By Nikos Biniaris
Though the left hand conquered the right no advantage
has been gained
Chinese proverb
The West, as we traditionally
designate “Old” and “New” Europe, North America plus Australia and New Zealand,
is a set of countries with two historical-sociological characteristics:
modernization and westernization. The first was the scientific revolution and
the subsequent faith in science and technology. This has been the fundamental
underlying cause of the West’s power and its domination upon the world’s
diverse societies and political formations. The causes of this historical
transformation in this particular area are complex and debatable. However, what
is crucial is that the scientific revolution is today an integral part of human
civilization. Modernization, has taken over the lives, traditions and well-being
of all non-western civilizational paradigms. Adapting to it, though, is a
demand which requires the acceptance of links with western institutions, as
scientific, legal, business as well as international regulative authorities and
research centers. There is no modernization without co-operation with the West
and thus it is the necessary condition for other non-western societies to
antagonize, compete or try to overcome western predominance. It is the
adaptation to science and technology which provides the basis for a strong or
at least a functioning economy in the international division of production. It
is upon this fact that USA and EU sanctions try to hurt, Iran, and recently
Russia. Adopting and advancing science and technology as well as economic
globalization are the signposts of China’s ascendance to a significant world
power.
The second indigenous social
development of the West is that which is epigrammatically called westernization:
a social political construct described as democracy, the rule of law, human
rights and an open dialogue in a secular political environment. Westernization
is a praxis few societies, besides the traditional western locus, have evolved
to match.
If we use the criterion of
modernization the whole world is more or less the West.
Besides this triumph it seems
that there other negative social-historical forces which prompt the West to
engage in a third social-historical characteristic: civil wars. It is as if
this practice is not yet erased from its collective unconscious. What we are
experiencing today is not the demise of the West by external forces but its
implosion. We should never forget the
Nicaean doctrine fighting against Arianism; Catholics sacking Constantinople,
and Protestants against Catholics. No doubt, similar, the Spanish warring
against English, English against French and German against all. Europe fought
too many wars which were actually civil wars for hundreds of years. Perhaps
those were wars which shaped the European nation state, another unique
social-political experiment of this part of the world, but this is not an
option in this nuclear defined age.
Russia as part of the West
Huntington had classified
Russia as an Orthodox civilization, not a Western one. This is at least a half
truth but fairly convenient to keep a popular mindset focused on an imaginary
non-western enemy associated with the evil empire of the Soviet Union. Hellenic-Roman,
Judeo-Christian, the Enlightenment and the British, American French and Russian
revolutionary paradigms are the common cultural and political heritage of the
West. Russia is the eastern West of the so called “West”. As the late professor
Rorty has proposed we must look to our common heroes so as to develop a new
vocabulary for a discourse advancing solidarity. We do have Russian heroes in
the West: Peter the Great, Kutuzov, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Eisenstein,
Shostakovich, Sakharov, Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, Pavlov, Bakunin, Trotsky and
many others.
Europe cannot say that Russia
is not part of it because millions of Russians died so that Kaiser wouldn’t
drink his coffee at the Café de Paris and as many died so that the British
wouldn’t be occupied in 1941. Historically Russia had sustained a lot of pressure
and isolation. It had suffered invasions by the Mongol Tatars, Swedish,
Lithuanians, Turks, French and Germans. Do armchair strategists in Washington
and Brussels believe that history is erased from the Russian collective
unconscious? Was ever Perl Harbor erased from the American one? We can see this
through its reaction after the September 11 attack.
Historically the congress of
Vienna in 1815 with the participation of Czar Alexander created the most stable
Europe till British and French concocted the Crimean War in 1854. According to
historian Shepard Clough, the war: "was not the result of a calculated
plan, nor even of hasty last-minute decisions made under stress. It was the
consequence of more than two years of fatal blundering in slow-motion by inept
statesmen who had months to reflect upon the actions they took.” Doesn’t this
assessment ominously echoe today’s western leaders? In 1871 the Germans defeated the French and
established their unified nation and launched an empire of their own. The rest
is well known but not internalized: the Ukrainian crisis is nothing more than
the inability of the West to live peacefully with itself and reconcile this
love-hate relationship with Russia.
In the 20th century the
so called WWI of 1914 was nothing more than pan-European civil war. Its final
outcome was to transform a semi-European, semi-Asiatic Imperial Russia to a
Marxist-Leninist one, the iconic Soviet Union and forge the rise of fascism and
Nazism. What actually happened was that Russia modernized in a radical way by
the tenets of the heresy of capitalism called “scientific socialism”. It turned
from a backward country to one which matched the West as a modernized society. Fascism
and Nazism currying the myth of the “heroic man” initiated a second deadlier
than ever pan-European slaughter which turned all European humanism to dust.
The march of folly
Presently with the Ukrainian crisis
it seems that we are attempting to repeat the same scenario of 1914 and its
sequel, 1939-45 by other means. The bureaucrats in
Brussels conjured up a plan about Ukraine. The three protagonists of the drama
are: Lady Ashton, Mr. David O’Sullivan and the Czech Mr. Stefan Fulle. The
first as the acting Foreign Affairs Director, the second as the head of the
European External Service and the third as the head of the Directorate General
for Enlargement acted as agents provocateurs. These three bureaucrats ended up
offering an agreement to Ukraine which was actually a step into a diplomatic
minefield between EU, a “leading behind” USA and Russia. Coherent foreign policy
and the post-modern edifice of the EU seem to be far apart.
The agreement, these unelected
officials offered, was a take-it-or-leave-it deal for Ukraine. Was this a
decision by the European leaders or a “routine” bureaucratic chore? Russia
asked to be involved in this agreement but to no avail. Such a move would have
upgraded Russia as co-decision maker in EU’s affairs which was a crucial
political issue for a non-existent common foreign policy. Did the heads of
states endorse this plan as a diplomatic initiative against Russia or as an
experiment in enlargement? In any case they must take the full responsibility
for what is happening today in Europe. For better or for worse, the huge Russia
is one of them as well as tiny Malta. No doubt a vast and militarily strong
Russia seems as a distinct entity from the EU. Can we build a European house
without Russia? For historical, economic and cultural reasons this is
impossible. This undiplomatic and inconsiderate proposal brought about a new
either/or dilemma. “Either the EU is with the USA or with Russia.” But things
could be more complicated. Do we have three “Wests” so to speak: the security
consumer EU, the leader and security provider USA and a recalcitrant and
dysfunctional Russia?
What is
actually passing between the partners of the traditional West? Is this 1914
déjà vu? Marx in the 18th Brumaire said
that history repeats itself the second time as a farce. This is not true and
particularly at this point in time.
History repeats itself over and over again as a tragedy, war. Is this a
scenario written in Washington and enacted by a subservient and idiotic Europe?
America has saved Europe twice from its worst self. This time it may destroy
the continent for good. A curious turn of history: it becomes more and more
visible that Europe is going to suffer for a very long time: economically,
politically and as a humanitarian project.
Europe and USA have created new narratives out
of their political traditions. One of
these narratives was an EU based on a functionalistic theory, a state without
borders, army and foreign policy, a common currency but without a lender of
last resort and without a common fiscal policy. On the other hand America as a
superpower with 700 or so bases watching all activities on the planet and
having interests from the North to the South Pole as a self-appointed world
arbiter is trying to spread the gospel of democracy and free market in any
possible way through regime change, color revolutions, economic and trade
sanctions, aid to friendly states but regrettably also through war. American
policy has a globalized perspective of “partners” and “evil enemies”. There was never a new congress of Vienna in 1991 to
delineate commercial and security concerns of the new great powers. It seems
that we operate under the maxim: “winner takes all”. This never worked in
history. On the contrary it leads to disaster. This is a historical failure
which may be the real “end of history”.
We are confronted with a grand
folly of the West that has discovered a convenient adversary to cover-up its
ineptitude to manage an insurgent Islam, an impeding environmental catastrophe
and a world divided by extreme poverty and riches. Even worse, the entire West
has a dysfunctional economy, with its social model in shambles and diminishing
social cohesion.
Concluding remarks
There is no appropriate couch
to psychoanalyze the West upon, nor a psychologist available to bring the
trauma of previous civil wars out in the open. The only critical reviewer is history.
WWI and WWII were fought among western powers. China was at that time a prey
never subjugated. Now the world is much more complex and dangerous than ever, since
nuclear weapons are rolling around either actually or potentially. Are there some
criminal minds who even advocate the use of these weapons as the instrumental “final
solution” of the West’s quest for total world hegemony? Does the “West” deep
down have reached a point of preferring annihilation rather than a diminished
role in the world?
Our perceptions of punishment
may not work as deterrence for further aggression but on the contrary as
reinforcement for more inimical behavior. If we do not adopt an attitude so as
to transform our mutual perceptions from threatening to conciliatory, we are in
for a rough ride. Russia can destabilize other parts or the world and it can
even rekindle conflicts. Ukraine’s history and social make-up point to a civil
war-already exploding- and even a further split-up of the country, if the
Russophobes keep the upper hand in the Ukrainian streets and the Russian in
that country call for its dismembering.
China on the other hand is
staying calm and on the fence assessing losses and profits for its long term
plan to become an economic power house: “Beijing will also join Washington in
handling bilateral ties based on such principles as non-confrontational
actions, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation, [President] Xi said.” (Xinhua
24/3/2014). China is asking the acknowledgement of a multipolar world: a new
type of major-country relations. Putin, a follower of Thucydides, Machiavelli
and Hobbes, after the annexation of Crimea is also staying calm. As realists we
know that the West still has a formidable array of weapons in its quiver:
economic predominance and an imposing military power. For how long can Russia
and China stay calm if the military built-up around Russia and the “Asia Pivot”
continues unabated? “Just as Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato
Institute, warned, it would be Washington's biggest strategic mistake to
antagonize two major powers simultaneously when the United States is in the
worst confrontation with Russia since the Cold War over Ukraine.” (Xinhua April
28 2014) concerning America’s “pivot to Asia”. New sanctions target President
Putin and his acolytes. It becomes apparent that Washington is up to regime
change in Russia. Upon this we have China’s response: "Imposing sanctions is
not helpful in terms of solving the problem. It will only exacerbate the
tension. We call for all parties to continue dialogue and negotiation, and
promote a political solution. Imposing sanctions goes against the interests of
all parties," said Qin Gang, Spokesman of Chinese Foreign Ministry. (Xinhua
April 29 2014). “Whoever can understand must understand well” as the ancient
Hellenic saying goes.
