I’ve just discovered a cool new Russia blog. Lovimoment (seize the moment) is the Livejournal of an American who will be working in Ekaterinburg this autumn.
And she’s just put her finger on a question that had completely passed me by:
Could someone - anyone - please explain to me what the debate over the
existence of the CIS is all about. The Department of State does not
acknowledge its existence. (This is pretty common, I think - denial for
political purposes.)I
got in trouble at work for forwarding the text of an article in which
the reporter used the term "CIS." My boss actually wanted me to call
this reporter and ask him why he’d used the term. I had to explain to
her that (a)this reporter at Trud does not want to hear
criticiscm from interns in the United States government, and probably
wouldn’t even talk to me if he found out who I was, and (b)lots of
people use the term, especially when they’re talking about economic
data pertaining to Russia, and should not be expected to abandon it
simply because the USG does not acknowledge the existence of the CIS.
You know what? I’ve just discovered in choosing a category for this post that I don’t actually have a category for the CIS. The Former Soviet Union gets a category, sure. And their are categories for Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Baltics. And it’s not like I refuse to acknowledge supra-national organisations - I’ve found room for European Union and Shanghai Co-operation Organisation categories. But I haven’t found room for a CIS category.
I’ve certainly written plenty about the CIS - a quick check of the search engine brings up 500 results. So, I wonder why I’ve never considered them important enough to warrant their own category? Curious indeed. Maybe I subconsciously hate the CIS.
You know what else? I’ve just noticed that I don’t have one single category to describe Belarus, Ukraine or Moldova either - each of these states are honoured with their own sub-categories. Why is that, I wonder? What decision making process led me to these categories? And, really, what should I call Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova? I mean - they’re all contiguous - should I call them ‘The European Part of the Former Soviet Union’, ‘The Western FSU’, ‘BUM’? What? What?
My head hurts.
- What next?
Stumble it
Digg it
Save to Delicious
Leave a comment
Subscribe
{ 5 comments }
Heather 08.08.05 at 10:09 pm
The people in the DoS call the three together “UMB.” Not a great acronym, but it seems to work.
P.S. Thanks for sending me the link to your blog. I expect to be visiting regularly.
Robert Mayer 08.08.05 at 11:59 pm
And you don’t have a category for GUAM either! For shame!
Actually, maybe it’s because the CIS is relatively irrelevant now?
Andy 08.09.05 at 11:43 am
Thanks Heather.
UMB is rather a disappointing acronym, isn’t it. I think I far prefer BUM…
Lyndon 08.10.05 at 11:49 am
I think some NGO’s call these 3 countries the “Western NIS” region. I’ve also noticed this lack in the past - all of the other former republics are accounted for in easy groupings: Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Baltic states. Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova, though, don’t really fit into any one category except one conceived on the basis of geography. I’m disappointed by “UMB” also, I have to say.
varske 08.17.05 at 8:20 am
I always thought that the obvious answer to what to call the countries of BUM is the EU’s “near abroad”. Which the EU acknowledges with its neighbourhood approach to those countries. Certainly Poland is now behaving as if BUM was its “near abroad”.
Comments on this entry are closed.