In March 2005, a Delegation of students from Australia, Germany and Sweden travelled to St. Petersburg and Mosocow to hold dialogues with Russian students and engage them in discussions about Nulcear Arms.

Below you will find the official report and see the pictures

Preparation process

The local preparations in St.Petersburg in order to meet as many Russian students as possible were done by Ann-Polin Shurygina. In cooperation with IPPNW- physician Igor Korneyev she organized a dialogue with students from the University of Saint Petersburg on Saturday, March 5th 2005. For the Monday Ann-Polin had planed a meeting with the Saint Petersburg Council for Peace and Conciliation, where we not only got to know this in peace work very experienced group but also one of the main helpers for the IPPNW European students meeting preparation – Maxim.

The Wednesday dialogue was set up by Ann-Polin also and was at the Hydrology and Meteorology University.

The dialogue in Moscow was set up with the help of Prof. Sergei Grachev.  We were invited to speak to students at Sechenov Academy. In Moscow we were hosted by Roman Dolgov who not only organized accommodation for us but who also invited us to have dinner at his place. Furthermore they arranged for us to visit the Duma on Friday to see the Parliament in process and to meet with Dr Kolesnikov.
 

We strongly appreciate all of Ann-Polin’s work apart from arranging the Dialogues and workshops. She showed us St:Petersburg, cooked delicious food for us plus invited us to a very Russian concert !

The preparations in our home countries had to be coordinated over e-mail. This allows work to be flexible but it often takes longer to make decisions. After some changes of the staff persons the delegation team then finally consisted of one Australian – Canadian, one Swede and two Germans and despite some insecurities about funding, dates and visas everything worked out fine in the end .

Of course it would have been easier to have everything fixed long beforehand but this is probably not realistic in a project that consists of busy students.

This delegation probably shows once again that three things are of major importance

1.) Having a very clear communication all the time with all delegates and contact persons in the country

2.) Fixing things as early as possible

3.) And most of all!!! Never lose courage. Problems seem to be much larger over e-mail than they really are and it is necessary to be flexible when going on a delegation.

Once the decision is made there will be ways to solve occurring problems without forgetting that nothing can be 100% Perfect.

 Jakub Wilhelm and Inga Blum

Programm

Saturday March 5^th                    Dialogue at St Petersburg State Medical University

Monday March 7^th                      Meeting at the St Petersburg Council for Peace and Conciliation

Wednesday March 9^th                 Dialogue at St Petersburg State University of Hydrology and Meteorology

Thursday March 10^th                  Dialogue at Sechenov Academy, Moscow

Friday March 11^th                      Meeting at the Duma

Impressions

I came in to the preparations of the delegation quite late, but we soon finalized the team going, which was good. This didn’t prevent it from being, as usual, hard for everyone to make the expected and minimum of preparations before the delegation. In addition there was a problem of setting a final end date for the delegation, which made it hard with booking tickets.

This was to be one of the great learning opportunities for the new students and I believe that over the three dialogues we definitely made the most out of it. Good chairing capabilities and presentations. We had space in the schedule which made it possible both change a concept as well as reading up and changing tasks. The time to sit down and talk things over and just get to know each other is very valuable.

The students that participated were all negative at first but over the run of the dialogue changed their thinking or accepted that these are important issues we can and must not try to ignore. Focus was in the later dialogues on student empowerment-what can they do, and we had the excellent opportunity to invite these interested students to the upcoming European students meeting in St Petersburg at the end of April. This was of course our second focus with the delegation to raise more students both for IPPNW and NWIP. A special concern must be taken to the Russian student planning on coming to the meeting - money can not be a limiting factor if we want to engage local students in sustained activities.

The St Petersburg part was arranged by Ann Polin, together with Igor Korneyev and the Council for Peace and Conciliation, who are also involved in the preparation for the European Student meeting. Their effort to arrange the delegation as well as Ann Polin’s help accompanying us to Moscow for one further dialogue is the rudiment for any successful delegation.

Richard Fristedt 

---

My overall impressions of the delegation to Russia are difficult to summarise, but now that I am back in Australia I think most of how much I learned and how much I appreciated each member of our team. There can be nothing more satisfying than working very hard on something extremely important with people you really like. Personally this delegation served to deepen my commitment to nuclear disarmament, augment my enthusiasm for the NWIP, and develop many important skills needed for the ongoing work if IPPNW. There is a strength that comes from the diversity we had on our team, and this was demonstrated in several ways. I observed that during dialogues, different students would respond to the differing delivery styles we had, and that certain natural affinities existed with each member of the team. We all had a chance to try something new, whether it was participating in dialogue, presenting a particular topic, chairing, or simply hanging back for the first time. I am grateful to Richard for passing on his insights gained from years of going on delegations and helping to co-ordinate the NWIP, to Inga for her leadership, her patience, and all of her helpful advice and encouragement, and to Kuba for his enthusiasm and dedication, and for asking great questions. This delegation really wouldn’t have happened without Ann-Polin’s amazing hard work and gracious hosting, and her accompanying us to Moscow as well.
 

My impression of the Russian students was that they were very grateful we had come to dialogue with them. We got lots of good feedback about how we do things as well as some constructive criticism. We have to remember to speak clearly and slowly, to let everyone get a chance to talk, and we have to make our dialogues shorter in some cases. The gesture of goodwill we extend to them by coming from near and far to be with them goes a really long way, but we have to be mindful that it is difficult being a Russian student for all sorts of reasons. Not the least of these is the sense of disempowerment and disconnection from one’s government that these students feel and articulate, another is the frustration felt by Russia upholding many of its international obligations only to watch the United States blatantly disregard any multi-lateral initiative aimed at bringing about a safer world. During the dialogue I chaired I suggested that what can make Russia great in the future is not clinging to nuclear weapons but showing leadership in confidence-building measures and exhibiting transparency. When I said this I emphasized that Russia was a great country worth defending and being proud of, and I think that when I did this I really struck a chord. My overwhelming impression at the end of our time in Russia was that the future of the IPPNW student movement in Russia depends on us, students and activists of all stripes, really connecting with Russian students and meeting them where they are at, with all of their frustrations and concerns. I’m glad we spent so much time asking them what they thought, because these thoughts of theirs are gold. I am very hopeful that the upcoming European Student Meeting in St Petersburg will be a good thing for not only the NWIP but for the IPPNW and for a generation of Russian students. Click HERE to read Ruth's article for an Australian Student Magazine.

Ruth Mitchell

---

I came home from Russia with a lot of new motivation, ideas and plans.

For all of us, except for Richard it was the first delegation and for me it was also the first time to arrange a delegation, so I was pretty excited how it would be.

Here is an overview of the things that I found important and learned on this delegation:

1.) All of us achieved new skills like:

Moderating discussions

Presenting difficult topics in a clear and understandable way

Dialogue technique

Getting more security in our own arguments through the discussions with the Russian students but also through discussions amongst ourselves

Accepting different arguments

Working together as a team

Stepping back and letting others do

Preparations and logistics

2.) We found out how helpful it is (in order to involve students in the NWIP an IPPNW) to focus strongly on the Russian students view of important problems. We asked them what they consider to be the biggest problem for them as Russian students and what they consider to be the biggest problem in the world. That way they saw that we are truly interested in their opinions. This made them more open towards our opinions too of course. It made it also easier to convey our message when we could draw the connection between their local problems and the global problems.

3.) Special Charm of this Delegation

An important reason for the motivation that we got from this delegation was the fact that we had a good time together also on the personal level. Everybody was motivated to contribute to the dialogues as good as he could but also paid attention to give enough room to the others to present their arguments.

When we evaluated the dialogues afterwards and discussed what had been good and what could be improved, this was always rather constructive. Everybody reflected himself open and critical so that the others most times only gave some little tips and then encouraged him or her a lot.

During the delegation we had two days with no dialogues or meetings. Although I did not like this in the beginning it turned out to be useful. We had the time to discuss the previous dialogues and what we could improve it for the next time, we had time to go deeper into our arguments and it was important for the good atmosphere that we did not came into big stress.

4.) For me as the one who arranged the delegation the preparations and logistics took a bit too much energy especially because everything had to be done over e-mail. E-mailing is inevitable but my personal goal for the next delegation is to divide tasks more clear and very early to make the Delegation more efficient and less exhausting. Like that everyone should be well prepared, able to fit the preparations flexible into his daily students life and the workload would not rest so much on the person who has the best over-view. This should be possible and I am glad that I learned a lot of things now that will make it easier for me to arrange a next delegation.

Inga Blum

For me this week in Russia was certainly one of the most interesting experiences. Not only to see and observe this country about 15 years after the fall of the iron curtain but also to be able to speak to the students of this huge county. I feel like I lerned about some of Russia's problems and we found that to be very important in order to find ways to get Russian students interested in nuclear weapons, in the NWIP in general and of course the IPPNW in general.

Nevertheless, when we find a way to do this there is so much potential in Russia. The students cooperated easily, they are well educated and it seems like - many of them have their heart in the right spot. What was very interesting for me was (and this is just a blanket statement without any deeper thought, just to let everyone know who might go to Russia and meet students)  - that the students are extremely young in Russia. Most students start at the age of 17, go through a 6-year program and then they are done at the age of 23.

I would like to thank the IPPNW of Australia, Germany and Sweden. Without them the whole week would not have been possible and I think that I speak for everyone that I hope we did our job fine and that it will show in results.

Also I would like to thank the team. Inga, Ruth and Richard, it has been a pleasure to work with you. I think everybody contributed different qualities and this is really what makes a good team and I am sure we are.

Last but not least I would like to thank all the Russians that were involved in organizing this meeting, most of all Ann-Polin, what would we have done without you???

Now, all of you who think now: 'well, this German guy that Alex Rosen found somewhere sounds nice but lacks self-criticism'  - I simply refer to the individual dialogue statements. At this point I just wanted to give an overview of my impressions.

Jakub Wilhelm

1.    For me personally and for organizing comity NWIP visit was really good training before outcome conference.We arranged invitation letters. Inga, Ruth and Kuba lived in the hostel the Conference might took place. And it was good experience.

2.    There were two Dialogues in St. Petersburg. First took place in the St. Petersburg State Medical University named after I.P. Pavlov (medical students). Another in the St. Petersburg State University of Hydrology and Meteorology (public relations students). Also there was meeting in the House of International Friendship.

3. Besides there was one Dialogue with Moscow students. And Meeting with Dr. Kolesnikov in Russian Duma.    

These Dialogues were not my first Dialogues. I've participated in the Dialogues which were held in the European Students Meetings (Germany, Ireland) and in one for Chinese students in Beijing. According to my observations it is much more easer to perform Dialogue in the auditory of interested students (IPPNW students whose primordial position is based on anti Nuclear Weapon ideas). Another situation with common students who hardly have any idea about IPPNW, NWIP as it was in China and Russia. To my mind these Dialogues had a lot in common:

     First students' reaction:

The problem of NW is not our problem (we don't care if our country has NW or not), we have a countless number of other different problems (for the most part social problems, like future profession, place in the society, money etc.). And what we can do? Does anybody care about our opinion?

     Our country needs NW to protect itself.

     The enemy number one - USA. (In China students consider Russia to be still powerful and theoretically dangerous for China but not as much as USA. In Russia students don't care about China at all, perhaps groundlessly).

      At list students rather easily agree that there could be some alternatives concerning NW. And perhaps public opinion, and there opinion particularly, could play some role. And also they agree that dialogues with power makers should bring use.

I really hope that during NWIP visit we managed to rouse Russian students' interest to the problem of NW and IPPNW activities and we'll see some of them on European Students Meeting in April.

---

For an evaluation of each individual workshop and dialogue, click HERE

Photos:

Preparing the workshops	Anna-Polina organizing	Russian dinner	Planning together

Ruth chairing a workshop	Kuba explaining nuclear abolition	Dialogue at Medcial Academy Moscow	Power-Ruth

The Russian students	Audience in St. Pete	Dialogue at St. Petersburg University	Kuba's Workshop

The participants in St. Pete	On the train to Moscow	Kuba working late nights	The Delegation strolling through St. Pete

St. Pete by night	Ruth doing some writing	The Council for Peace and Reconciliation