Paul
Goble
Staunton, January 6 – Despite all the
ups and downs in the relationship between the West and the Slavic world,
changes that alternatively spark new hopes or new fears, the underlying
reality, according to a senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences,
is that “the anti-Slavic character of the policy of the West has remained
unchanged for more than a 1000 years.”
Many Russian nationalists have
expressed such views for a long time, but what makes these comments interesting
is that they are being advanced by Vladimir Olenchenko, a scholar at the influential
Institute of World Economics and International Relations (IMEMO), an indication
that such views may be increasingly common in Russian elites.
And such views help to explain the
intensity of Russian opposition to any Ukrainian rapprochement with Europe
because they define the situation as a longstanding zero-sum game in which any
advance by Europe necessarily represents yet another defeat and retreat by
Moscow.
The IMEMO scholar begins his
interview with a discussion of what he sees as the tensions within the European
Union and the West more generally about Ukraine and points to a division
between those who want to deepen the existing EU – mostly Southern Europeans –
and those who want to expand it against Moscow – the Northern Europeans and the
United States.
Olenchenko says such tensions have
not been caused by the Ukrainian case but rather reflect what he calls the longstanding
“historical conflict of the Euro-Atlanticist and pro-European lobbies in the
European Union.”
“The most significant events in the
Euro-Atlanticist anti-Slavic policy,” he says, “have been the bombing of
Yugoslavia, the initiation of its disintegration, the expulsion of Slavs from
Kosovo and the destruction there of Slavic values, discrimination against the
Russian language population in the Baltic countries, and dealing with Ukraine
as with a second-class country.”
According to Olenchenko, “the most
far-sighted intellectuals in the Vishegrad countries are beginning to recognize
that their countries may be included in this chain of events which are
connected with the denigration of the Slavs.” But up to now, most of their governments
are still pressing for an eastward expansion of the EU.
The IMEMO scholar says that the growth
of such attitudes reflects the fact that “the conception of universalism which
is predominant in the Euro-Atlanticist space excludes national variations and
seeks a reduction in them because it views [such differences] as an obstacle
for the spread of its ideology and the administration of the masses.”
“The Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Ukrainians,
Belarusians, Russians and Southern Slavs,” he argues, have always opposed the
denigration of their national distinctiveness and united in their “struggle for
independence in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe,” Olenchenko suggests,
thus implying that Moscow is the only guarantor of their national uniqueness.
The
Euro-Atlanticist campaign on behalf of the principles of universalism “is
directed above all,” the IMEMO scholar says, “at the suppression of the
independent Slavic spirit.” Moreover, he argues, this policy has extremely deep
roots in the past.
To
understand that, Olenchenko continues, one should extend the insights of
Sigmund Freud from individuals to all of Europe. “The Holy Roman Empire, the
legal successor of the Western Roman Empire, was the most significant and largest
state entity with which our era in Europe began.”
It
is there, he suggests, that one can “uncover the outlines of the current European
Union and which in the ninth century proclaimed as one of its chief foreign
policy priorities the colonization of Slavic lands.” Before that, “the Slavs were
outside the protectorate of the Roman Empire and lived by their own principles
which today are call the principles of federalism.”
In
the millennium since, the IMEMO writer says, “the configuration of countries in
Europe has frequently changed, political slogans have been renewed, and a natural
change of political leaders has occurred, but the content of Western policy in
the eastern direction has remained unchanged” from what it was in the Holy
Roman Empire.
But
while this “historical anachronism which focuses on Russia” continues to shape
Western policies, Olenchenko continues, “healthy-minded” people in the West are
recognizing that given globalization, this approach hurts more the West and
ignores the fact that the Slavic peoples do not advance “any territorial or
political demands on the heirs of the Roman Empire.”
No comments:
Post a Comment