#10 - JRL 8210 - JRL Home
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004
From: adam wolf <adamwolf44@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Russia and EU-NATO expansion

God bless and keep the Tsar....
By Adam Wolf

In the opening scenes of the musical Fiddler on the Roof, one of the Jewish villagers turns to the Rabbi and asks if there is a blessing for the tsar. The Rabbi answers with a seemingly innocent smile: God bless and keep the Tsar...far away from us! This scene is the perfect illustration of East-Central Europe as its various nations seek admittance into both the EU and NATO.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet empire one would think that NATO had lost its raison d’etre. The USSR is no more. Russia has not only retreated from the former satellite countries of the Warsaw Pact but has even given up the Baltic States. By accepting the presence of American troops in Central Asia and advisors in the Southern Caucasus, Russia has become a useful partner in the war against terrorism. Russia has apparently embraced democracy and has embarked on the process of building a market economy. Russia has become a member of the G-8 and is seeking membership in the WTO. Russia has welcomed humanitarian aid and technical assistance from members of the G-7 who hope to steer it on the course of liberalism, democracy and a functional capitalism.

If all of this is true, why is it that the former members of the Warsaw Pact continue to insist on becoming members of the so-called Euro-Atlantic structures? Why are Bulgaria and Romania so determined to join not only the EU but also NATO, the very alliance that had been created by the West to protect its members from Soviet Russian expansionism?

These days it is politically incorrect to draw any direct parallels between the policies of the USSR and those of its heir the Russian Federation. For all the reasons outlined above we try to avoid making the link, at least publicly. No one wants to irritate Russia unnecessarily, for although weakened, it still possesses a functional nuclear arsenal. In addition, Russia has vast reserves of oil and gas, which are of great interest to an energy hungry Europe. And finally, as mentioned above, Russia is seen as a useful partner in the war against terrorism. Indeed there are many valid reasons why it is in our interest to maintain a positive relationship with Russia. Apart from the very practical reasons such as nuclear arsenals and oil, we also feel a psychological need to think about Russia in positive terms. After so many decades of cold war, trampled human rights, aggression and repression we want to believe ! that history will not repeat itself.

For all these reasons we insist on treating Russia as if it were a society well on its way to embracing the values and principles the West holds dear. NATO member states go out of their way to reassure Russia that the alliance is not expanding “against” anyone. They often make the case that the world faces new dangers of an unprecedented scale and that NATO is still the best available tool to deal with these threats. Although this might be true, article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is really what it’s all about. This guarantee of security is considered by the states of East-Central Europe to be NATO’s principle attraction. As a result the push for membership continues unabated and all acceding member states breathe a very audible sigh of relief when the moment comes to sign the instruments of accession.

Undoubtedly there is a disconnect between the official line and what really motivates the acceding states. It is important to understand why the former members of the Warsaw Pact are so insistent on becoming members of these Euro-Atlantic structures.

No one would dispute the fact that the Soviet Union is history and the gulag is a thing of the past. No one would disagree that there has been during the last decade an effort at reform in Russia albeit mismanaged and lame. No one would deny that the worst is over. However it is also clear that, in line with its historical patterns, Russian society has not demonstrated any sustained interest in the promotion and implementation of meaningful and effective democratic reforms. To many in Russia such terms as “reform” and “democracy” bring to mind the unfortunate mechanisms, which allowed a handful of oligarchs to plunder the nation’s wealth. For many “reform” and “democracy” are synonymous with falling incomes, the collapse of medical care, social alienation, shortened life spans, population decline and homeless children. The experi! ence of reform in Russia to date is a case study in double-talk, mismanagement and disappointment.

History has taught the people of East-Central Europe that socio-political progress in Russia, the way we understand it, is a rare phenomenon. If it happens at all, it happens for one of two reasons: either because a totalitarian leader imposes his seemingly “progressive” agenda on Russian society irrespective of the cost in human life and suffering (e.g. Peter the Great and Stalin) or because the country is in a state of turmoil and exhaustion as was the case during the period between 1905 and the Bolshevik coup. The people of East-Central Europe are keenly aware that any movement in the direction of democracy and pluralism in Russia is generally short lived and holds little promise of real change.

Since the collapse of the Soviet empire Russia has been experiencing a time of dislocation and weakness as a result of which an enormous proportion of the population was plunged into destitution. The infrastructure is collapsing, social and medical services are but a memory and unemployment is the order of the day. Vladivostok has no water while Petro-Pavlovsk Kamchatskii has no heating. During these troubled times there have been a number of attempts at reform, but in the eyes of the people they have served no purpose. Reform has had very limited impact on the lives of the masses and the gap between the rich and the poor is reaching obscene proportions. Now the general perception is that a strong hand is necessary. Russia needs a leader who will reign in the corrupt oligarchs, impose order and restore both a decent standard of living and a measure of R! ussia’s imperial greatness. In Russia dreams of empire never die.

Thanks to their own particular historical experience, the nations of East-Central Europe are aware of the fact that if Russia is weak today this does not mean that it will be so tomorrow. They want to avoid being caught in a repeat of the Ribbentrop-Molotov/Yalta syndrome. In the period leading up to the Second World War East-Central Europe lacked a viable collective security arrangement. The nations of this region do not want to be left out in the cold again.

For all the talk of reform since the collapse of the Soviet Union there is little indication that Russia’s historical patterns are changing. As before so today the life of an individual human being in Russia counts for very little. This is brought home to us in crisis situations such as the sinking of the Kursk or the Nord-Ost hostage taking. This is illustrated by the enduring conditions of inordinate hardship in the Russian army. The dirty war in Chechnya with its wholesale violation of human rights continues without any end in sight. The cruel hazing of recruits (dedovshchina) shows no signs of abating. The health and very lives of Russia’s soldiers continue to be at risk because of the slave like conditions that prevail in the armed forces and the contempt with which soldiers are treated by their superiors. As before so today, the planet’s most endowed country remains unable to provide its people with a d! ecent standard of living. This is so in spite of the fact that Russia is awash with petro-dollars! As before so today free thinkers acting for the country’s greater good (i.e. its natural environment) are branded traitors or spies and court-martialed. As in the past so today anyone who is not Orthodox is suspect and simply does not belong. As in the past so today the emerging priority is that of the strong hand and the restoration of Russia’s imperial glory.

Liberal values, freedom of the media, participatory democracy, rule of law and the transparency of institutions seem to be retreating steadily after a short lived interval of reform, which had been brought on primarily by the Soviet Union’s collapse rather than Russia’s will to reinvent itself. In this context President Putin’s inaugural address was remarkable in that it made reference to a Russia that does not actually exist.

Although it is true that the worst is over, the states of East-Central Europe continue to look nervously over their shoulder… eastward. The political and intellectual elites of these countries understand that the future of their collective security will always be in doubt as long as they are not part of a truly Euro-Atlantic arrangement. East-Central Europe’s progressive integration into the EU and NATO will hopefully prevent history from repeating itself. For this to become a reality, however, the new member states will need to contribute actively and creatively to the strengthening of both these structures. It is not by breaking rank with the “Old Europe” that they will achieve this!

This having been said it is very important not to isolate Russia. East-Central Europeans have a much better understanding of Russia than do the French, the Dutch or the Spaniards. For this reason they have an important bridge-building role to play in both the expanded Europe and the enlarged NATO. East-Central Europe should seek to engage Russia in a spirit of pragmatism and realism but it must do this from a position of collective security, confidence and strength.

It is in my opinion naïve to think that Russia will ever become an integral part of Europe. It is nevertheless in everyone’s vital interest to ensure that, over time, Russia at least become “euro-compatible”. In this context East-Central Europe’s bridge building role can be of immeasurable strategic value. Russia’s euro-compatibility is what would allow both it and Europe to live in stability and peace on the shared Eurasian landmass. Russia’s euro-compatibility is what, in the end, could make the rabbi’s blessing an obsolete prayer.