Alexander Kazakov. Tabula rasa machen

Tabula rasa machen
Foreign policy of the past week

Alexander Kazakov

Publication date: December 25, 2001

The most ambitious project of the turn of the century called “Unipolar World” can be considered completed. On December 13, 2001, Washington destroyed the unified world security system and again, even more clearly, demonstrated that in foreign policy it will be guided only by its own national interests and, therefore, will not take into account either allies or potential rivals in its decisions. The prediction of the famous American futurist H. McRae, expressed by him back in 1994 in the book “The World in 2020,” came true ahead of schedule: “American military power, the unity of the nation, its size and indicators, apparently, by one more generation will provide the United States with political leadership in the world. Neither of the other two developed regions - Europe or East Asia - has such a combination of elements of power.

The announced unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty of 1972 became the first obvious sign of the onset of a new era in world politics. I cannot agree with the opinion of G. Pavlovsky, who believes that the US withdrawal from the Treaty was the true end of the Cold War - it ended earlier, although he is right that December 13 marked the end of the “international peacekeeping system”. The end of the Cold War has already been repeatedly - and rightly - announced by Vladimir Putin (in his speech in the Bundestag) and George Bush (after the closure of the Russian military bases in Cam Ranh and Lourdes). So the withdrawal of the States from the Treaty is not the end of a previous era, but the beginning of a new one. The beginning of the era of a “unipolar world,” the main content of which should be, if we rely on historical experience in these forecasts, the formation of a (coalition) opposition to a willful leader, which, in turn, will inevitably lead to the formation within the framework of unipolarity of a new picture of the world - polycentric or multipolar .

Why did the United States move to overt self-assertion right now? Some analysts predicted that the catalysts for America to clearly demonstrate its sole leadership could be, firstly, several interventions like the Kosovo one - short, anemic and successful, and secondly, external challenges (a terrorist attack on the United States). So it all came together. Of course, “dizziness from success” played a significant role in Washington’s decision, both on the military and diplomatic fronts. But there is another point in this demonstration of self-will. Implicitly, American leaders seek, through such naked self-affirmation, to help heal the psychological trauma that was inflicted on the American nation on September 11th. However, it is clear that this is not a treatment, but rather a “healing” of the disease, which will drive it into the depths of the national unconscious, from where the disease will continue the vile work of undermining the body.

The Hegemon's Burden

The unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Treaty destroys the international security system that has developed over decades to such an extent that we can say with confidence that the system will be built anew, from scratch. After all, the 1972 Treaty was the basis for a whole series of agreements on SALT, START, INF Treaty, etc. One involuntarily recalls Vitsin’s Coward from “Operation Y”, who takes out the bottom chamber pot from the pyramid. One can only hope that the result of US unilateral action will not lead to such disastrous results. Of course, Washington assures that it is ready to immediately, without waiting for the end of the six-month period, to begin consultations with Russia and other interested parties on the creation of a “new strategic framework.” By the way, Canada, a close ally of the United States, which expressed regret over Washington’s decision, called on the United States and Russia to use the upcoming six-month withdrawal period from the treaty to develop a new treaty framework that would create the same level of trust and predictability in the world , transparency, as well as verifiability, which was ensured by the 1972 Treaty. So everything needs to start over, and start as soon as possible.

“Tabula rasa” differs from “tabula rasa machen” in that the latter presupposes the presence of an active subject, who, in fact, makes the board clean, clears it, resets it, and in a very specific way: “Create order, regardless of anything; dispose of rudely, unceremoniously. In the first case √ tabula rasa - virgin purity is implied. So the Bush administration, with its December 13 act, attempted to do the impossible - restore virginity . And since science, including political science, does not know the mechanism of such a restoration, the United States will receive exactly what it should receive, that is, wary attention of the international community, which will result in an increasing alienation of its allies and new steps by potential rivals towards strengthening their positions √ political, economic and military.

The main focus, both in the United States and in other countries, was on the reaction from Russia and China, since the former is the other party to the Treaty, and the latter has too much to lose if the Americans successfully build an NMD. China will face a devaluation of its strategic deterrent and will be forced to choose between losing its position in the world and building up and modernizing its nuclear capabilities. It is not difficult to predict which option Beijing will prefer. The situation in which China found itself as a result of the destruction of the “1972 world picture” once again reminds the world that the nuclear bomb is a reified policy .

Within the framework of the international security system, which had already sunk into oblivion, the presence of a nuclear bomb immediately elevated the possessor country to the category of superpowers, and precisely because the leading nuclear powers - the USSR/Russia and the USA - could not, under the terms of the Treaty, build missile defense systems. With the construction of the American national missile defense system, the situation returned to its beginning. There will again be only two nuclear superpowers in the world - the USA and Russia. The United States because it will be protected by a nuclear shield from a possible attack, and Russia because it can, if necessary, destroy any missile defense system, which both President Putin and Defense Minister Ivanov did not fail to remind. But the Kremlin has other, stronger trump cards in its hands, which must be played.

Allied reaction

The reaction of the US's European allies was generally vague, with the exception of France ("France attaches great importance to previously reached international agreements," said a representative of the French Foreign Ministry, "and it does not want to see the ABM Treaty replaced by a coercive system."). This is understandable. Britain, despite its European interests, is still the main ally of the United States in the Old World; they generally have “high relations.” Germany is in a difficult situation. On the one hand, Berlin supports, mostly tacitly, France’s desire to establish a “European Europe” without the political and military dictates of Washington. On the other hand, Germany, being an economic superpower, without the US military presence in Europe, will be forced to play a supporting role next to the European military superpowers France and Britain.

True, it should be noted that even in leading British newspapers, in editorial articles, it was clear to the naked eye how irritated the US actions caused Europeans. “The reaction in Europe,” write Financial Times columnists Andrew Jack and Stephen Fidler, “will depend in part on how Moscow behaves, but given that Washington’s new move follows a US decision a week earlier, which allies regarded as as an attempt to derail negotiations on the Biological Weapons Convention, it seems likely that fears of American unilateral action will increase in Europe.

Germany generally expresses doubts that the Bush administration “respects international obligations,” and the FT editorial makes an overt allusion to the same “alienation of allies” that was mentioned at the beginning: “Mr. a worrying return to unilateral action. Bush has extolled the benefits of multilateralism in his war on terrorism. But he has not yet demonstrated that on issues close to his heart he is ready to meet the wishes of his allies. He could have, but did not want to clearly justify his disagreement with the ABM Treaty. There will be other issues on which Washington disagrees with its NATO allies. Mr. Bush should not forget that even if the United States does not require external military assistance, political support, as the current war has shown, is priceless for it .

The Americans were reminded of all their previous decisions made in the spirit of unilateralism: the refusal to sign the Kyoto Agreement, the breakdown of negotiations on strengthening the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, the decision of the US Senate on changes to the military appropriations bill, which actually removed American soldiers from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Code court, which is supposed to be established in The Hague, etc. By the way, Washington did not even bother to put its proposal to postpone negotiations on the Bacteriological Weapons Convention into smooth diplomatic speeches. The American delegation stated that signing this treaty would be contrary to America's business and defense interests . Simple and tasteful. So the growing irritation of the allies towards the world leader is quite understandable. But it is not enough to understand - we must use this in the interests of Russia, strengthening its economic and military position in the world.

General forecast

If we proceed from the fact that with the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty of 1972, a new era in world politics begins - the “era of unipolarity” - then the main strategic task in Russia’s foreign policy becomes determining its place in the new world and formulating tactical tasks for soon. An attempt to calculate these tactical moves is, in essence, a forecast for the near future.

At the same time, it must be said that the undisguised self-assertion of the United States as the sole world leader, hegemon, is not at all a surprise for Moscow, as well as for all other world capitals. Therefore, this situation will not affect the new partnership between Russia and the United States, which developed in the “post-September period”. Moreover, if the next stage in international politics is the emergence of multipolarity - and this is exactly what should happen in accordance with the logic of history - then this multipolarity will take shape within a unipolar world , latently and slowly. At least I would like to hope that it will be unhurried, since a sharp transition from unipolarity to multipolarity can only occur as a result of a severe international crisis, if not a cataclysm.

Kremlin gambit

Even in the “Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation,” approved by Putin on June 28, 2000, it was clearly stated that the Kremlin considers the strengthening trend “towards the creation of a unipolar structure of the world under the economic and military dominance of the United States” to be “new challenges and threats to Russia’s national interests.” But if so, if the number one task in Russian foreign policy is the formation of a multipolar system of international relations, then Moscow should strengthen its work on building possible coalitions. Today it is obvious that no state or union of states (like the European Union) can seriously compete with the United States and its economic and military power. So the only chance is to join forces to create regional coalitions.

From the same “Foreign Policy Concept,” as well as from repeated subsequent speeches by Russian President Putin and Foreign Minister Ivanov, it becomes clear that Moscow today sees only two (not counting Russia itself) geopolitical centers of power that claim, albeit in different ways, reasons to limit the autocracy of the United States, the European Union and China. However, none of them will be able to compete with the States alone in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it will be vital for Russia to establish the closest possible - ideally allied - relations with these centers.

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of analysts seem to force Russia to make a decisive choice between East and West, meaning China and a united Europe. But why is the question posed so harshly - “either-or”? Can't Russia become a bridge for creating a common Eurasian union along the Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing (and possibly Delhi) line? In this regard, we recall the words of GDP, which he said in an interview with Greek television channels on the eve of his visit to this country: “After what we have experienced or are still experiencing - although I hope that we are already at the exit from it - a difficult period of transition from the planned directive economy, from a totalitarian regime to a market economy and democracy, Russia is gradually regaining the quality of a country that cares about what is happening in certain regions of the world . And it is impossible to imagine a Russia that would not be interested in and would not influence these processes. Just look at its territory: Russia is located in Europe, Asia, the South, and the North. Simply by the fact of its presence in these regions of the world, it is a European and Asian, southern and northern power . Moreover, all this has practical significance in solving specific problems.” So the President quite definitely puts an “and” alliance between the West and the East in determining the vectors of his foreign policy.

We have to admit that analysts are much more susceptible to the influence of historical myths about the eternal confrontation between East and West than the Kremlin leadership. Indeed, why not listen to American political scientists who do not exclude even such an option for the development of the world order as an alliance between Western Europe and China? Union of Middle Europe and the Middle Kingdom , Germany-led Europe and China-led Asia? But the possibility of such an alliance, in which the economic and military power of Europe would unite with the enormous human masses of Asia, has been perhaps the worst nightmare for American politicians since the times of Presidents Washington and Jefferson. So, doesn’t Russia’s middle (and connecting) position seem natural in such a union?

Today, the most favorable situation has developed for Russia's coalition efforts. This is due, firstly, to the fact that relations between Washington and Moscow are at, perhaps, the highest level, and secondly, to the fact that, under the shadow of these high relations, active work can be carried out to create an alternative center of power in the Greater Eurasia is a single geopolitical space where the Euro-Atlantic (from the Atlantic to the Urals) and Eurasian (from Moscow to the Pacific Ocean) spaces combine and intersect.

The situation is also favorable because the Kremlin played out the gambit perfectly in the history of the ABM Treaty of 1972. On the one hand, Moscow did not agree to any amendments to the Treaty, which was demanded of it in Washington. On the other hand, Putin made it clear - and this was noted by all world leaders - that for the sake of preserving the Treaty and the existing security system in the world, Russia is ready to interpret the articles of the Treaty as flexibly as required for the United States to continue testing its anti-missile systems. Realizing that Washington is ready to unilaterally break the Treaty, Moscow sacrificed it and received in return quality, the opportunity to play its game on the Eurasian, and above all European, field.

In a state of euphoria from the success of the Afghan campaign, Bush Jr. decided to unilaterally withdraw from the Treaty and received an almost identical response from all interested parties: “This is not the end of the world, but it is a mistake.” As for the US's European allies, they showed clear dissatisfaction, firstly, with the return to unilateralism on the part of Washington, and secondly, with the creation of a precedent for the unilateral termination of such a significant, basic international agreement, even if it was bilateral. It was precisely this dissatisfaction of American allies in Europe that became the prize for Moscow for a brilliantly played gambit.

European forecasts

As you know, Putin has been talking about “Greater Europe” for a long time, ever since his speech in the Bundestag on September 26 of this year. Since then, there have been many and, it seems, successful conversations and negotiations about a single European economic space. Now, after Washington’s reckless step, it seems that the conversation will be primarily about a single security space for Europe, which, according to Igor Ivanov, should have a “pan-European rather than narrow-bloc character” (a “subtle” allusion to NATO). It was not for nothing that Putin reminded the world on the eve of his visit to Greece that the “full and equal partnership with Russia and the unification of resources with it,” is a necessary condition for the most complete implementation by Europe of his potential as a powerful and independent center of world politics ╩.

The followed by the “house” visits to Chancellor Schreder and Prime Minister Blara had an official goal to discuss the anti-terrorism campaign and future relations between Russia with NATO. However, it seems that one of the important points of the agenda of these private negotiations with the heads of the leader of the leader (at least in the economy) of the European Union and the main ally of the United States on the continent was the discussion of the new situation in the world after the states of the state agreement. Putin could not help but take advantage of the favorable situation when European leaders are annoyed by Washington’s hegemonic claims, and not to make a question about the “European defense identity”. As you know, the European Union is actively building its own security and defense policy, and this applies not only to the creation of 60,000 bayonets by 2003 by 2003.

Already during the official statement of GDP, many expected that he would at least remember the Russian proposal of one and a half year ago on the creation of a pan -European system of non -strategic missile defense systems . The president did not say anything then about Europrop, most likely, because he considered his main task the pacification of the Russian political and, most importantly, military elite. But already on the eve of the GDP trip, the Minister of Defense Sergei Ivanov recalled Blara about Europrop. In the same place, in London, almost at the ramp of the plane in Khitrov. Generally parallel √ and preceding! - A visit to the UK, it is the Minister of Defense of Russia that says a lot. It would be more convenient to discuss the problems of the new stage of Russia's interaction with NATO in Brussels, and not in London. Therefore, in the negotiations of Sergei Ivanov, most likely, about the European security system in the new conditions, that is, without the United States. Why in London? It must be recalled that, despite the “Holy Relations” of London and Washington, it was Tony Blair back in 1998 at the EU summit in Portshah (Austria) who reproached his colleagues for the external and defense policy of the European Union are characteristic of “Slavic and confusion”. It was Blair who called for reanimating the Western European Union (created, by the way, a year earlier than NATO) and make it a full -fledged EU wing. So the visit of the President and the Minister of Defense to the UK to build a new system of pan -European security looks quite logical. Indeed, with Jacques Shirak, for example, such issues can not even be discussed. France has always strove for “European Europe” and was burdened by American dominance in matters of European defense policy.

In essence, we can talk about the creation of a Euro -Atlantic coalition , on the basis of which Europrop as a model of regional non -strategic pro (in the future, such a model can be used, for example, in the Pacific region, and also with the participation of Russia). In addition, even at the Russian-Es meeting in Paris in October 2000, an agreement was reached on creating a mechanism for special consultations on security and defense issues, as well as decisions on cooperation in the field of operational management of crises and the possible participation of Russia in the conduct of the relevant anti-crisis operations of the European Union .

Next year, we will probably hear more than once about the Western European Union - a half -forgotten military -political organization. In any case, we can say with confidence that the role of Zes will increase significantly. This is also evidenced by the fact that the post of high representative on the general foreign policy of the European Union (which is now occupied by Javier Solan) is actually combined with the post of Secretary General Zes.

If contacts with the leaders of the European Union and ZES become more intense and will be oriented to build precisely a single pan -European security space, then you can draw another conclusion or, if you like, the forecast: Russia in its foreign policy, especially with regard to Big Europe, makes The rate on international structures of the “second plan”, provoking the activation of their activities. This is now happening with the OSCE after a recent summit in Bucharest , the same thing can happen with the Western European Union, which will lose the prefix “Poving” and will become a European defense union - with Russia as a direct participant.

And in the near future, perhaps, we should expect “actual” visits to Vladimir Putin, perhaps again with Sergey Ivanov, to Beijing and Delhi. The latter, however, will become possible only if it is possible to extinguish the brewing military conflict between India and Pakistan (which we, by the way, warned ).