It's very interesting to read the three works assigned, and to see how different views are in the four major blocs in Europe (though, honestly Turkey is not a part of Europe). That is, the EU which one can divide in the original 15, and then the new 8 Eastern European, post-communist states (sorry Malta, and Cyprus, though the latter also has a history of oppression by a foreign force); Turkey, which is an important ally (though I would question its future usefulness - honestly you only need some people for a temporary amount of time in your life); and then the greatest state of them all, Russia, which today proudly boasts a nationalistic, pragmatic, autocratic, NGO hating government (but hey, the West wanted Russia to have democracy, and here it is now!).
Regardless, it's important to realize how much history affects the relationships between these four groups. The Eastern Europeans have, though not very successfully, changed their governments to something compatible with the EU, whereas Turkey and Russia have both gone their separate ways. Both have policies that do not give the autonomy or independence of those nations which are unwillingly in their states.
Turkey has demonstrated its lack of mission by not being able to do anything it has aimed for. It is not a rich state, it is not as free as it should be, and overall not fit for EU membership, not yet at least. At the same time it has failed its supposed most important ally, the USA, by not helping with the war in Iraq. Why the Kurdish people suffer, and why the Armenian genocide is still denied is beyond me, especially the fact that Europeans have not done enough to pressure the Turkish government to change its ways. I won't even get into the involvement the military has in their politics.
Russia of course is a much more complicated issue, and for fear that a visa will not be accepted when I try to go there to study their language, I won't go too far. The truth is, though, that the growing relationship between it and Turkey is worrying. The great power politics Putin is playing will bring no good to anyone, only his KGB cronies. With the growing importance of energy Europe, with the support of the US will have to do something.
In the end, once again, it's very historical. The new EU members have achieved national independence after many centuries of occupation by different powers. Of course, knowing what's good for them they ran to the EU as to get away from Russia, and with good reason. Here, the United States is not given its full importance. In many ways it is because of the US that the new states joined the EU. The EU is bigger, and stronger for it, because many Eastern Europeans saw this as the way to go for their future, one where Transatlantic relations are the basis for a secure, and open grouping and polity of free societies, as it should be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This response probably won't be the most substantive of the lot, but I wanted to comment on the reading by Asmus. To me it just seemed rather simplistic to state that the reason that these Eastern European states have such close ties to the U.S. is that we played a prominent role in their history.
Granted, the end of the Nazi stranglehold on Europe and the end of the Cold War are large events in world history and the U.S. earned the right to say it was important in ending both of those, but I'm not sure if it's safe to put all of your eggs in one basket and just say that these states are the way they are because of U.S. involvement.
That said, I'm not quite sure I know a better reason (Central & Eastern Europe aren't my strong suits), but I thought I would just throw that out there. Hopefully I'll be able to contribute more during the class discussion.
I thought Asmus' point was more that the Eastern European countries had a generally positive attitude towards the US because of specific historical experiences, e.g. our role in ending WWII and the Cold War. This point is made in the abstract, which also notes:
"the strategic calculation of many countries
in the region [is] that their national interests in Europe are better preserved via active
American engagement that balances the influence of other major European powers."
Oh, and to comment on Paulo's original post, I think you have a point about Turkey, but it is worth noting that the country has come a loooong way in its efforts to woo the EU, and I would argue that engagement is preferable to giving them a cold shoulder. The list of predominantly Islamic countries with secular governments is short.
Also, as far as Russia is concerned it's interesting that you mention that it's "very historical." Something else very historical is the perception of Russia by the West as a threatening barbarian horde, impossible to work with. Perhaps Russia has done things to reinforce tyhat image over the years, but I'm wary of a reflexively reactionary response against Russia. I'd like to hear some more concrete examples of why we should be worried about some resurgent Russian monster. As Nye notes in the Paradox of American Power (which I just finished for another class) Russia’s economy is still imploded and propped up by oil, the public health system is in disarray, mortality rates have increased, and birthrates are declining. Russia is weak militarily, despite its formidable nuclear deterrent and it also seems, to me at least, to be weak in terms of soft power. Its economy precludes much checkbook diplomacy, and Russia has no narrative or ideology of its own to champion, Tsarism and Communism both having been discredited. Where’s the threat?
i have to say i loved the post laughed with it repeatedly. I agree that Turkey is completely unsuited to EUrope.
i would caution Fletcher about the "engagement of Turkey." the EU is not something you get into by steps or can tailor your level of integration into when you want in. if Turkey is engaged with the EU the forces against it will institutionalize the relationship such that Turkey is a silent partner that doesn't need full access. Turkey could end up in the "half-way house" they were building for CEE. Turkey just is too big and too different to enter the EU without causing extreme upheaval.
and as for Russia: Slavisism!?! its the binding glue of Oriental Russian identity since Dostoevsky. Russia is a great nation distinct from others and the head of "the third Rome." how is that for coherent anti western identity?
Russia has a powerful interest in dominating Eastern Europe and central Asia for economic reasons alone. the use of gas and oil as tools against Ukraine and Georgia are clear examples of Russian attempts to dominate and intimidate their neighbors. if you want to talk about a bone of EU-Russian contention look over at Kaliningrad or the Russian minority populations in the Baltic states. Russia is as big an issue in CEE foreign and security policy as the US is for Western Europe if not more so.
I thought Asmus's argument was convincing. c. patriquin, I'm not sure I understand your point completely, but I think Asmus says U.S. actions influenced Central and Eastern European attitudes, if not necessarily other aspects of the states themselves. He doesn't so much think that the U.S. was the driving force behind democratization or something like that. Rather, U.S. support -- even of an ideological or limited nature -- was really appreciated and led to a more pro-American outlook.
I don't think it's unreasonable to view Russia as a threat. Honestly, Russian leadership is not overly concerned about its citizens, which should make us wonder how much of a democracy it is, or if we can call it that at all. Russia's treatment of leading businessmen and investigative journalists should certainly give us pause. And it has ties with Iran.
Someone else mentioned unresolved conflicts in certain areas. Additionally, Russia has a view of itself and its rightful place in the world that rivals French "grandeur". And its energy resources will be increasingly important, given that development of alternative energy is proceeding relatively slowly and many developing countries have increasing needs. All of these factors (and I'm sure there are plenty I missed) add up to a potential threat.
I have to disagree with all the people that are saying Russia is a threat. Their economy is smaller than *GASP* Brazil and is about the same size as California. Their population is shrinking at a rate of 700,000 a year, and estimates say that by 2050 they will have lost a third of their population. They may have a lot of land, which is good for defensive purposes (ask Hitler and Napoleon), but having billions of acres of permafrost isn’t going to help them occupy Eastern Europe. I don’t see Russia as a threat.
Even if we ignore power politics I don’t believe that the world today would allow Russia to invade another country with the purpose of taking it over. The West learned their lessons at Munich and Yalta and won’t sell Eastern Europe down the river again. The West didn’t allow Iraq to occupy Kuwait, so I doubt we would let Russia occupy Poland.
The only way that Russia might be a threat is through energy or economic pressures. But the West already has plenty of infighting dealing with energy and economic issues and Russia would just be another player at the party.
Russia is no longer the power that it once was, and the world no longer works the way that it used to. Thus I don’t think we need to be too worried about the Russian armies sweeping into Europe.
Matt Bank
Russia is powerful, though never as powerful as it seems (ie Russo-Japanese War, World War I, the Cold War, Russo-Turkish War of 1878, the Crimean War, or the 1940 invasion of Finland). that said Russia has been successful in using natural resources as a stick and support for shonky regimes as a carrot in securing is position in central Asia. I completely agree that Russia could not just take Poland any more, but some nations are beyond NATO and face a real threat. Georgia is the best example of this. the Russians could take over the entire Nation in days and the West does not have the political will to oppose Russia militarily. without NATO's Article Five and membership in the EU why would Poland, Estonia, or Romania be different?
Sam are you saying that the West would allow Russia to conquer Georgia? I have to disagree with that statement. While they might not rush to arms they would do everything they could to get Russia out of Georgia, and if it came to it I believe the West would use force.
the Georgia comment was more that Russian military domination of Georgia could be swift and i doubt the political will of the West to attempt to expel Russia.
i was looking at as a topic for a graduate thesis and its just not worth the effort it would take and it sure as hell isn't worth risking a full score war with Russia.
my point is that Russia represents a powerful threat to many nations, historically and currently, and we should not discount the fears of CEE. nor should we dismiss NATO and the EU as giving them a shield to engage Russia safely and peacefully. looking at the relations between Poland and Russia in comparison to Georgia and Russia was just a good comparison. Nations in NATO and the EU are safer than those outside.
Since this thread has turned into a discussion of whether Russia is a threat or not I want to make a few comments regarding this issue. First of all, a good amount of people were very shocked at the way Putin scolded US foreign policy and its imperial ambitions during the security conference in Munich. Although the tone in which Putin spoke might be something to be surprised about the content of what he said certainly isn't. Putin's Russia has ceased being a strategic ally of the West for a long time now and pursues a strategy that sort of reminds of the Cold War. Putin who called the disintegration of the Soviet Union a catastrophe, has been trying to "re-elevate" Russia into the status of a world power without which no major international conflict can be solved. For now there is nothing wrong with this ambition since it is quite understandable that after such a long period of weakness a country as big and important as Russia wants to again have a say on the international stage. Additionally this kind of ambition isn't even necessarily negative since a stable and confident Russia is necessary if it is meant to assume the responsibility for maintaining a balance of powers on the international scene. Moreove no one can blame Russia for primarily pursuing its own national interests which will often conflict with European or US interests.
In order to deal with Russia effectively one has to be aware of these factors as to avoid conflicts that might emerge out of wrong perceptions and expectations.
What gives reason for concern is the fact that Putin's strategy, which attempts to renew Russian might and power, is being carried out in a way that alienates and even attacks the US and the West as a whole. Putin's double strategy is irritating and not very helpful. From Iran to North Korea, from the middle east to Iraq, Russia presents itself as both an ally of the West and as an international actor that undermines any efforts the West undertakes to solve these issues. Putin's Russia is both part of the solution and part of the problem. It's quite ridiculous when Putin on the one hand criticizes US plans to install missile defense systems in Eastern Europe and on the other delievers new medium-range missiles to Iran and thereby contributes to the threat which these defense systems are meant to combat. The highly suspicious Russian support for the Iranian atomic program doesn't even need any further explanation at this point. It also doesn't make a lot of sense that Russia delievers anti-tank missiles to Syria which are then used by Hezbollah to fight Israel during the war in Lebanon. Lastly one should ask why Russia at the same time as it blames the US for provoking a new arms race, dilligently develops a new intercontinental missile. Anyways I don't want to make this too long. I do however agree with the posts that see Russia as a potential threat. Nevertheless, I don't think this threat will be manifested in Russia being able to make Europe and the US drift further apart and I also don't think that Russia represents an acute threat for the baltic states. What I do expect however is not a new Cold War but a Cold Peace if I may say so in which Russia will continue playing an ambiguous role and will remain a "partner" that cannot be trusted by any means.
Post a Comment