21 July 2011

As you will notice below, the annual Captive Nations Week Proclamation issued by President Obama evoked a sharp response and crticism from the Russian Foreign Ministry. The UCCA will be responding to this statement in the coming days.

Text of "Russian MFA Press and Information Department Comment in Relation to the Observance of Yet Another So-Called Captive Nations Week in the United States" in English by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website on 18 July

As "Captive Nations Week" in the United States approaches (this year it will be held on 17-23 July), we would like to draw attention once again to the "overripe" need to abolish or substantially amend the so-called Captive Nations legislation, adopted way back in 1959 as a joint resolution of Congress having the force of law. In particular, it notes that "since 1918 the imperialistic and aggressive policies of Russian communism have resulted in the creation of a vast empire which poses a dire threat to the security of the United States and of all the free people of the world".

It has long been apparent that the provisions of the legislation do not correspond to the contemporary reality of the world. Thus, the document contains criticism of our country for allegedly being responsible for the "enslavement" of more than 20 states, this despite the fact that many of them (Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and others) have long since not only become sovereign and independent, but have also acquired full membership in such structures as the United Nations, the European Union and NATO. Although during the last few decades, quite other "dangerous" states have figured, instead of the USSR and Russia, in the annual presidential "Captive Nations Week" proclamations pursuant to the legislation, its original anti-Soviet and anti-Russian text has not formally changed.

Its provisions also run counter to positive trends in the deepening Russian-US relations. Today when our two countries pursue an intensive and positive dialogue on strategic stability, regional conflict resolution and in the sphere of fighting terrorism and new threats and challenges this kind of "legal background" sounds more and more harshly dissonant.

Given the current nature and momentum of Russian-American dialogue, we find it very hard to explain the retention of such an anachronism, which is a direct legacy of the bygone Cold War. We look forward to our American partners grasping this objective and simple truth: persistently looking back at the long outdated ideological tenets and labels can hardly be accommodated in our bilateral cooperation.