Dzhamal Mutagirov[1]

The missed opportunities of true partnership

 

 

For centuries prior to the 1990 's, many issues of international relations and world politics were handled exclusively by factors of force, rivalry for hegemony in the world and with creation of the largest military blocs of some States, to which, in order to defend themselves, to be joined all other States. During the collapse of the Soviet Union and then temporary disappearance of one of the rivalry parties, in Europe and in the world once again has created a situation in which a new world order, based on a new paradigm, could be established with the universal democracy, true equality of peoples and the rule of international law. A natural consequence of that would be an interested and mutually beneficial cooperation, replacement of the influence of the force factor’s with such of economic, social and cultural ones, a gradual reduction of the armed forces and military budgets targeting them on socio-economic development and the well-being of the peoples. List of positive effects of such a world order can be long. But, unfortunately, this has not happened, and that had both objective and subjective causes.

The defeat of fascism and militarism in the World War II was not only military victory of some countries over others, after which the winners made their will to defeated, and the social order remains unchanged[2]. This was at the same time the beginning of the qualitative changes of the pre-war social relations arising from the liquidation of Fascist regimes, institutions, law, ideology and practice. Almost all the defeated and freed from the fascist occupation countries established new social order. That is, the changes were deeply revolutionary[3]. Since the occupied by fascism countries were liberated by either Soviet Union or its Western allies, embodied a bourgeois-democratic trend of development, revolutions here were strongly influenced by these two trends. We can even take it that each one of them in the true sense of the word has exported its values into the liberated by them countries and tried to establish them here.

In the countries of Eastern Europe with a complex system of public controversies (the unresolved agrarian question, underdevelopment, the absence of democracy, the occupation by Nazi Germany), anti-fascist and democratic revolutions began and developed not only under decisive  influence of the Soviet Union, but in many ways only thanks to it and in accordance with scenarios of its leaders. The defeat of the occupants and their local agents by the Soviet army troops, their presence in these countries, the continued moral and material support from the Soviet Union led to that many tasks to eliminate the consequences of the occupation in those countries and to determine ways for their further development have been solved with an active participation of the USSR. So an assessment of the democratic revolutions in these countries, declared soon being accelerated into Socialist ones, as a result only of the internal development of these countries and their peoples was obviously exaggerated. But then again, we see here a certain predictable of historical processes. In the late of the 18th and early 19th centuries, in many countries, where troops of the Republican France entered, bourgeois revolutions began, and the republics were proclaimed. And almost immediately after their departure the old orders were restored. The situation in the countries of Eastern Europe in the second half of the 20th century was similar. Weakening the influence of the Soviet Union and the withdrawal of its military troops from them was accompanied by a change in the socio-political system and by the searching for new ways of development, ended with banal returning to private property relations, choice of the directly opposite to the existing social order, and a simplest change of the “patrons and partners”. A search indeed could be more successful and productive.  History knew such examples.

As one of the Chancellors of the German Empire (Bulow) wrote, at the table of feast of the large States-predators, smaller ones became like jackals, to be happy with any leftovers. The only real way to keep own dignity and self-respect for the lasts is non-participation in such feasts, keeping equal distance from competing parties and equal relations with all the peoples of the world, considering them equal with themselves. Especially it is easy to choose the path for just becoming independent peoples and the peoples reestablished their independence. History knows such examples. Sweden after electing the French Marshal Bernadotte their King, with the consent of both Napoleon and his opponents had chosen neutral status for the country and remained loyal to the course until now. Tanks to it avoided the disasters of worlds and continental wars and became one of the most developed and prosperous countries in the world. Even more durable is the neutrality of Switzerland, has turned into an oasis of social peace and the well-being of its population. This is confirmed by the experience of Austria, Luxembourg and other neutral countries, regardless of their size and population. 

Such prospects were opened and before the countries of Eastern Europe. The best choice would be the neutrality of all both restored their independence and the newly formed States after the World War I. But it was not done, and they have turned to apples of discords between the major powers of Europe at that time and, ultimately, were occupied by Nazi Germany. There was an opportunity to obtain the neutral status by the East European countries after the Second World War also, but nobody had even thought about, because the question of their future has been solved, as the memoirs of Churchill on the Second World War evidence, in the offices of other countries. During a meeting with Stalin in Moscow (October 9, 1944) Churchill proposed to determine their fate as money-grubbers. He was of particular interest to Poland, where, in fact, the world war started, and Greece. He saw strategic interest of Great Britain in Yugoslavia and Hungary also. And at the same time, the British Prime Minister believed that Romania with its 26 divisions has invaded into the Soviet Union, and the USSR has the right to dominate in this country. With regard to Bulgaria, Russia has had a long association and special interests. Churchill, according with his own admission, wrote on a napkin the figures of would be influence of the West and the USSR in Eastern Europe: Romania 90% of the USSR and 10% of the West, Greece - 90% 10% of the West and the Soviet Union, Bulgaria - 75 and 25, respectively, Yugoslavia and Hungary - to 50% each one and pushed the paper into the side of Stalin. The last studied the paper and was silent, made some marks with a pencil, and then click return to Churchill. Be that as it may, the interests and the opinion of the peoples of these countries were completely ignored. Nobody asked whether these peoples have their own interests, with which all were obliged to respect.

If after the First and Second World Wars, the course of international politics of East European countries was defined outside of these countries, in the 1990 's. their peoples were able to determine the course of their future development and relations with other countries and peoples. If they choose the status of neutrality, as Austria did, they could form in the center of Europe a vast area of peace and security that could mitigate any international crisis’s effects. And the more would be a number of the countries, earnestly adhere to the policy of neutrality, the stronger would be the forces of peace and security in the world. The course to positive neutrality, making actors equidistant from the sources and causes of conflicts, turns all such countries in sincerely interested in cooperation partners; they have a stable democracy and social peace, they demonstrate a high human development index. At the same time, avoiding direct contact between the competing forces of the West and the East, they could become a bridge of communication between them and play a role in the world politics not of the driven but of the reputable arbitrators.

But the new leaders of the Eastern European countries, emerging from the opposition to socialism groups of people, under the influence of the momentary passions, turned the course of their political orientation to 180 degrees.  Three of these countries (Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia), declaring their support for the principles of the NATO Treaty and strengthening the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, almost immediately entered into negotiations for membership in the military bloc and had participated in the meeting of Heads of State and Government of NATO in Washington in April 1999[4].

Soothing public opinion in Russia and in the world, NATO leaders said that NATO's expansion will be limited to only these three countries, "with special historical ties with Western Europe”, and that they guarantee that it will not affect Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine. They said that the expansion of the Alliance would not require increasing the number of nuclear weapons and extending the range of its host, i.e. on the territory of the new Member States of NATO nuclear weapons will not be deployed. However, these statements have been forgotten and as the next NATO candidates were named ten other republics, which included some of the dissolved USSR also: Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Croatia. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were admitted in the Alliance in 2004, and the fortifications jointly created by the Soviet Union and its former allies to protect the Socialist world, turned into military bases for opponents of these former allies, to the noise to lull thoughts about Eastern European partnership aimed particularly against Russia. In a few years the European Union offered to the remaining between the EU and Russia Republics of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia to sign an agreement on association and on establishment of free trade zones.

Of course, any sovereign Republic shall have the right to equitable and mutually beneficial agreements with any countries. Policy, based on the formula of "who is not with us is against us" (friendship-rivalry) may not contribute to a true partnership of Eastern European countries. Such a simplistic interpretation of situation was observed in August, 2013, in relations between Russia and Ukraine when Ukraine's desire to sign a Protocol on free trade zone with the European Union was interpreted by the Russian authorities as an unfriendly act towards them, and had been taken some restrictive measures against Ukrainian goods. But there are several "but", which to some extent justified the concern of the Russian leadership. First, it is not without reason believed that following the signing of a free trade agreement, cheap goods of «second hand" from the European Union will flow into the associated countries, creating a serious competition to locally produced goods which, having been left without any market, will try to penetrate in the markets of the countries of the Customs Union and, above all, of Russia. In particular, the well-known Russian economist and Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation Mr. Glazyev warned about August 26, 2013, in an interview with the TV channel "Russia 24". Hence the need for abandoning preferences for such products what is consistent with international trade rules. Secondly, while signing an agreement on the association, the States commit themselves to follow the decisions of the European Union, which will be taken in Brussels without their direct participation. The founding documents of the EU declare the aim of this institution an implementation of a common foreign and security policy, including the possibility of developing a common defense policy. In international institutions, the Member States of the European Union must adhere to a single line. It is true that this applies only to the members of the European Union. But the States, entered into closer relations with the Institute, to be morally obliged not to get up on the road against their partners, with whom they share a special relationship. The next possible step will be, as it was with the first and second groups of former socialist countries and the Baltic republics of the Soviet Union, an invitation them into NATO, the Organization's Charter of which provides obligatory support by all its Member-States all military decisions of its leadership, the focus of which still remains the same. The behavior of the NATO in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and now in Syria is the obvious proof of this. Therefore, the Russian leadership has some reason to believe that the true purpose of such a policy of the European Union and NATO is their output directly to the borders of Russia, what might have serious consequences for the entire world. It is indisputable also that in international conflicts associated with the European Union republics and Russia will be on different sides of the conflict. Calls for a partnership with such logic of things are like pleasant words of a man, bearing a grudge against somebody.



[1] Dzhamal Z. Mutagirov, doctor of philosophical Sciences, Professor of international politics at St. Petersburg State University, Director of the Center for the study of human and peoples ' rights.

[2]In Utrecht after thirty years and in Vienna after the Napoleonic wars gathered both winners and the defeated, the  aristocrats and diplomats, Winston Churchill wrote, comparing eras and  events met in polite and sophisticated debates, free of noise and hubbub of democracy and could reform the entire system from the base... The peoples stood on the sidelines (Churchill W. S. The Second World War. Vol. 1. The Gathering Storm. London-Toronto-Melbourgn-Sydney-Wellington, 1949. P. 4). Now on demand of the peoples had fought for their freedom, democracy and independence the leaders of the vanquished countries were declared war criminals and executed. The postwar world order was determined only by the winners.

[3] In details see: Mutagirov D. Z. The Unnoticed Revolution // Sociology and Social Anthropology. Saint Petersburg, 1997.

[4] Among other reasons, for which the new Governments of the former socialist countries were in a hurry to join NATO, there were fears for internal unrest of these countries’ population (see: Valacek Tomas. Reality check (NATO's past, present and future. P. 51/www.nato.int/review/2006).