Oleg Belyakov. Where does the threat to peace come from?

Where does the threat to peace come from?
Oleg Belyakov

Date of publication: September 28, 2000

In my opinion, it is quite gratifying that since last weekend in our media, foreign news began to supplant in volume and analysis the main squabble of last week, which NTV tried with all its might to inflate to the scale of a political crisis. These attempts met the same fate as the futile efforts of E. Kiselyov to turn the topic “Gazprom - MOST” at the “Voice of the People” from a banal gesheft showdown into a new trial of the authorities. In the end (more precisely: in “Results”), for some reason Zhvanetsky got it from the offended Evgeniy Alekseevich... Berezovsky in such a situation would have said that in Russia, in any “showdown”, the Jews get it.

Meanwhile, the main foreign news - the elections in Yugoslavia - really has such a significant (or, as the current move to power from NTV used to say when he was in the Kremlin: “fateful”) character that it can have an impact on the geopolitical picture of the world for many years. If the final election results are repeatedly subjected to detailed analysis, then one of the intermediate conclusions is obvious: it seems that no other (at least European) country in modern times has faced such unprecedented pressure on the population from the outside in the period before and during the voting. stories.

Imagine for a second: elections in Russia; we were forbidden to sell oil and gas, we are not allowed to import the most necessary goods (including meat, if anyone immediately remembers our best sausage), to which everyone, especially young people, are very accustomed; capital goes neither here nor there; All kinds of evidence of NATO's military power are continuously flying, swimming, and crawling along the borders. And from all the cracks, the “democratic” media explain, chew, paint in paint that all troubles will stop, the Big Mac will return with “wings” and Tatarstan will not secede if the people vote, say, for Nemtsov.

Meanwhile, the combined compote of Western “democracies” is now doing something similar to the people of Yugoslavia. In quotes because after the war in Kosovo we once again see how the “globalizers” refuse even the slightest semblance of following democratic principles when dealing with undesirables. It seems that democracy in its traditional sense is becoming the lot of those who do not fit into the System: the “world community,” with a cudgel in their hands, is making sure that the unloved dictator Milosevic and ex-KGB colonel Putin behave strictly democratically. We ourselves, of course, have no time for these ridiculous conventions...

Well, the main goal has already been achieved: the world perceives blackmail as a completely normal phenomenon. “This looks like a pre-agreed, well-coordinated action. Within the limits of its - limited - capabilities, the West is trying to drive Milosevic from his post with combined efforts...” ( Die Welt ). " (British Foreign Secretary) Cook reminded the Yugoslav president that the West has deployed "solid" military forces in the region... The US House of Representatives voted on Monday to provide multimillion-dollar financial aid to the Serbian opposition" ( Frankfurter Rundschau ).

While fulfilling their missionary function in the internal political situation of the FRY, these pictures still do not convince everyone in Europe of the very rosy prospects for a Balkan settlement. The Kosovo impasse, presented as the triumph of a humanitarian idea, leads Europeans to other thoughts: “This behavior reflects the confusion of the West, the roots of which are in the NATO bomb war against Yugoslavia. The war almost broke the alliance (NATO - O.B.) , and the result of the military actions - an “ethnically cleansed”, purely Albanian Kosovo with an uncertain status - produces such an ambiguous impression that it is unlikely that it will be possible to recreate a new (military - O.B.) alliance against Belgrade" ( Die Zeit ).

The fact that there is some kind of fermentation within the powerful alliance, which has been successfully fighting for ten years with one citizen of Yugoslavia, did not become noticeable now: there was the American missile defense system and the falling euro... In this regard, I would like to point out an article in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung from 09/12/2000 by the author of this newspaper, Claus Koch, entitled “Europe and the End of the American Empire ,” the abstract of which is given below.

First of all, the author expresses concern in the article that in the decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet empire, the United States behaves as if nothing has changed. Meanwhile, the disappearance of the previously dominant system of mutual deterrence “radically changed the very essence and meaning of its (America - O.B.) world domination,” and it did not realize the new role assigned to it by the course of historical events. This role requires “a different political morality and a different practice in the use of imperial means.”

Moreover, in Europe, Koch believes, there are no significant changes. In his opinion, Europeans live in a kind of blockade, which they themselves organized. Moreover, this blockade stems from a reluctance to define what the European space is and who is included in it. "Every day they repeat lies about the impending admission of Eastern European countries confronts them with their own cowardice. They find a hundred reasons to justify their failure to behave honestly towards Eastern Europe, but are unwilling to clearly state the main reason : they are afraid to make efforts to create a single political space in Europe . " The creation of such a specifically European political space “cannot take place without conflict with the Empire.” And although many Europeans are aware of this fact, they are usually hesitant to talk about it out loud.

The USA, according to the author, being currently the only and unlimited empire, is at the same time the last empire : the era of empires is becoming a thing of the past, which is not least facilitated by the process of economic globalization. Koch asks in what form the “decline or slow disappearance” of the American empire will take place, as a kind of historical anachronism. Given the historical experience of other empires, this kind of process rarely occurs without violence at some stage.

At the same time, according to the author, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to lay claim to the vacated throne in the foreseeable future. At first glance, China could assume imperial functions over time. However, according to Koch, even if we take the perspective of fifty years, China is unlikely to become a real candidate for world empires. And not only because its political system is not modern enough, not to mention its economic potential. It lacks an economic culture that would have the character of a force that shapes world reality (here Koch refers to J. Segal’s article “Does China matter?” in Foreign Affairs dated 10/09/1999).

China was forced to adopt from the West inferior production and consumption technologies, a kind of “production waste” (“muellkapitalistische Konsumtions- und Produktionsweisen”), and therefore, like India, does not have the appropriate economic culture to write its page in the annals of the history of empires. “Hardly anyone thinks about Russia in the next decade” in this regard.

America, the author continues, became an empire to some extent against the will of the Americans themselves, given the specifics of American democracy and American nationalism. For this nationalism stems from a belief “not shared by most European democracies”: it grew out of the right of citizens “to freedom of association.” And Americans perceive the need to exist as a “state nation” against their will. “Nationalism without a state - this was the secret utopia of most Americans. For Europeans, including the British, democracy and the happiness of feeling like a free citizen were conceivable only within the framework of the state; only in the state can they be republicans . ”

Meanwhile, despite the absence of the “burden of bipolar competition” (and, it seems, the opposite: due to this absence), the United States has devoted itself to an even greater degree to its national interests. But, according to the author of the article, by acting this way, they neglect their specifically imperial functions, as evidenced by the US conflict with the WTO, refusal to pay the UN, etc. "The burden of empire requires that, while remaining predictable, serve as a fundamental threat to anyone who threatens or violates the peace . " To maintain world peace through imperial means, including the threat of force, the United States must be above political morality (“politische “uebermoralitaet”).

As Koch further writes: “If earlier the Empire, based on the previous law of nuclear deterrence, had to and wanted to be predictable, then in the past decade it constantly succumbed to its preferences, whims and unexpected attacks of morality. Conducting military operations and planning in the field of power politics after The Gulf War, as well as the irresponsible missile shield project, provide ample examples of this. If America does not feel that its immediate interests are affected, it does not consider it necessary to take preventive action to maintain order ... " And further: "A nation that "As a prerequisite for any use of force in peacekeeping wars, she puts forward her desire that the blood of none of her sons be shed, not capable or worthy of bearing the title of empire. Therefore, the war in Kosovo became an hour of revelation for America; it begins to lose its imperial role . "

Moreover, America’s “lack of discipline” and irresponsibility contribute to the destruction of the existing world order the more, the more “its economic superpotential takes away political space from many other states and fetters the actions of their governments . ” The process of decision-making and selection of one or another development strategy is everywhere under strong pressure from American interests. And they, as Koch believes, “are national, not imperial.” In this regard, “European impotence in creating its own political space, in achieving self-determination, is caused not least by American dominance . ” Moreover, each European nation feels this differently: Germany’s employment policy does not find understanding among American concerns; In France, the United States is not satisfied with the principles of organizing the food industry, as well as attempts to “preserve the national film industry from Hollywood dictates.” Well, the fact that the majority of Europeans are not at all enthusiastic about progress in biotechnology, in contrast to Americans obsessed with the idea of ​​​​improving their bodies, “is readily perceived there as hidden anti-Americanism.”

Europeans, the author of the article believes, “can only be European in their diversity.” But they face the difficult task of politically organizing the European space and protecting its borders - this is the only way they can become “a peacekeeping element in a disorderly world.” At the same time, one has to fear that the United States will not welcome this process at all, although it would correspond precisely to its imperial interests. “Her (America’s - O.B.) previously repeatedly expressed desire that European nations follow the path of political unification, if only in order to relieve America of part of the burden of world problems, was always just self-deception . ”

Koch calls this hypocrisy, which Europeans have long known about. “But they have never made a serious attempt to actually verify the sincerity of these hypocritical wishes . ” At the same time, any attempt to develop its own European military concept, “so as not to be forced to slavishly follow the whims of America, often focused on the internal political problems of the United States ,” inevitably runs into the logic and interests of NATO. “However, NATO, which previously could be considered as an imperial instrument for ensuring peace, in the new world situation has become a purely national instrument of America’s rather chaotic foreign policy. Being an instrument in American hands, it has grown beyond all reasonable limits...” Moreover, NATO “obstructs the manifestation of the political will of Europeans - and thereby causes more harm than it can be useful in the current situation” .

In practice, any steps aimed at the political self-determination of Europe will collide with the national interests of the United States. "One of these steps would be, for example, the unequivocal exclusion of Turkey from the union - not only because it does not respect human rights... But from the obvious understanding that the Turkish nation does not belong to the European political space..." USA , insisting that Turkey belong to the EU, based “only on the interests of NATO, identical to the interests of the United States,” would actively oppose such a step by European countries.

One of the main conclusions of the author can be considered the following statement: “Europe will never exist in its own political outlines with the consent, and, especially, with the assistance of America . ”

PS Do you remember who called us the “Evil Empire” 20 years ago? As they say: “I hear from...evil”!