#10
Obshchaya Gazeta
No. 52/1
[translation for personal use only]
WHAT RUSSIA-US "PARTNERSHIP" PROMISES THE WORLD
Yuri AFANASYEV

At first I was deeply happy when I heard that Russia joined the global counter-terror operation. The desire to see, at long last, my homeland not in a state of confrontation with European civilisation but together with it took the upper hand over scepticism, although for a short while. The September 11 tragedy in the USA and subsequent serious changes in the international situation seemed to promise a cardinal change of Russia's role and place in the world community.

Such a radical turn in foreign policy, if it happened, would have been a brilliant success of President Putin. Regrettably, our hopes once again proved illusory.

Shortly before his US visit, Vladimir Putin confirmed, among other things, Russia's firm choice in favour of "a new policy" of partnership with the USA and proclaimed resolve to act jointly with the USA in order to establish "proper order" in Afghanistan.

But let's have a closer look at this "partnership" and "order" and at what they promise Russia and the rest of the world.

For example, does "fundamentally new" cooperation with the USA entail renunciation of cooperation with Iraq, Libya, North Korea and other regimes? Many people already voice doubts concerning the survival of the counter-terror coalition after the active phase of the Afghan campaign and predict - with good reason - that Russia would continue to support the so-called rogue countries. The atmosphere of vague understatements and significant silence is abnormal for a stable and confident society.

Or take another example. According to some printed reports, the American secret services ignored the warning of their Russian colleagues about the planned terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. By keeping mum about this fact or neglecting to disprove it, the Russian president is saving the US president not only from a shameful resignation but also from trial.

Apparently such goodwill gestures are justified only in case of colossal returns commensurate to the service done. I think the "dividends" could come in the form of, say, Russia's full-fledged involvement in the US globalisation schemes. Or the removal of barriers hindering Russia's admission to the WTO and of discriminating limitations. Or a kind of Marshall Plan for Russia.

Such a "game" would be worth the candle. It would meet the "national interest" as interpreted by the current Russian regime. But there are no signs of such proposals, either.

I don't want to be misunderstood and so I repeat: in this case I am worried above all not by the absence of true knowledge about a certain event, but the growing clouds of reticence and eventually the good old "mysteriousness of politics." The latest developments put in question the allegiance of Europe and the USA (their official leaders) to the priority of human rights, which took humankind many centuries to assure, over any national, state or other group interests. They also show the actual neglect of the fundamental democratic principle of legal equality for each and all without exception. Such "minor exclusions" are tantamount to the creation of A GLOBAL CORPORATE SOCIETY, where some "most democratic" countries appear to be "more equal than others."

Hardly a day after the New York tragedy passed when George Bush promised the Americans to bomb SOMEBODY out. Next the USA provided the top leaders of potentially allied states secret but "undeniable" proof of bin Laden's guilt, allegedly acquired by the US secret services which had been found lacking only a short while before that. And you call this reason for a global punitive operation?

And lastly, the State Department made public a list of other "rogues" labelled as criminals with less proof (if this is possible) and designated as targets for "training bombing raids." If we cast aside the highly qualified "propaganda coverage," we will be forced to admit that the world community is invited to retreat to the "might is right" principle.

The collapse of the Soviet Union certainly signified the end of an international policy launched in the 17th century that was based on a permanent balance of forces and confrontation of blocs and coalitions. The time came to revise international relations, to reassess the place of Russia and to radically change foreign policy instruments. But in practice the actions of the Russian authorities and the situation of the country in the early 21st century are not fundamentally different from the past.

First, our leaders that were "elected by the whole people" still make truly history-making decisions, that should determine the world outlook for a long time to come, secretly, behind closed doors. They have at their disposal the well-oiled mechanisms of mass misinformation, virtually inexhaustible resources and experts in the manipulation of public opinion.

Second, it turned out that hot-line talks between the current "national leaders" or "shuttle diplomacy" at top level at best are enough for a "justified" beginning of war. The loud phrases about the "basic values" of democracy are nothing other than a cover for the "might is right" principle, which practically buried the supremacy of law.

Third, current international organisations (the UN, the Council of Europe and others) turned out to be no more effective in the search for peaceful solutions to transnational conflicts and ensuring a bloodless progress of humankind than the late League of Nations, which died of impotence. But "real politicians" ignore the growing demand for searching for an effective anti-military alternative to the UN or at least for revising existing mechanisms. The trouble is that the illusion of "inevitable consensus" in the UN suits too many people. Meanwhile, even the US NATO allies, let alone the Security Council, have to backdate their accession to decisions made by Washington "geopoliticians." And the latter again and again choose in favour of egoistic "national interests," to be paid for by those who are not allowed to join in the victors' feast.

The timid acceptance of the manipulations of US "geopoliticians" is extremely dangerous for humankind and above all for Russia. For fate placed Russia on the dividing line between the East and the West and hence it will be the first candidate for "eternal sleep" in case of a new global conflict.

Current politicians and generals regard a new world catastrophe as improbable because the thermonuclear and other mass destruction weapons have not been used since the US experiments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And so they continue their experiments on the territory of "the rest of the world," thinking that it would never be able to pay back. But nothing lasts forever under the sun.

The START and ABM talks have been going on for nearly three decades. There were cases of unilateral reductions, which were invariably presented as "a history-making event." Everyone fights the "bad terrorists" from time to time - and supports the "good" ones. All deliberations about a "global counter-terror international" become senseless if we remember that the US CIA has two equally important tasks: to collect intelligence information proper and to carry out "secret operations," which means subversive acts and sabotage in foreign countries. And nobody has cancelled this task.

The two presidents' meetings could have become truly history-making only if our chief executives stopped their demonstrations of mutual love and started tackling the complicated and vital tasks of creating a fundamentally new world order, above all an effective system of international security that will be completely different from the current one, which has been proved ineffective more than once.

BACK TO THE TOP    #188 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION