It’s in fashion in today’s Russia’s political publicism to abuse the West on any occasion and very often without any. It’s very convenient. Firstly, such thrusts directed against the “world imperialism”, most likely will remain unnoticed and, it means, they will not receive a serious answer. Whatever they say in our country about relations between the RF and the USA, between the RF and the EU, their perception “here” and there” bears an assimetrical character. If in Russian mass media the situation in the USA or in big capitalist countries is one of the first issues of our agenda, our western partners quite often are not interested in Russia’s problems in the first place. The USA pays much more attention to the problems in Latin America and Middle East. And as to Europe it’s much more interested in integration of new members in “unique space (area)”, as well as in issues regarding the correlation of protectionism and “free trade”. Secondly, the criticism of the West gives almost automatically an “accuser” the patriotic points and reputation “of national interests’ defender”.
The criticism of the West in modern Russia is on the level beneath all criticism. And the matter is not that the West (the USA and European countries) has nothing to be scolded for. Just, sometimes, the sensation is given, that the articles authors’ goal is the criticism of the West, just because it’s the West.
It seems sometimes, that the criticism of the “world imperialism” in Soviet time was much more constructive and motivated than today’s “reflections”. Both because it was at least ideologically justified, and because it was undertaken not only for self-PR. The elders from Politbureau did not need to prove their right for a “new term”. None of the Brezhnev’s Central Committee has come to the point of uttering that the West is alien to us from the point of view of values (everybody understood where Marxism had come from, and that Dante and Shakespeare were not a cheap mass culture). And that’s why the heroes of our sov-time (not American) childhood were Tom Soyer, 15 years old Dick Sand and Leather Stocking with White Chief Karlos.
Today’s Russian anti-westernity is the worst kind of internal publicity, disposable remedy for rating raise, that appears and disappears on command. There is no ideological and political motivation in it (since the Kremlin masters esteem and respect the West very much, even in restricted limits). And that’s why the West criticism is being led not from pithy positions (for example, what’s wrong in Kosovo’s self-determination or operations in Iraq), but from the point of view of PR in the framework of some election campaign.
“I don’t know whether there are dunes in Kennebankport in the state Man, but I’m convinced that the way, lying last days ahead of two presidents was not so much long as boring, regardless “the family dialogue” and delicious lobsters. Both are in for resignation from their posts (indisputable in Bush’s case). With his rating lower than plinth there can be no dream about the variant of Franklin Delano Rusvelt who was reelected four times. First of all, because he is evidently not Rusvelt. Not only from the beginning he has not had a thought of a “new course”, but even the “end of the story” has failed, admitted Fukiyama himself (author’s text –S.M.). The above-cited text does not belong to an average citizen who does not understand the difference between Republicans (whom the young Bush belongs to) and democrats (whom deceased Franklin Rusvelt belonged to), but to the doctor of Philosophic sciences Leonid Dobrokhotov.
The author must not have simply had time in philosophical empyrean to go in for history. Otherwise there would not be such a passage in his works: “There was, for example, such a harmful de Golle addict Francois Mitteran. He was proud of French independence. He did not want to return to NATO military organization. He put spoke in wheels. Bush-father had invited him to Walkers Point, fed with lobsters, jabbered him and made an America’s ally “in all fundamental questions”. De Golle, possibly, would have turned more than once in his coffin of posthumous insertion in his companions-in-arms’ ranks his irreconcilable opponent Mitteran. And as to a topic on TVC about allegedly Condolisa Rice’s “slip of tongue” (who instead the word “Bush” said “husband”), I have not the slightest wish to speak about. Let it be on the journalist’s conscience, since any student studying English knows that the word “husband” does not rhyme with the word Bush.
There is great number of such articles and statements in our mass media. And this great number demonstrates that present anti-Americanity and anti-Westernity are mixed not only on anti-political complexes (God bless them), but on the elementary ignorance.
But nevertheless, the West is not ideal. And its criticism is even needed, because, namely, this part of the world (Euroatlantic world) lodges its complaints for the global domination. Not only military-political, but social-economic, related to values. Exactly these approaches and practices, elaborated in the west are declared to be the most successful and logically grounded, that must be simply “transplanted on their soil” by the others.
It should be mentioned straight off that “The West” is relative and not completely correct construction for designation the USA and their western partners. It’s used by politicians and diplomats from the considerations of “convenience” (equally as such designations like Caucasus, the Balkans, Middle East). The USA and EU have many alternative versions and antagonisms in their view regarding the prospects of development of the post-Soviet space and the role of Russia on the territory of the former Soviet Union. Moreover, the geographical criterion is not fully applicable in geopolitical layouts. Turkey having the army second in number in NATO and being the “Islamic ally” of the USA belongs undoubtedly (not in the context of Ottoman Porta history) today to the Western World. “There are three main directions in Turkish foreign policy. They are – relations with EU, relations with the USA and with Israel”. The above-cited words (statements of the Ankara University professor Chagri Erkhan) are quite demonstrative for today’s Turkey. Incidentally, the European direction of its foreign policy has become the main priority after coming to power the “Justice and development Party”, considered to be “moderately Islamic”. If one speaks about the political system of modern Japan, it can be named “oriental country” only with certain degree of conditional character (only from consideration of geographical location). Nevertheless, “the West” is politically actual notion and consequently it’s necessary to examine in what degree the criticism of “western” ideas and practices is well-grounded.
Such unique in many aspects opportunity the article’s author has received just recently. On 28-29 June, 2007 I took part in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) security problems Forum in Orkhid (Macedonia). EAPC has existed already during 9 years. The basic document of the Council was signed on 30 May, 1997 in Sintra (Portugal). This Euro-Atlantic Structure was founded on the basis of the North-Atlantic partnership and the programme “Partnership for the world’s sake”. Actually EASP has become a certain “preparatory grade” for countries intending to join NATO (in 2008 the joining of three Balkan countries to NATO is planned). The second function of EASP is more likely ideological – spreading among NATO countries-partners of “Euroatlantical values”. As the EASP basic document runs “Council will be the structure in which frameworks the countries – partners (the partners of NATO – S.M.) will receive to the maximum broadened opportunities on decision-making concerning the arrangements they take part in”.
The Euroatlantic Partnership Council will keep two fundamental principles that laid in basis of success of cooperation among allies and partners till now. This will be a body in which frameworks the possibilities of political consultations and practical cooperation will be equally open for all allies”. The EASP Forum of June 2007 was dedicated to three actual (not only for the West, but also for Russia) problems: situation in Afghanistan, Kosovo problem and energy security.
The level of representation at Okhrid Forum let us speak about qualitative “roentgenogram” of the West’s (or Euro-Atlantic world) consideration of these three above denoted problems. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, his Assistant for political issues and security policy Martin Erdman, the US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk group Matthew Bryza, ministers of foreign affairs, ministers of defense and economy of practically all Balkan states and countries of South and Central Europe, Austria’s ambassador in United Nations organization, representatives of the World Bank (in particular Director for Afghanistan) and International Energy Agency, generals (in particular the well-known American “fighter” with thalibs Karl Eikenberry) took part in Forum.
However, it would be not true to reduce the significance of Okhrid Forum to the “roentgenogram” of the “western strategies”. The foundation itself of EASP in 1997 was motivated by the necessity of broad dialogue. Strictly speaking, the Forum in Macedonia was an attempt (not very successful, but about it see below) to organize a dialogue between official persons and representatives of scientific-analytical institutions, mass media, “third sector”. Not the least significant figures of the “Euro-Atlantic world” were ready to be subjected to criticism. It was possible to ask quite freely question to NATO Secretary General during the plenary session and to draw out the conversation with any of ministers either in the course of separate sections or in the lobby. I don’t remember since long such closeness of experts and politics of Russia, since the moment of Yeltzin’s “depressing decade” when democracy was not so “dirigible”.
Forum has also become a peculiar sociological laboratory where one could observe and study the participants of three focus-groups – working on Kosovo, Afghanistan and energy security. The forth focus-group could be considered the plenary session itself where the “Euro-Atlantic world’s” general strategic approaches (as well as its hystorysophy) were made public. Two-day work in this “sociological laboratory” has allowed to formulate the whole number of censorious remarks related to the strategy and tactics of the West.
The first remark is connected with what can be designated as “philosophy of success”. One can oppose me that the West philosophy is built on success, on belief that any failure in the end can be overcome, one just needs to give some attention and brain to it. Everything is so. However, “success” must not, for all this, become the propaganda bugbear, replacing a real analysis of the situation. Unfortunately, the statements of the NATO higher officials and ministers of the “Euro-Atlantic world” reminded in many senses the already mentioned SPSU times. Every NATO operation is a success. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan. NATO has come to the Balkans and the ethnical cleanings have stopped. NATO has appeared in Afghanistan – the flow of drugs has been reduced. In this stream of successes (the word “success” was repeated in Okhrid unlikely more often the other words) the anti-Serbian pogroms in Kosovo in March 2004 were forgotten (NATO has obviously later started the operations in the region). The fact, that Bosnia and Herzegovina today in many respects are virtual notions and Serbian leaders stand motionless awaiting Kosovo precedent, is ignored. That is to say, the problem of dividing republic on ethnical principle is far not solved.
The other alarming tendencies have been also forgotten, For example, the fact that f0 hectares of Afghan lands are meant for drug production and the income of drug barons is measured now in 1$ billion. The data reported by the experts of Organization of United Nations are not secret at all. The drug production growth is also obvious: in 2003 it was 3,6 tones, in 2004 – 4,2 tones. In 2005 this tendency was made public at the Afghanistan Conference by the president of the country Khamid Karzai (who has a steady reputation of proamerican politician).
The Okhrid agreements of 2001 were also esteemed as a great success. We’ll remind that in 2001 Macedonia was obliged to sign agreements that guaranteed considerable rights to Alban population of that former Yugoslavian republic (quotation of places in power and governing bodies, in police). The signing of agreements took place after inter-ethnical collisions in Tetovo and Kumanovo near Macedonian capital Skopje. The protectors and co-sponsors of “Macedonian compromise” were exactly Euroatlantic structures. What is the result? The official representatives of Skopje extol the achievements of “multi-ethnical” democracy in every possible way. Common Macedonians (as well as officials and policemen of non-albanian origin – in unofficial talks) swear the Okhrid agreements like nothing on earth. And are waiting for official recognition of Kosovo as for “Judgement day”.
It looks as if the West fighting for long years with the USSR took over from its sworn enemy many methods of information-propagandist war. Any problematic point, where some efforts have been made, is declared to be success, and expenses are simply left out of account. There is, however, essential distinction from Soviet times (as well as from GDP). Opponents can openly object the inveterate optimists from NATO. One can be them on their place, presenting another figures and facts. Like, for example, it was by the Head of Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Kosovo section or by American political scientist Barnet Rubin at Afghanistan section.
The second remark (it’s related primarily to Afghanistan problematic) is connected with absolute belief in democracy. The Afghanistan democratization, in particular, was declared in Okhrid the most important aim of the “Euroatlantic world”. Alas, the Israel experience has not taught anything the USA, EU and their partners. The famous Israeli political scientist Alek Epshtein, reasoning about the prospects of election in Palestine, wrote some years ago: “Is it possible to be sure, that “Hizballa” or “Islamic Djihad” will not win a free Palestinian election?” […] Authors-compilers of the “Road map” proceed from supposition that where democratic elections are held, the democrats win. But knowing well the state of public opinion on Palestine territories, one can, with certainty, say that liberal and oriented for peaceful adjustment parties and movements will hardly achieve a success there. An attempt to foist the Western world outlook on completely different society having another political culture, with hope that it will work, is a big mistake.” The results of Palestinian election have proved that.
But has only Palestine demonstrated unreliability of “democratic scheme”? Nagorno-Karabah conflict was in its hottest phase (1991-1994) when Azerbaijan and Armenia were headed by democratic leaders, elected by their people. The war was stopped in 1994 by authoritarian Geidar Aliev, the former first secretary of CC of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan. And if we follow today the same logic of “democratization”, Azerbaijan will be closer to war than to peace (more than 60% of population speaks in support of military solving of problem). Thus, the authoritarian Aliev-son’s regime keeps country from the new shocks. As to Afghanistan case, one should remember that the USSR tried to build the society of “developed socialism” there. Today the USA build the “democratic Afghanistan” without understanding that both socialism and democracy are possible only in the framework of the state, but not tribal discourse. A society that doesn’t have state system (or having only the week sprouts of it) can resist the “state formation” as under red, so under stars-strips flag. However, such kind of understanding can’t be based on “scientific democratism”. It can be based only on realism and pragmatism; both the West and the RF have “tense situation” with them.
Today the USA build the “democratic Afghanistan” without understanding that both socialism and democracy are possible only in the framework of the state, but not tribal discourse. A society that doesn’t have state system (or having only the week sprouts of it) can resist the “formation of the state” as under red, so under stars-strips flag. However, the understanding of such kind can’t be based on “scientific democratism”. It can be based only on realism and pragmatism, the “situation being tense” with them both in the West and in the RF.
I would like to designate the third remark with the title of Yury Trifonov’s novel – “impatience”. It concerns the comprehension of situation around Kosovo. The western leaders want to see their happiness during their life-time and that’s why they are in a hurry to determine the region’s status as soon as possible. It turns out that the main threat is preservation of existing status “quo” in this region! Not the fact that precedent of ethnical self-determination has been created, but preservation of “uncertainty”. And the problem in question is not simply ethnical self-determination (as an abstract principle), but namely the Albanian self-determination. In order to understand the process of “albanization”, go to Macedonia. Luckily, the country can be crossed from one end to another within 5 hours. You’ll see the flags of another state (Albania) in Albanian villages, new mosques (I’ve counted 8 of them in the centre of Skopje) and “chrysalicesness” of Albanian communities. There is also dynamically growing Albanian minority in Montenegria. Albanian question also exists in Greece and “non-Kosovo” Serbia. Moreover, the Serbs in Bosnia (insisting on uniting with Big Serbia), citizens of Abhazia, South Osetia and NKR will appeal to the Kosovo incident (independently to what one thinks in NATO in this regard).
So, the main thing, probably, is not status. One should not be in a hurry with it. First of all, it’s necessary to ensure human rights (not only civil rights, but elementary right for life and safety), put in order social-economic relations, carry out post-conflict reconstruction and only then choose a flag and juridical status for the territory.
The fourth mark could be denoted as assimmetry of evaluations, an attempt to find who is guilty for that or another conflict. Thus, for example the whole blame and responsibility for the Balkans tragedy is laid on the Serbs (more than on the Croats, Bosnians or Kosovers), and for the situation in Caucasus - on Russia (in comparison with Georgia).
And finally, the last (in order, but not in importance) mark concerns the fear of “Moscow’s hands”. This fear becomes especially apparent in consideration of energy problems. The West considers the energy ambitions of Russia as a new type of arms (since Moscow use the energy lever for the attainment of it geopolitical goals).
Well, it’s fondly to deny the political constituent in Moscow’ actions, at least, in its gas sector. Politics has played a considerable role in Russian “gas attacks” on Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan. But analogical attempts were also undertaken in Armenia and Belorussia regard. Armenia is, at present, the only country in South Caucasus, sympathizing not only with Russia’s military presence, but its build-up (transportation of military equipment and armament from Georgian bases). Belorussia is so far the only of CIS countries, proclaiming its striving for union relations with Russia. What “colour revolutions” did Moscow pacify in Minsk and Erevan? Till now neither Robert Kocharyan, nor Alexander Lukashenko were the worshippers of Maidan as method of solving their internal political problems.
It’s not true to speak about Russia’s energy offensive as about some “imperial strategy”. In fact, we see the transfer of internal business rules to the external level. The principles of “wild capitalism” have worked earlier only inside the country, but, to all appearances, the time has come to extend them to Russian diplomacy. Hence, is such unscrupulousness in use of gas attack method – everybody suffers from it: “friends” and “enemies”, “the rights” and “the wrongs”. There is no political logic in marketisation of gas supplies regarding Ukraine and Belorussia, Armenia and Georgia. But there is logic in construction of a successful corporation for which money doesn’t smell and the source of its receipt is not so important.
However, the most important is another thing. “Gas attacks” don’t and cannot bring any political dividends. The West shouldn’t hurry with the idea of “energy NATO” – what is the reason to create one more sinecure for European officialdom with high wages and low coefficient of efficiency? Firstly, the Russian gas attack results in diversification of CIS countries’ energy; they lose their dependence on Russia. An American expert Eugene Rumer from the National Defence University wrote about that at the beginning of this year. In Rumer’s opinion Ukraine must be grateful to Moscow that it was urged, in such way, on the necessity of development of different markets and stop parasitizing on Russian supplies. Secondly, “gas attacks” cause direct harm to the political reputation and interests of Russia in CIS, in general, and in Caucasus, in particular. Thirdly, use of “gas arms” outside the appropriate ideological project is simply useless.
For what’s sake to increase or abate prices for fuel supplies? For the sake of building of democracy, “good-neighbour relations”, “Islamic mega-project”, secular authoritarian modernization or “Slavic brotherhood”? “Energy imperialism” devoid of ideological ground (except situational nostalgia for soviet times) can’t work as an efficient instrument. It will be apprehended just as “technological piracy”. Russia’s “Gas imperialism” misses its mark – it doesn’t bring political dividends, in return, allows CIS countries to get off “Russia’s energy needle” and begin the belated work on diversification of their markets. And, that means, all conversations about gas “forth Rome” ought to be left to “hawks”, both ours and western ones.
There are many defects and even failures (of theory-methodological and applied character) in views, strategic and tactical approaches of “Euroatlantic world”. Still, these defects and failures are studied and criticized “in their country”. In Ohkrid I had an opportunity to talk personally with hero of my numerous publications Matthew Bryza. There is much more criticism, as it’s easy to see, than complimentary comments in them. However, this fact did not hinder our quite friendly intercourse (taking into account, that Mr.Bryza was well aware with contents of my texts). Now, please, imagine our minister or minister’s adviser in such situation.
But the criticism of the West must not turn into an end in itself. It can be effective only, firstly, having its final addressee and, secondly, being pithy. According to the true remark of one of the brilliant experts of Russia’s politics, American scientist Tom Graeme, “The growing West’s preoccupation with Russia’s actions is not only the consequence of Russian policy, but the reflection of our decreasing confidence in our abilities and effectiveness of the Western policy.
Amicable and constructive criticism of the West from the viewpoint of common approaches and common values (and aren’t democracy, stability and security our, but not alien to values?) could much more contribute to the defense of out national interests, than exercise of ignorant and irresponsible anti-West propaganda.
Author – Ph.D. (Hist.), head of Department of Ethnic Relations, Institute of Political and Military Analysis.
