It is frequently maintained that Russia's concern for the fate of Russians in neighboring states signifies interference in the internal affairs of the independent states. Russia cannot, in my view, agree with this interpretation. the proclamation of independence and its recognition in international law are only the first step on the long path of the formation of full-fledged statehood. It is the obligation of a new state laying claim to a worthy role in the international community to come to terms in humane and civilized with the legacy of the former era, adopting a solicitous attitude toward people and their fate, and cautiously doing away with the most painful contradiction.

Unfortunately, a number of states which were formerly a part of the USSR has opted for a different path. Nationalist forces essentially driven by paranoid ideas of historical or national vengeance have bestirred themselves there. They are exerting one-sided pressure on the authorities. As fragmented minorities, the Russian communities are not in a position to balance out this pressure, and, as a result, as has been the case in Estonia and Latvia, are falling victim to discriminatory citizenship legislation which is in fact introducing apartheid practices.

Russia does not have the moral right to remain in the position of passive observer. The response to any discriminatory decision or action in respect to the Russian population and, more broadly--the Russian heritage (graves, monuments, schools, churches, monasteries, museums)--should be rule No.1 of both our embassies in our "near neighbors' and of our Foreign Ministry.

The attitude toward the Russian population and the Russian heritage is a most important criterion for Russia of the attribution of this state or the other to the category of friends. The entire set of our bilateral relations--from the question of the fate of the army through the economy and finances--cannot, in turn, fail to depend on this.

Contrary to all the charges of an imperial syndrome, such a policy has nothing in common with imperialism. On the contrary, it is for Russia a legitimate and natural aspiration to the erasure of conflicts and the harmonization of relations on the territory of the former USSR, and Russia will invariably take the part of the undeservedly insulted and unjustly persecuted, what is more.

Unfortunately, the insufficient diplomatic assertiveness of Russia in the sphere in question is leading to a distorted perception by some European politicians of what is happening in the states of the former Union.

We cannot, for example, overlook the speeches in Estonia of Madame Lalumiere, secretary general of the Council of Europe. She made common cause, in fact, with the idea of the separation of peoples into indigenous and nonindigenous in this region. This extremely dangerous idea will never be accepted by Russia and is categorically rejected by the Russian Government. We cannot permit a division whereby "nonindigenous" peoples are unequal. We consider such an approach unacceptable on both moral and political grounds.

The subject of the defense of the rights of the populace ethnically connected with Russia will inevitably be a very important topic throughout the negotiating process with the states of the former Union. It is inevitable that Russia will endeavor persistently to incorporate the corresponding provisions in international documents of various levels. It is time here, evidently--this is my opinion, in any event--for Russia to adopt a tougher tone than has been the case hitherto. Without, naturally, overstepping the bounds of absolutely necessary restraint, but, for all that, displaying far greater insistence for the appeals which have been made thus far have not been heard.

Stability is a priority, a most important value, which must be present in Russia's foreign policy. I would add to this value another--balance, which is a most important condition of stability. Balance both along East-West lines, which we have already mentioned, and along North-South lines. There are giant, as yet unutilized possibilities here. A rapid move onto the markets and full-fledged integration into the system of economic relations of such states as the United States, Japan, and the economically developed states of Europe are highly problematical. We are obviously assigned here for many years to come, at best the role of junior partner who should not be admitted.

At the same time, on the other hand, there are far broader and qualitatively better opportunities connected with other states, other countries of, conditionally speaking, the second echelon, which are at a similar historical frontier to us, that is, at the frontier of historical breakthrough. These are the countries lying to the south of our traditional partners: in Latin America, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina; in Africa, South Africa; further in the direction of Europe, Greece; then Turkey; in Asia, India, China, and the Southeast Asia countries.

These states are attempting to accomplish historical tasks similar to ours: integration into the world economy without losing their identity and defending their own interests; transition to a new technology structure; implementation of comprehensive reforms encompassing both industry and agriculture; acquisition of financial, food, and other self-sufficiency.

Interaction with them, use of the potential available to both parties, movement onto their markets and the use of the potential of our market--these are the opportunities which cannot be overlooked. They have thus far for incomprehensible reasons remained on the periphery of our foreign policy activity.

The world is changing rapidly, and new intersections of interests and new regional formations with an independent orientation are emerging therein. All this is affording Russia opportunities to obtain propitious geopolitical positions in key regions and to rank in time among the world leaders.

Sergei Stankevich is state counselor of the Russian Federation for Policy Issues. This essay is adapted from "A State in Search of Itself: Notes on Russian Foreign Policy", published in Moscow's Nezavisimaya Gazeta (March 28, 1992) and reprinted in abbreviated form in FBIS (April 9, 1992).

Essay Types: Essay