MAKING OF THE NEW EUROPEAN QUILT                    21^ST APRIL 2004

 

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador)

 

Somehow the people of the Orient have an obscurantist view of events unfolding in Europe, the latest being the formal expansion of NATO and its impact on Russian security and thereby on global peace and development. The distant perception of the Orient of  the continued existence of NATO and the furtherance of its physical boundary are not easily understood .Edward Said spoke not only of the physical proximity of the Orient with Europe resulting in its becoming Europe’s greatest , richest and oldest colonies but Orient also being the source of European civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant helping Europe to define its contrasting image and personality. Said saw the relationship between the Occident and the Orient as one of power, of domination and of varying degrees of complex hegemony. Added to this almost incestuous relationship furthered by Western efforts to construct the “Global Village” despite the digital divide between the East and the West, Eastern refusal to be cognizant of the revolutionary developments in Europe may not serve its long term interests. To some it is perceived as a civilizational clash between Western Christianity and Russian Orthodox Christianity, a continuance of the  old ideological conflict while to many this ostrich like refusal to view the current developments as a reflection of their inability to influence the course of events caused by the greatest contraction of power and influence in modern history due to the demise of the Soviet Union coupled with the emergence of the unchallenged and unrivalled US  imperium since the decline and fall of the Roman empire. Thus after the fall of the Berlin Wall for over two decades the US enjoyed the “unipolar  moment” as it bestrode the globe like a colossus unquestioned by any power in the world. But the events of nine-eleven at the dawn of the new century broke the spell of invincibility when the US realized that the vanquishment of its traditional rival extant for over half a century did not guarantee its impregnability before the attack by non-state actor then hosted by one of the poorest third world countries. As Henry Kissinger put it “It is a war (war on terror) that has no front lines. It is a war that had no issues on September 10^th. Until then the American public would have been astonished to hear that there were fundamental differences between the United States and Islam or that there was such a concept as a war of civilizations” Kissinger’s assertions obviously contradict the prolific writings of historian Bernard Lewis whose thesis of the long fight between Islam and Christianity from the birth of the former earned him distinction in the West. But then American insularity is also easily understood because of its recent birth as an independent nation freed from British colonialism albeit with the profound distinction from other freedom movements in that the American independence was not a result of fight by the natives against the colonizer but by the settlers against the oppressive rule by their own kind. In that sense American war of independence is separated from all other freedom movements which shook the post- Second World War global society.

 

It is interesting to note Americans’ firm conviction that but for US involvement in the two great wars of the last century the entire free world and multitude of sub-alterns would have been enslaved by the axis powers and therefore American military and economic powers endow the US with indispensability for the maintenance of peace and stability in the world. Therefore the “arrogance” displayed by the Lilliputians – the AlQaida and the Taliban—(albeit morally indefensible and mounted in the name of a hybrid and totally wrong interpretation of a great religion)—was an intolerable affront to the uncrowned king of the modern world. So the doctrine of preemption to attack an adversary not based on imminent threat but on plausible threat of attack lacking moral clarity and causing irreparable damage to international law and transatlantic alliance became the bed rock of Bush administration’s  foreign and defense policy. The US began to see the transatlantic alliance through the prism of Robert Kagan which perceived that the “real division of labor consisted of the US making the dinner and Europeans doing the dishes”. Bob Woodward’s forthcoming book on plan to attack Iraq narrates the extreme secrecy maintained at the initial stage of planning to the extent that both National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and CIA Director George Tenet were kept out of the loop let alone taking into confidence Bush’s closest ally Tony Blair. The reason for this extreme secrecy was because President Bush wanted to avoid “enormous international angst and domestic speculation” at a time when the US was busy with the Afghan war. The Iraqi chapter of Bush administration’s magnum opus of war on terror  revealed so far reflects, in the words of Anton Frve of the Council of Foreign Relations( Arms Control Today—Jan/Feb 2004) “recklessness in a war of choice against Iraq compounded by inadequate preparation for the aftermath; loss of focus on the main anti-terrorist war by diverting attention to Hussein’s villainy; failure of intelligence; dismissive treatment of allies; and indifference to the rising tide of hostility to US policy throughout the world.” Anton Frve’s observation received added weight by the book of retired General Wesley Clark( Winning modern wars: Iraq, Terrorism and American Empire) which blames Bush administration for widening the war on terror and leading the US down a path of isolation and insecurity.

 

If the Iraq war has resulted in a deep civilizational chasm in the world polity then the formal induction of new members in the NATO has the potentiality of Russia regressing from western embrace. The inclusion of the new members though decided upon in the Prague NATO Summit in November 2002 yet their joining the alliance has jarred many a nerve in Russia. Russian parliament saw the eastward expansion of NATO as “a big historical mistake on the part of the western states (which) does not add any positive aspect to Russia-NATO relations…. narrows political space for Russia (which) must seriously work for different military counter-measures”. Alexander Konovalov, President of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies in a recent article wrote about the psychological shock felt by  many Russians in finding not only states from the now defunct Warsaw Pact  but also from the former Soviet Republics have become members of NATO. In the west NATO is pushing Russia away from the Baltic coast. The Kaliningrad is encircled by NATO with access blocked by Poland and Lithuania. In the south Romania and Bulgaria along with Turkey have fenced off Russia on the Black Sea coast. Ukraine Parliament’s decision to grant NATO troops the right of passage through Ukrainian territory leaves Russia wondering as to where the NATO units are going to move across Ukrainian territory. Given the fact that the sub-standard armies of most of the new members are unlikely to add to the quality of NATO’s operability, Russia is forced to think that NATO’s eastward expansion, counter productive in terms of military efficiency, is actually aimed at strengthening US political position in Europe. Formally nothing stands in the way of deploying  weapons and troops in the Baltic countries since they are not signatories to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe(CFE) Treaty—a Russian request dismissed by the West on the ground of Russian failure to remove its bases from Georgia and Moldova. The US refuses to recognize the fact that Russian consent to stationing American aviation in Central Asian countries is to fight terrorism which does not warrant deployment of NATO infrastructure in Poland and Baltic countries. It would be prudent for the West to construct a new security system embracing Russia instead of waiting to see if Russian democracy is growing following Western model. Henry Kissinger is strongly opposed to bringing Russia into the fold of Western security arrangement on the ground that it will sow confusion in NATO, lead to bureaucratization of the process, and to weakening of the prospect of eventual reconciliation with Russia.

 

The Western argument of NATO’s expansion as provided in the Prague Summit Declaration(21.11,04) and the Chairman’s statement following the informal meeting of NATO- Russia Council(2.04.04) should adequately reassure Russia of her security interests being guarded does not appear to be convincing as one of the reasons behind the creation of NATO was the perception of the Western leaders that UN security system was not adequate to protect and defend, as seen by John Foster Dulles, “our cherished freedom”, religious faith, and western political and social system as counter attraction to communism. Fortunately for the world President Vladimir Putin ( as opposed to muscle flexing President Bush) is likely to find a synthesis between reactionary restorationists seeking to restore Russia as a global super power to counter balance the US and those supporting stability in order to build a truly democratic society and a strong economy( Russia has  GDP $300-$400 billion dollars). Western analysts believe that President Putin is likely to restrain “restorationists” due to constraints put by over-arching mutual strategic agenda and by the cost of neo-globalism and massive rearmament that a restorationist policy would require. Besides, despite Iraq invasion, strongly condemned by President Putin, majority of the Russians have reasonably favorable view of the US.

 

US House Foreign Relations Committee was recently informed by the US State department that Russia and the US have become strong allies in the war on terror and share the common agenda to stem the flow of nuclear proliferation. US is also optimistic about interaction in the NATO-Russia Council leading to joint military action at some point in the future. Additionally the US has reassured Russia that NATO poses no threat to Russia and does not want an expansion of cold war era garrisons further to the East. US also recognizes Russia’s legitimate interests in Eurasia and has no desire to compete with Russia in that area. US administration’s future policy towards Russia as the Committee was informed was expected to be one of engagement not only in economic matters but on great issues affecting the regions of the world.

 

Though Russia may be a middle income economy any American administration has to take into account that Russia still deploys more than five thousand war heads on strategic weapons. Additionally Russia may deploy three thousand non-strategic war heads and more than eighteen thousand war heads either in reserve or in queue awaiting dismantling. Therefore, Russia no longer needs to maintain nuclear parity with the US as it can successfully deter any US aggression with a minimal nuclear force. It is necessary for the neo-cons in Washington to heed the advice given by the knowledgeable. For example, Andre Shleifer of Harvard and Daniel Treisman of UCLA (A normal country—Foreign Affairs- march/april 2004) describes Russia not as a collapsed state inhabited by criminals and threatening other countries with multiple contagions but a former communist dictatorship now turned into a practicing democracy, a centrally planned economy turned into a capitalist order, and not a belligerent adversary of the West but a willing collaborator. The intellectual duo finds Russia like all middle income countries (GDP per capita $8000) where democracies are rough around the edges; government are not free from corruption; judiciary politicized and press not entirely free. They conclude that Russia by these standards is a normal country.

 

It is unfortunate that in the post-cold war enthusiasm the West and the US in particular have forgotten the original intent of the creators of NATO which has been served by the acceptance of the Soviet leadership of German reunification and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in the hope that the West would accept Russian interest in the Central and Eastern Europe and withdraw cold war threats. Since Russia believes that defending the vital interests of the Alliance and strengthening European security are mutually exclusive, Bush administration’s arrogant pursuit of “hard power” in the shape of military and economic instruments along with abridgement of the UN influence could force the world to sail into uncharted water given the fact that President Putin’s successor four years hence could be a “restorationist”  and Russia may not remain beholden to the West for its economic advancement. In the ultimate analysis, the discomfort of the new entrants into NATO notwithstanding, US interest and those of global security would be best served by the inclusion and not the exclusion of Russia in a future European security system.