Syarhei Chaly: Belarus is an empire maker
Neither Russia nor Europe nor the United States have enough strength to guarantee legitimacy to regimes and security to countries. Wars can't be won any longer, while ethnic conflicts do not stop despite all the efforts. Euroradio's commentator Syarhei Chaly outlines a new geopolitical paradigm and finds a place of Belarus in it. Syarhei Chaly: It is a wierd situation. We live with the institutions and rhetoric of the past which in reality do not work any longer! Supporting an illusion that the past continues to organize the present is a an inalienable feature of all transition periods. People are not prepared to accept the reality which is emerging. Instead, when it becomes apparent, everyone will get a feeling that this is the very logical development.
Euroradio: But, nothing conceptually clear has been emerging to replace NATO, European Union, CSTO and other international unions!
SC: That's correct. There are no ready-to-use answers. But, it is clear that an intellectual search has been under way. For instance, on July 2 the forum titled "Societies of Democratic Choice" will take place in Krakow. This organization unites the post-Soviet countries where democratic changes took place. On the map, this is a curve from the Baltic states to Georgia. When looking properly on the map, the only empty spot is Belarus.
Thus, time has become ripe for attempts to try to shape the future of this space.
E: Let's talk first about the present.
SC: The main problem is the thing that Europe and Russia are simultaneously getting weaker cannot be accepted by people's minds. Both Europe and Russia used to have several mechanisms for "just in case". I am talking about the gurantees of economic security which European Union promises and about Russia's responsibility for the post-Soviet space. But when everything is okay, it is impossible to find out if anti-crisis systems work efficiently. When everything was okay, everyone used to believein these institutions. But when the bolt came from the blue, it turned out the mechanisms had not worked. And, they failed to work when they were needed the most.
E: But, when these instituions were created, security was understood by people in a different way.
SC: Yes, since the Cold War times but with face-lifting. This is one of reasons why security mechanisms do not work in new realities. For instance, NATO gave security guarantees to Georgia, but due to an ambiguous nature of those guarantees it ptovoked a war. The same was with Ukraine. It was even worse, because promises were given to the country which had no consensus on NATO membership.
The same is on the other polce. Russia tried to prove to the whole world for a long time that it was responsible for the former USSR. Here we go! Kyrgyzstan! Do take responsibility for security in the region and prove that you can solve things! The interim government goes to Moscow and begs for help. What did Medvedev say? "We call to stop bloodshedding! So, what? It turns out that the unions(CSTO, Shangai Asian Union) that Russia created to oppose NATO, do not work!
E: How does EU fit in this grave concept?
SC: It's all the same. The mechanisms, that were supposed to react, failed to work.
E: Georgia's example is spectacular.
SC: Yes, there was a rule not to save a country which behave irresponsively in terms of expenditures at the cost of own budgets. But, again they try to save it.
EU: I wonder why Kyrgyzstan has not approached the United Nations for hepp.
SC: By and large, when was the last time we saw UN peacekeepers?
EU: Yes, quite a long time ago...
SC: You have answered yourself. It means that UN stopped working even earlier! This is the post-Yalta world which has stopped working long time ago.
E: Clearly, for Russia to send troops to the country for an international duty mission would mean to face a very strong deja vu…
SC: Yes, naturally. This could become another Afghanistan, because everything that is taking place in Russia is compared by many with Perestroika. Perestroika 2.0! A dreamer sits in Moscow, while the petrochemical empire is suffering from a drop in prices for crude and is facing budget problems... The last thing now is to get involved in another Afghanistan inside the country.
In the case of Kyrgyzstan, Russia got trapped by its own rhetoric. Russia had accused Russia of creating controlled conflicts, meaning Afghanistan in the first place. Russia had tried to hamper at all times, for instance, to close the American air base Manas which has an important function, though.
Here we go: the second revolution over the past five years. It was advantageous to Russia to pretend as if it was involved there by alleging that Bakiyev had taken money but had not closed the base. So this was revenge. In other words, the Kremlin did not officially say that it organized street protest, but hinted about it.
There is no state in Kyrgyzstan now, because the first function of a state is to protect its citizens. But, when foreign correspondents report that the police and the army take part in vioence alongside with ordinary people, this is a verdict to the state.
The developments in Kyrgyzstan prove that a sovereignty model that was in the post-Soviet space does not exist any longer, either. It is not sufficient any longer to take power and say: I am the boss here. Similarily, the sovereignty of recognition does not work any longer. Roza Otunbayeva's recognition by Russia did not give her anything! Neither Russia's or US's voice is not crucial whether this or another regime is going to be legitimate.
The words of an emerior do not mean anything any longer. He is unable to bring army and install peace any longer.
E: But, there is the united called Operative Respond Collective Force (ORCF). Why didn't Russia send them to Kyrgyzstan on a peacemaking mission?
SC: This is another crucial moment. Indeed, Russia could have solved the problems with other hands. To do so, it had to spearhead the mission. But, this requires deplomatic efforts, which Russis has clinically lacked lately. The foreign policy boils down to Russia's being the strongest while all the others have to follow it. This approach is difficult to use when you need to join a certain common project urgently. The myth that Russia can take someone and direct him should be dumped to the dustbin of history.
This is once again proved by the fact that nobody recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia apart from Russia. Russia is unable to ensure a diplomatic backing to its mission, even if it is very good. Instead, Russia is now proving that ORCF was created for reacting to external threats not for internal clashes.
E: Is Russia losing its influence?
SC: Just look at the Customs Union. It turns out the customs union cannot be formed without such a small country like Belarus. Going back to the Krakow Forum, Belarus is missing out of the community of democratic choice. Neither the Moscow-Berlin bridge nor the Baltic Sea-Black Sea axis is possible without Belarus.
In politics, there is notion called king maker, i.e. when two major political parties which get 30-35 percent of votes each during elections. And, there is a small party which wins 10 percent of votes. The latter decides with whome it will create coalition to make the majority party the king. And, Belarus is exactly an empire maker. No project in th post-Soviet space is possible without our participation!
Euroradio: But, nothing conceptually clear has been emerging to replace NATO, European Union, CSTO and other international unions!
SC: That's correct. There are no ready-to-use answers. But, it is clear that an intellectual search has been under way. For instance, on July 2 the forum titled "Societies of Democratic Choice" will take place in Krakow. This organization unites the post-Soviet countries where democratic changes took place. On the map, this is a curve from the Baltic states to Georgia. When looking properly on the map, the only empty spot is Belarus.
Thus, time has become ripe for attempts to try to shape the future of this space.
Europe and Russia are becoming weaker in front of our eyes
E: Let's talk first about the present.
SC: The main problem is the thing that Europe and Russia are simultaneously getting weaker cannot be accepted by people's minds. Both Europe and Russia used to have several mechanisms for "just in case". I am talking about the gurantees of economic security which European Union promises and about Russia's responsibility for the post-Soviet space. But when everything is okay, it is impossible to find out if anti-crisis systems work efficiently. When everything was okay, everyone used to believein these institutions. But when the bolt came from the blue, it turned out the mechanisms had not worked. And, they failed to work when they were needed the most.
E: But, when these instituions were created, security was understood by people in a different way.
SC: Yes, since the Cold War times but with face-lifting. This is one of reasons why security mechanisms do not work in new realities. For instance, NATO gave security guarantees to Georgia, but due to an ambiguous nature of those guarantees it ptovoked a war. The same was with Ukraine. It was even worse, because promises were given to the country which had no consensus on NATO membership.
The same is on the other polce. Russia tried to prove to the whole world for a long time that it was responsible for the former USSR. Here we go! Kyrgyzstan! Do take responsibility for security in the region and prove that you can solve things! The interim government goes to Moscow and begs for help. What did Medvedev say? "We call to stop bloodshedding! So, what? It turns out that the unions(CSTO, Shangai Asian Union) that Russia created to oppose NATO, do not work!
E: How does EU fit in this grave concept?
SC: It's all the same. The mechanisms, that were supposed to react, failed to work.
E: Georgia's example is spectacular.
SC: Yes, there was a rule not to save a country which behave irresponsively in terms of expenditures at the cost of own budgets. But, again they try to save it.
EU: I wonder why Kyrgyzstan has not approached the United Nations for hepp.
SC: By and large, when was the last time we saw UN peacekeepers?
EU: Yes, quite a long time ago...
SC: You have answered yourself. It means that UN stopped working even earlier! This is the post-Yalta world which has stopped working long time ago.
Perestroika v 2.0
E: Clearly, for Russia to send troops to the country for an international duty mission would mean to face a very strong deja vu…
SC: Yes, naturally. This could become another Afghanistan, because everything that is taking place in Russia is compared by many with Perestroika. Perestroika 2.0! A dreamer sits in Moscow, while the petrochemical empire is suffering from a drop in prices for crude and is facing budget problems... The last thing now is to get involved in another Afghanistan inside the country.
In the case of Kyrgyzstan, Russia got trapped by its own rhetoric. Russia had accused Russia of creating controlled conflicts, meaning Afghanistan in the first place. Russia had tried to hamper at all times, for instance, to close the American air base Manas which has an important function, though.
Here we go: the second revolution over the past five years. It was advantageous to Russia to pretend as if it was involved there by alleging that Bakiyev had taken money but had not closed the base. So this was revenge. In other words, the Kremlin did not officially say that it organized street protest, but hinted about it.
There is no state in Kyrgyzstan now, because the first function of a state is to protect its citizens. But, when foreign correspondents report that the police and the army take part in vioence alongside with ordinary people, this is a verdict to the state.
The developments in Kyrgyzstan prove that a sovereignty model that was in the post-Soviet space does not exist any longer, either. It is not sufficient any longer to take power and say: I am the boss here. Similarily, the sovereignty of recognition does not work any longer. Roza Otunbayeva's recognition by Russia did not give her anything! Neither Russia's or US's voice is not crucial whether this or another regime is going to be legitimate.
The words of an emerior do not mean anything any longer. He is unable to bring army and install peace any longer.
E: But, there is the united called Operative Respond Collective Force (ORCF). Why didn't Russia send them to Kyrgyzstan on a peacemaking mission?
SC: This is another crucial moment. Indeed, Russia could have solved the problems with other hands. To do so, it had to spearhead the mission. But, this requires deplomatic efforts, which Russis has clinically lacked lately. The foreign policy boils down to Russia's being the strongest while all the others have to follow it. This approach is difficult to use when you need to join a certain common project urgently. The myth that Russia can take someone and direct him should be dumped to the dustbin of history.
This is once again proved by the fact that nobody recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia apart from Russia. Russia is unable to ensure a diplomatic backing to its mission, even if it is very good. Instead, Russia is now proving that ORCF was created for reacting to external threats not for internal clashes.
Belarus is an empire-maker
E: Is Russia losing its influence?
SC: Just look at the Customs Union. It turns out the customs union cannot be formed without such a small country like Belarus. Going back to the Krakow Forum, Belarus is missing out of the community of democratic choice. Neither the Moscow-Berlin bridge nor the Baltic Sea-Black Sea axis is possible without Belarus.
In politics, there is notion called king maker, i.e. when two major political parties which get 30-35 percent of votes each during elections. And, there is a small party which wins 10 percent of votes. The latter decides with whome it will create coalition to make the majority party the king. And, Belarus is exactly an empire maker. No project in th post-Soviet space is possible without our participation!
