that Yanukovych asked him to intervene. His intention is very clear. 

He’s not firing any shots yet, but he’s moved his military. He’s blocked military bases. He’s blocked airways. What’s happening is disturbing on so many levels. There are constant reports that say no one really knows. He does want to partition, maybe annex, the Crimea. 

He might even want to create disturbances in other areas of Ukraine like Donetsk, and there are lots of reports about what is happening in eastern Ukraine, saying that pro-Russian activists are suddenly becoming more powerful and active and that they were quiet and mostly talking during the protests but now they feel supported and encouraged. Putin’s ambition may go ever farther but what would happen depends to a great degree on how the world responds.

Part 3 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Is there a strong resentment from Ukrainians towards Russians? Do you think Ukrainians perceive Russia’s actions as trying to reassert its former dominance from when it was the Soviet Union?

VS: I would say yes to your second question, but I think it is important, and I believe speaking in English makes it harder to differentiate, but when you’re asking Ukrainians versus Russians, it seems the conflict is framed in ethnic, linguistic or cultural terms, as if it’s ethnic Russians against ethnic Ukrainians, but it’s not what the conflict is about, and in Russian, you can say Russian meaning ‘related to the state’ by saying rossiskii or you can say russkii meaning the ethnic group and that would be something different. And the Ukrainian protest is anti-rossiskii, anti-Russia as a state. It’s not against ethnic Russians.

I think it’s important to see this difference, and even though there’s an overlap between the two, and yes, large support from Yanukovych comes from ethnic Russians in the east and opposition from ethnic Ukrainians in the west, but the origins of the protest itself isn’t against ethnic Russians, it’s against Putin’s regime. 

It’s against Russia as a state. It’s against Russia’s attempt, as you said, to assert control over Ukraine, to view Ukraine within its sphere of influence as a satellite state that is now trying to pull away. That’s where the protest comes in – to oppose that political direction of Russia rather than ethnic Russians. 

And it’s framing the conflict in ethnic terms that is precisely what Putin is trying to do when he claims that an intervention in the Crimea is to protect ethnic Russians. It works for him to see this conflict as a conflict between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians, but it is not. 

And now Maidon has declared independence. Now Maidon is a word for independence. It is a word that is used to indicate a protest. Maidon means ‘square’ in Ukrainian but now it’s a common word because maidons were opened everywhere. They are spaces where people can protest the government.

JS: Similar to how people might use “Waterloo” to indicate a person’s downfall?

VS: Exactly. On Facebook, the page that was providing all the updates is called EuroMaidon, or European Maidon, and an opposing movement was called anti-maidon. Or when people used cars or transportation in various ways to help set up the protest where called auto-maidon. Maidons have had people of all ethnic groups – Russians, Ukrainians, Russian speakers and more. It’s not an ethnic conflict and I think that’s crucial to understand. 

And to your second question, yes, absolutely. I think that’s what Putin’s government is trying to do. It’s a real threat to Russia’s geopolitical standing. It doesn’t want Ukraine to pull away from its sphere of influence and I would say yeah, he’s trying to exert his influence with what he has. And I guess he didn’t expect the protest to go that far and to be that powerful, and for people to really stand for what they were fighting for and not to leave the streets for months. 

It’s one of the most long-lasting protests in European history. They’ve been there since November. Right through the winter, sub-zero temperatures, police attacks and sniper attacks at the end. I think Putin did not expect that was going to happen. He can’t stand Ukraine going away.

Part 2 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: To clarify, does Yanukovych and his government have a history of being pro-Russian or was his switch of association agreements out of the blue?

VS: Yes, he comes from the Eastern part of the Ukraine. His main support comes from the South and East. He actually comes from the same town as me, the city of Donetsk. The other day I was listening to Vermont Public Radio and it was reporting on Donetsk, which is Yanukovych’s home town and it happens to be my home town. It was the first time since I moved here that my city was on the news. They said “Donetsk,” and I said, “Oh wow. Donetsk.” 

JS: Did you ever meet him personally in Donetsk?

VS: No, no. We moved in different circles. But it is his base of support and he was elected as President. There was some discussion as to how fair the election was but there was an agreement that he did win, that he does have the support of Ukraine. But there was the hope that even though he represents Russian speakers or Russians or the Southeast of Ukraine, he would listen to other voices and he would move the country in the right direction. But his rejection to sign the agreement and to enter negotiations with Putin clearly indicated that he was not going to do that. Then people stopped giving him credit or expecting something different from him. 

JS: So all the issues today you think are more about removing Yanukovych from power than it is about the agreement with Russia?

VS: Yes, it’s about removing Yanukovych. And now Russia insists that Yanukovych is the legitimate president. It’s still about moving away from Russia but less about the agreement or documents that need to be signed.

Part 1 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

History will always remember February 18, 2014 as the day the Ukrainian people rose up and ousted President Viktor Yanukovych after the president decided to forcefully end months of protests. Protestors at the time were railing against Yanukovych's decision to break away from an association agreement with the European Union in favor of the Russian Federation. 

After the initial altercation between protestors and riot police left at least 82 dead and over 1,100 injured, protestors began rioting and pushing for Yanukovych's ousting. Then on February 22, the Ukrainian Parliament impeached Yanukovych, forcing the disgraced president to flee Kiev for eastern Ukraine where he enjoyed the most political support.

Over the next few weeks, tensions have since increased, putting Russia and the United States at odds as Russian troops are deployed in parts of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. The situation is still in development, but it's getting progressively worse.

Over the next several days, I will be posting the transcript of my discussion on March 5 with Professor Victoria Somoff about the crisis. Professor Somoff is a native Ukrainian before she migrated to the United States, and she is a professor of Russian literature and culture at Dartmouth.

JS: Why do you think the Ukrainian Crisis ignited now as opposed to earlier when Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych signed the deal with Russia?

VS: This started November after a very specific particular event, namely after Yanukovych, the now-ousted President of Ukraine, rejected an association agreement with the European Union. A lot of preparation went into that agreement for his signature, and he attended the summit in Vilnius and there was an expectation that he would sign. 

At the last moment, he rejected that proposal. He did not sign the agreement. It wasn’t just a random accident. It indicated very clearly his choice for Ukraine’s future. Not only did he not sign the agreement, he immediately started negotiations with Russia. Russia promised him home investments in the Ukrainian economy, Russia promised to lower gas prices. It was a clear choice on the part of Yanukovych and his Government where Ukraine was going to go. With Russia, with Putin’s regime, and not with Europe. This choice people opposed and that’s when people took to the streets protesting this specific decision and demanding the renewal of negotiations with Russia.

That’s how it all started. And Yanukovych’s response was exceptionally inadequate. He was ignoring the protests for a while. It seemed like he was trying to wait them out, and then at a certain point, he started using the riot police and brutally and violently tried to clear the protesters from the streets of Kiev, which just increased and intensified the protests. More people came out and now, at that point, it became less about the agreement, less about the demands about to sign a particular agreement and more about the Ukrainian peoples’ demands to remove Yanukovych and his regime from power for being an inadequate, incapable government, having new elections, a return to the Constitution of 2004 and other issues that were larger than the association agreement. The agreement has much more of a symbolic significance.

The Impact of Globalization on American and Russian Culture

Globalization has been a part of the world for many centuries, going as far back as the spread of Ancient Greek culture during the Hellenistic period, or the birth of the Silk Road, the famous trade route connecting China with the Mediterranean Sea. To use its most general definition, globalization is the process of connecting different parts of the world. However, globalization is more commonly used in reference to the growth of an integrated global economy characterized by free trade, the free flow of capital and the utilization of cheaper foreign labor markets to drive down production costs. The United States is the country most often associated with globalization, with good reason, which sometimes results in globalization being associated with “Americanization.” This phenomenon is typified by the presence of American brands, such as McDonalds, Burger King and, especially, Coca-Cola.

But it is incorrect to consider globalization as a distinctly American process. Globalization occurs whenever distinct different parts of the world connect with one another via the trade of information or resources, such as between England and India in the late 19th century. It is the process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the transmission of commodities and ideas, becomes standardized around the world. Because of the technology of the time, the rise of Americanization was simply more rapid than previous instances of globalization, like England’s colonial presence in India or the Silk Road. Due to near-instantaneous communication and improved transportation technologies and services, and other factors such as mass migration and the movement of human resources, economic activity has rapidly expanded beyond the borders of countries to form today’s global market as we know it.

The economic benefits of globalization are obvious, of which America and China provide the best examples. Leading up to World War II, America was primarily an isolationist country with little involvement on the world stage except a two-year appearance in World War I from 1917-1918 and a quasi-imperialistic frame of mind between 1898 and 1904. The government even had a series of Neutrality Acts preventing the United States from taking part in foreign affairs, including refraining from joining the ill-fated League of Nations. But then World War II occurred and most of the world found itself beaten into a bloody pulp. The European powers of Germany, England and France had been badly devastated, while Japan and China were all but decimated, leaving just the United States and the Soviet Union as the primary world powers.

The Soviet Union, with its system of economic centralization under Communist rule, was ill equipped to expand and globalize against the United States and eventually collapsed, while the United States continues to function alive and well. The nature of globalization requires free trade and economic maneuverability, which a centralized economy restricts. As such, few Russian brands became as prominent as American brands. Because of its capitalistic economy, the United States expanded rapidly, developing into a global economy that formed the economic backbone for most of the world until recently. Now China has started to compete with the United States for economic superiority.

However, such rapid economic expansion has its costs. Critics of globalization claim it is detrimental to the social and natural sustainability of a region in the long-term, and question the benefits of continuous economic expansion. They also criticize the social structural inequality caused by globalization, and the colonial, imperialistic or hegemonic ethnocentrism, cultural assimilation and cultural appropriation that seemingly characterize globalization. Pointing to the rise of the United States post-World War II or the colonial dominance of European nations over Africa and Asia in the 1800s, critics highlight these historical examples of how countries with influence and money can essentially rule over less fortunate countries and dictate the course of action.

Based on my personal experiences growing up as an American citizen, the critics’ arguments to a point seem valid. Growing up in the 1990s and 2000s, I saw the impact of globalization was evident everywhere. My family lived in Europe for four years, visiting most European countries on the continent as far east as Poland, and the prevalence of American products like Burger King, Coca-Cola and Levis jeans was astounding. As a small child, I felt like America was everywhere and that globalization had broken down national borders, allowing everyone access to the same products and enjoy the American “way of life.” To a certain degree, it felt like I had never left the United States.

Globalization plays to the American ideals of individualism and competition. Americans, when they’re financially and socially successful, believe capitalism is the world’s greatest philosophy, and that hard work and determination will be enough to raise a person from poverty to affluence. And globalization has been great in breaking down borders, especially when it comes to bringing in foreigners to America.

As a student in elementary school, I constantly heard how American culture was a so-called “melting pot,” which was a metaphor for a diverse society becoming more harmonized over time, and that in turn is a soft way of saying cultural assimilation. The melting pot theorists claimed that many different races and cultures in the United States, from Hispanic or Black to Irish or Catholic, were mixing together to form a unique society. But on September 11, 2001, everything changed. The term melting pot disappeared from my life and teachers and other adults emphasized the American Way of Life, which played to a national ethos of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The American way required citizens to be individualistic, dynamic and pragmatic, all of which are qualities that drive globalization. Americans believe in progress, self-improvement and education, which combined comprised the American ideal. And it’s worked well for the most part. The United States has been a dominant country since the end of World War II and currently shows no signs of stopping. In the past 70 years, the USSR, Japan and now China have risen and fallen while the United States remains consistently strong, and Americans attribute it to globalization and the dominance of American products in the economy.

But globalization has a dark side. Many Americans become insensitive to other cultures, assuming that America’s role in the world is because of the American way. Americans may start mocking and degrading other cultures, believing American culture to be dominant in every aspect. It causes Americans to become blind to their own differences, and prevents them from realizing that there is no true American culture except striving for financial success.

Globalization has led to the erosion of families and family relationships, something I have personally experienced. Globalization and the American Way encourage families to break up if sons and daughters want to succeed in life. Nowadays, young adults must be willing to regularly relocate if they want to advance in their careers. As a result, it’s no longer strange to hear how families are spread across the entire country, relying on the ease of transportation and communication to maintain familial bonds. But if families don’t avail themselves of Skype, e-mail and air travel, those bonds disintegrate.

Prior to globalization, American culture was more homogenous and families lived in the same house for generations, just as Russians once did as well.

Defined by its communal nature, Russian culture is at risk of following in the footsteps of American culture. With ease of travel and communication, Russian families will face the same temptations to break apart as American families, especially if relocating improves job prospects and earnings.

Globalization causes people to feel compelled to strive for financial success. Americans are raised on the success ethic of work hard, get ahead and be successful in whatever you do, sometimes perceived as equality of opportunity. However, equality of opportunity does not guarantee success or equal results and, according to Nina Khrushcheva, equality of outcomes is more important than financial success for Russians.[1] Russians can be just as productive workers as Americans, but Russians prefer the labor to be completed for personal reasons instead of financial. This mental paradigm is where globalization will reconfigure Russian culture.

This inherent need for an equality of outcomes makes it difficult for Russians to comfortably practice capitalism because true capitalism will always result in inequality. Historically, Russia has frowned upon those who disproportionately succeed, such as resentment towards the kulaks, who were private farmers. Even today, Russia is slowly transitioning from what it’s always known, a centralized economy dictated by the government, to a more capitalist economy where more opportunities are easily had. Globalization is forcing Russia to chart its own path down roads it has never traveled before.

However, globalization’s impacts have been relatively limited given how large Russia is. Right now, the areas most affected are the major cities, such as St. Petersburg, Moscow and Ekaterinburg, while the rural villages lag far behind. But such a situation has always been the case. The villages contain a very different culture compared to the cities, and this is most evident when it comes to politics. Opposition politicians like Alexei Navalny possess limited appeal outside the major cities because of this cultural divide. The divide is even more evident when seen in person. When I was in St. Petersburg last summer, I witnessed firsthand the stark contrast when I visited a few of the villages on the city’s outskirts. Not only do village folk act much differently than city folk, but there’s very little in the way of modern conveniences. When I visited Ropsha, a small town on the outskirts of St. Petersburg, I saw a Пятерочка grocery store, a Russian-version of an American CVS convenience store, and it seemed completely out of place against the backdrop of Ropsha.

And yet, although globalization will continue to widen the cultural gap between cities and villages, it has opened up conversation between people. In St. Petersburg and Moscow, there are numerous foreign language centers and I volunteered at one of them, assisting the staff as a native English speaker. My presence can be attributed to the same tools that allow globalization to occur. When I started teaching, students were excited to have the opportunity to ask me many questions about American culture, my political beliefs and my intercultural experiences. I found myself easily engaged in conversations I hadn’t expected when I first arrived in Russia, and I spent many of my free afternoons with newly-found Russian friends, comparing and contrasting our respective cultures.

For all the negative attention globalization receives because of its erosion on a nation’s social identity, I think it’s more than balanced out by the growth of intercultural exchange. Globalization doesn’t cause cultures to die. Instead, globalization allows people to learn more about one another, and when global communication is used correctly, other cultures can receive the respect they deserve. Only when globalization is used solely xas a tool for the purpose of financial development does culture die, which just means that for multiculturalism to truly exist, and not become cultural assimilation, globalization should not be abused.

[1] Khrushcheva, Nina. Money and Wealth in Russia: Politics and Perceptions. International Affairs at The New School. April 2006. http://milanoschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Nina2_2006-06.pdf

Part 5 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

JS: So this is very slowly chipping away at Oliphant?

BD: Exactly. 

JS: Why do you think Congress had this mentality shift?

BD: I think it reflects some of what we’re seeing on [Dartmouth] campus – a wellspring of frustration from the ground up that says the problem of sexual violence against women, and in this case the problem of sexual violence against Native women, is epidemic. The rate of sexual violence against Native women outpaces any other group in the US. Three out of four are likely to be sexually assaulted during their lifetimes. Congress heard the data loudly and clearly.

The Department of Justice documented this. This was very much on the radar. We have to applaud the success of grassroots activists and others like Amnesty International, which provided a very detailed report in 2007 and updated in 2008 to highlight just how dire this situation was. The problem in itself was extremely glaring.

What was equally glaring was the ineptitude and the lack of will on the part of state and federal prosecutors to do anything about it. Federal studies showed that the rate of declination, that is the rate that US attorneys decline to hear a case, was at the highest levels in some of these sexual assault cases.

Now in fairness to US attorneys, they may say there are good reasons why they could not go forward in several of those cases, because by the time federal investigators arrived at a crime scene, it had already been corrupted. The site had not been well preserved and the victim may have been questioned by other people. Other information may have gotten to her so it’s unclear whether or not federal prosecutors were getting accurate information that could hold up in court using a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so they would point to reasons why those rates of declination were so high.

On the state side, it’s less clear why there was such apathy but that’s the general picture that Congress saw. The problem itself was epidemic and the response was virtually non-existent and something had to be done, so I think in response to that dual scenario, some modification using VAWA as a vehicle was seen as the best way to get this done.

I thought it was a brilliant move by senators, including Senator Leahy from Vermont, my home state, to attach this provision as a rider to VAWA so that senators voting against it would essentially have to vote against VAWA and that was a very politically dicey thing for them to do. But it was enough to hold up the passage of VAWA for an entire year. It didn’t pass in 2012 but it did pass in 2013.

So I think the national attention given to this issue, and the insistence on grassroots activists to not let this issue go by the wayside again. I think we’re seeing parallels of that right here on campus in terms of the freedom budget and so forth that students and other members of the community including faculty feeling that the problem of sexual violence on this campus has gone too long ignored and somebody has to do something about it. And that’s what Congress was facing when they reauthorized VAWA.

Part 4 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

JS: I know that you mentioned prior to the interview that you’ve worked on this issue. For your knowledge and expertise regarding this, how long has it taken for tribes and tribal advocates to accomplish this?

BD: There’s a long history to this because when the Supreme Court ruled in 1978, in Oliphant vs. Suquamish Indian Tribe, that Indian tribes did not have the authority to prosecute non-Indians. There was an effort on the part of tribes and their advocates to get that decision overruled. They went to Congress to get this decision overruled. Didn’t happen. 

Over a decade later, in 1990, the Supreme Court had another opportunity to visit this same issue in terms of examining the scope of tribal power in a case called Duro vs. Reina. This case involved a challenge by a non-member Indian, so it’s a person who’s a Native person but it’s one who’s from a different tribe than the one who’s prosecuting him. 

He made an argument similar to Oliphant in that he was a political outsider and therefore could not participate in the political life in the tribe and therefore the tribe should have no authority over him. The Supreme Court agreed, and in that case, written by Justice Kennedy, the Court outlined why it was important for tribes to be able to prosecute their own members and no one else. 

Under the Court’s rationale, limiting tribal criminal jurisdiction to its members was justifiable on grounds that those members have consented to government of the tribe and have in least in theory the power, or right, to change the government. They can alter the form of justice being adjudicated in their court system. 

Political outsiders don’t have that opportunity. And so the Court felt that was a rational argument for construing the scope of tribal power in that way. Within about six months, tribal advocates went to Congress asking, as they had done in 1978 after Oliphant, that this case, and Oliphant, both be repealed legislatively. 

And the reason of course is to say that beyond the assault on tribal self-governance, this was creating a jurisdictional patchwork that left too many gaps where people fell through the cracks and it would be unclear as to who could prosecute in a particular case, and the prospect of offenders going unprosecuted was too great to allow this to go anywhere. 

This is where there’s a Dartmouth connection. At the time, this is the late 1990s, one of the most powerful Senators was Slade Gorton, a Dartmouth graduate, who was at one time the Attorney General for the State of Washington. He was the Attorney General during the time that Oliphant was decided. 

He was now a US Senator representing Washington and, I think at that time, chaired the Senate Finance Committee. He expressed grave reservations about any effort to repeal Oliphant. He didn’t care if Duro vs. Reina were overruled but he made it very clear no bill would go forward if Oliphant were included in its repeal. He saw Oliphant as one of the lasting major accomplishments of his administration, which was to secure that kind of limit on tribal constraints. If you wanted positive from his committee, you didn’t want to offend Gorton. And so, for political reasons, they dropped the effort to overrule Oliphant and they proceeded as a Duro overrule only. 

So there was an effort to overrule Oliphant. This goes way back, that people have been trying to get Oliphant repealed, principally for the distrust it reflects towards Indian tribes. It stands as a commentary that the brand of justice Indian tribes produce towards their members or anyone else is inferior to US Federal or State justice and tribes have been mounting this argument ever since to say that a system of tri-federalism, with State, Federal and Tribal layers of government, that this shows profound disrespect for tribal self-governance. 

It’s been a hard argument for them to make, chiefly because of the concern that they are not subject to the protections and constraints of the US Constitution, there’s still the possibility that an offender may not get the full protections he or she may deserve. 

Now Congress did write a law in 1968 called the Indian Civil Rights Act that provides most, but not all, of the protections of the Bill of Rights. The Oliphant case made note of that but they didn’t discuss if the Indian Civil Rights Act represented an appropriate compromise, that is, that was Congress’ response to say “we’re okay with individuals going to trial in front of a tribal court so long as they have the basic principles of justice respected – due process, equal protection and writ of habeas corpus, that is, if they want to challenge the legality of what happened in tribal court, they have a ready-made ticket to go to Federal court and have that challenged. 

Many folks argued, including myself, that that was a sufficient compromise. That’s the bargain in terms of individuals being subjected to tribal law but having the fallback of federal oversight in the event of an injustice. 

This legislation, the VAWA reauthorization with these provisions allowing for more expansive tribal rule, goes much further. It imposes basically all of the Constitutional protections an individual would have and some say goes even further than that because of the oversight for Federal review and that in may be in essence a bit of overkill that they’ve swung far to the other side. 

We’ll see how it plays out, but the long and short of it is that there have been efforts well into 30-plus years to overrule Oliphant and that’s what makes this legislation momentous. It finally worked but it’s a limited, a very limited overrule. Most of Oliphant is intact. It means no broad-based criminal jurisdiction with the exception of this sliver of authority that has been recognized in VAWA.

Part 3 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

JS: You answered the next question I had on my mind [during part 2], which was regarding the comments and criticisms that this policy is considered a significant step in the direction of recognizing tribal authority, but it’s simultaneously a very small step because of the limited types of crimes that can be prosecuted. 

Taking it from there, what will be the next step? Is it going to be an expansion of the program and expanding it to allow all tribes to prosecute crimes of domestic violence? Or is it going to be depth-oriented by allowing the same three tribes to prosecute all crimes committed by a non-native, especially those involving sexual violence?

BD: It’s a good question. I don’t know what’s going to happen after this but I do know that in the legislation, the government set a two-year limit in terms of when all tribes are going to be able to petition for this enhanced prosecutorial authority, leaving it open to any tribe to petition as these three tribes have done for an early head start. 

The only thing that’s different is these three tribes took advantage of the provision for an early head start before every tribe will have that opportunity. This authority is coming for exercising this limited swath of authority for these enumerated crimes. It could very well be that this is Congress’ way of prepping the citizenry for an exercise of power that right now people don’t see coming because of Oliphant. 

Oliphant took this power away. 

It’s a very controversial decision and Congress is treading lightly to overcome it. This could be a manifestation of this reversal beginning with some low-level crimes, seeing how this experiment, if you will, in tribal self-governance in the criminal setting operates in practice with either the possibility of enhancing sentencing authorities that it could easily subsume felony crimes or removing the cap altogether and saying this authority now extends to all crimes regardless of category, restoring full Indian territorial sovereignty, and that principle says that when an offender enters the lands of a sovereign nation, he or she is subject to the law if a law is broken. 

If I go to Canada, I break a Canadian law, I can’t claim that because I’m a non-Canadian citizen, Canada has no authority over me. Right now, that’s the law in the US for Indian tribes. Individuals walk onto an Indian reservation, they’re not members of the tribe, they commit a crime, they’re untouchable. 

This is a baby step to correct that, to get us a little bit closer to full territorial sovereignty and perhaps Congress wants to see how this does play out and then we’ll revisit down the road. That’s a supposition.

Part 2 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

JS: For this pilot program, three tribes were selected for the pilot program. The Pascua Yaqui in Arizona, the Tulalip in Washington and the Umatilla in Oregon. Why do you think these three tribes were specifically chosen out of the 566 federally recognized tribes to participate in this program?

BD: The legislation under the terms of the act, tribes had the leeway to submit to the Department of Justice a fairly detailed plan showing they have the infrastructure structure ready to go to provide comparable, or in excess, protections to what the Constitution requires, and have those protections already in place for any defendant who’s going to be prosecuted under this newly authorized power.

This means the tribe has to have judges who are trained with law degrees accredited by a U.S. law school. Not all tribes require their judges to have formal law training, some of them appoint elders who command a great deal of respect. Under this legislation, tribes have to have educated judges. They also have to provide counsel. They have to provide a lawyer and that lawyer has to be law-trained as well.

In some tribes, the person who represents a litigant may be a tribal advocate, a role that connotes somebody who’s familiar with tribal procedures but may not be necessarily law-trained. You don’t need to have a law degree to be a tribal advocate in many tribes.

The mode of protections, the jury system, basically all of the protections that you would have if this were a State or a Federal prosecution would have to be in place. There are not a lot of tribes with the economic wherewithal or the incentive to redesign their judicial system so that they are a replication of the state and federal systems. Some tribes may object to having to do that on ideological grounds. They may say that their judicial systems work just fine and they don’t need to replicate the U.S. system merely because that’s the mode the U.S. adopts for its definition of justice and due process.

For other tribes, they feel it is a necessary compromise to make sure that offenders, who are so often the people who escape prosecution because the states and the Feds have a poor record in bringing charges against these individuals, they at least feel this is something they can do for their communities. They’re willing to pay the price of revising their judicial systems to meet this challenge. Whether they do that for all their cases or just these cases, remains to be seen.

In other words, if I’m the Tulalip tribe, do I overhaul my entire judicial system for these cases and do whatever we were doing prior to VAWA for all the other cases or do we do it for all the cases? I don’t know what their plans are.

I do know this that the VAWA itself only provides a sliver of authority for tribes to exercise this added authority. It only covers cases of domestic violence, stalking and cases where an offender has violated a protection order. It does not allow the tribe to prosecute a stranger, rapist, someone who is not familiar to the victim or doesn’t have prior ties to the community. So there are still many, many cases that will go unprosecuted by the tribes.

This is a baby step in terms of giving the tribes or recognizing some authority on the part of tribes to participate in bringing to justice some of these offenders. Tribes are still going to have to rely on the states or the Federal government for the vast majority of sexual offenses. These are also fairly low-level crimes for the most part. You’ll see these prosecuted as misdemeanors and the felonies are going to be left for the state or the federal government, but there again, for many tribes, it at least represents some action against an offender for him to account for his actions.

Part 1 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

On Mar. 7, 2013, President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 into law, which included increased legal protection for Native American women and other victims who were previously left exposed by gaps in VAWA.

Professor Bruce Duthu is an internationally recognized scholar on Native American issues, including tribal sovereignty and federal recognition of Indian tribes. The courses he has taught at Vermont Law School include Criminal Law, Comparative Law of Indigenous Peoples, Federal Indian Law, Products Liability, and Torts.

Over the next few days, I'll post the transcript of the interview by posting one question and response per day.

JS: What is significant about the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, or to be more specific, the new policy allowing Native American Tribes to prosecute non-Natives for Domestic Violence crimes that occur on Native land? 

BD: A significant reason why the legislation is so momentous is this is the first time that Congress is acknowledging that Tribes, in the exercise of their sovereign powers, can prosecute individuals who are not members of the tribe or, in fact, native people. 

The reason that’s so significant is that when we acknowledge Indian Tribes are not subject to the limitations or constraints of the U.S. Constitution, you have this scenario. You have U.S. citizens who could be facing criminal trials before tribunals, which are not subject to the full constraints of the U.S. Constitution. That is the principle reason why there was such vigorous opposition to this reauthorization. 

Moving forward, it is likely to be the principle objection that the individual defendant, the first person who’s going to be prosecuted under these provisions, is likely to make, that is, he is going to challenge Congress’ power to subject a U.S. citizen to a tribunal, in this case a tribal court, that is not subject to the full panoply of protections under the Bill of Rights. Whether he wins that argument or not will be up to the U.S. Supreme Court in terms of their view on Congressional power in Indian Affairs. That power is located in Article I of the Constitution. It says, “Congress regulates commerce with foreign nations, sovereign states and the Indian tribes.” Under that provision, the Supreme Court has granted a fairly wide berth for Congress to do pretty much what it wants to do in Indian affairs. 

There are a number of justices, notably Justice Kennedy, who has for years has expressed great reservation about whether or not Congress’ admittedly vast powers in Indian affairs go this far. So the case is momentous because of the power that it recognizes belonging to Indian tribes and the potential Constitutional claim that it raises as to whether Congress has this much authority to submit U.S. Citizens who are not members to criminal tribunals and we’ll see how the Courts respond to that.