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).