I read through Yekaterina Kuznetsova’s article, “A Confrontational Model of Foreign Policy,” in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta from Feb. 29, 2012. In the article, the Russian leadership is accused of conducting 19th-century-style foreign policy. From this it appears the author believes that American foreign policy is the exact opposite of Russian foreign policy, that it is modern and exemplary.
It seems to me that it is in fact the United States that has been taking an archaic, retrograde foreign policy line. And it is forcing others, including Russia, to adapt to the impositions of the overseas nation’s old norms and rules of conduct. The main problems facing Washington in the international arena are, in fact, the following:
1. The containment, weakening, and suppression of the U.S.’s main geopolitical rivals, Russia and China, which not only refuse to live within the terms of American hegemony, but also pose a challenge to the United States and aspire to leadership positions in world politics and economics.
2. The suppression and destruction of all other regimes that do not suit the United States for one reason or another. It might be that they don’t want to submit to American control, or that they have some quarrel with U.S. allies or friends, or that they adhere to ideologies and domestic policies that Washington considers unsuitable, or that they are interfering with the fulfillment of America’s economic interests.
3. The securing of American control over the greatest possible portion of world markets and natural resources.
In order to solve the first of the problems listed above, the United States before all else is striving to perpetuate, under various pretexts, its military superiority over Russia and China. The United States is improving its weapons and surrounding its rivals with military alliances and coalitions, bases and missile facilities.
The relevance of this to Russia is evident in the steady expansion of NATO into the East, the strengthening of military cooperation with the Saakashvili regime, the construction of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and the consolidation of the Pentagon’s position in Central Asia.
At the same time, Washington is seeking superiority over Moscow and Beijing in the political sphere by provoking quarrels between them and other countries — often neighbors — and using handouts and promises to pull these countries into the American camp. On the economic front, Russia and China are laden with impediments: Unsubstantiated claims are put forward and arms are twisted. Trade with Russia continues to be obstructed by something that is truly archaic, retrograde, and more than that, a mockery, as seen with the Jackson-Vanik amendment. From China it is demanded first that the Yuan exchange rate be raised, then that goods exported to U.S. markets be limited, then that commercial activity with Africa and Latin America be moderated.
And finally, in the humanitarian sphere, the United States castigates both Moscow and Beijing for the slightest violation of democratic procedure or human rights, to which they themselves often do not comply, and even though they have no problem ignoring similar complaints leveled against their friends — from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. It is noteworthy that when Maoist China opposed the USSR, the White House did not at all notice the mass atrocities that were going on within the PRC, claiming that they were holding to the principle of “we don’t give up our own.”
Now, the second problem. In the eyes of the whole world, America has repeatedly pounced upon wicked regimes with all her military might: upon Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Next in line are Syria, Iran and North Korea. Sometimes the pretexts for U.S. attacks sound more or less plausible. But then, it was the same in the 19th and 20th centuries, when strong and ambitious powers concealed their hegemonic appetites with pretty slogans. The colonialists repeatedly spoke of the civilizing “white man’s burden”; Napoleon, of freeing the peoples of Europe from the bonds of feudalism; the Soviet Union, of international aid for the forces of peace, of progress and of socialism.
And the third, the economic problem is solved by Washington through the realization of the first two listed above: by taking control of the sources for raw materials, of transportation routes, of the manipulation of monetary and financial levers, and so on.
So there is nothing new in American foreign policy. Alas, after the conclusion of the Cold War, a real chance seemed to appear to form a new, democratic, non-confrontational system of international relations. But all of Moscow’s attempts in the 1990s to establish a sincere partnership and equitable relations with Washington were squashed by Washington’s unwillingness to see a strong and independent Russia. In the best of cases, we were approached as the junior partner, allowed to walk only in the wake of American policy, never to submit our own voice, fulfilling the role of the raw materials appendage of the West.
As such, we still have not managed to craft a new system. Perhaps other major powers are at fault for this, but the blame lies primarily with America. Winston Churchill once said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else.” The alternatives have been exhausted. So will Churchill’s prophecy be fulfilled? If it is fulfilled and America modernizes her foreign policy, then her example will surely be followed by other key players.
Evgeny Bazhanov is rector of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
As long as Russia and China support regimes like North Korea, which is essentially a torture/prison state, in which millions of human beings are suffering the torments of the damned, they have no moral right to complain about anything.
Compare 19th century foreign policy to 20th century American foreign policy. Case closed – to be ‘archaic’ in your foreign policy should be taken as the highest form of compliment.
Perhaps the US would like Russia to return to the more ‘modern’ foreign policy of the USSR, which was far more akin to the US’s policy.