Not long ago it seemed that the cold war was over and the great powers were ready to get united for finding solutions to numerous and sharp humanitarian issues of the mankind. Alas, nothing of that happened. Recently, people in the West and in the East have come to a feeling that the world is divided again on “friends” and “enemies” and the guns are ready to speak instead of diplomats at any moment. The generals on both sides cheered up and boosted to their spirits. They have got an enemy at last, the existence of which makes sense for their public being and justifies the allotted to them means. Contemporary world has not become less dangerous or more predictable. The international law, built up on the basis of post-War II realities and arranged with Yalta agreements of 1945, got ruined with the Berlin Wall. And what was constructed on those ruins? Nothing, actually. We are living from precedent to precedent made by the “big” and “strong”. As a rule, that is done through backstage bargaining made with orienting to one’s own economic interests. The norms of the international law have become a mere formality. They may be referred to with adjusting them to concrete circumstances or case, but no one seems obliged to observe them. In fact, no one does. Any changes on the geopolitical map may be recognized as triumph of humanism as well as an example of inhumanity. Political morals have become plasticine-like; anyone may mould whatever one desires. It’s easy to do, as there are “patterns” of one-size-fits all. For example, what was Saakashvili guided with when he attempted to restore the Constitutional order in the South Ossetia? He was guided with the fact that a few years ago Russia solved her problem with Chechnya same way, and the world community accepted that decision as a reality, though in an unwilling way. What are Kokoity and Bagapsh guided with when they demand for recognition of their peoples’ right to live outside of Georgia? They are guided with the fact that Kosovo’s dwellers of Rugovo and Tachi demanded for same thing and the high and mighty allowed them to say good bye to Serbia and get sovereignty. What are Putin and Medvedev guided with, coercing Georgia to peace, with the use of cannons and aviation? They are guided with same thing the leaders of NATO states were, when they gave orders to bomb Yugoslavia. What are Bush and some of his colleagues from the EU are guided with, making a pressure on Moscow because of its wish to change the regime in Tbilisi? They are guided with same thing Russia was when it made a pressure on them because of Hussein and Milosevic. The day will come where Moscow will require Saakashvili to be prosecuted by the international court. It will be referring to the precedent with Karadzic who is on the bench now for committing same deeds – ruined towns and mass death of the peaceful civilians. There is no doubt that everything would end up in nothing with Saakashvili. The patrons of the Georgian leader would remind to his current opponents the ruined Grozny and would draw an analogy between their protégée’s actions and those by the Kremlin restoring the Constitutional order on the Russia’s southern border. Contemporary world has got entangled between the law and lawlessness. There are many reasons for that, but the main one seems to have to deal with insufficient intellectual potential of the today’s masters of destinies which is not enough for creating complex mechanisms of the new global order. This fact has also its own reason. The societies, formed in the second half of the 20th century on the basis of the surrogates of the mass culture have been able to forward to power only political fast food we deal with everywhere. Whatever country you take, its today’s leadership cannot be compared to that standing at the helm in the heat of the cold war. It’s superficiality and lightness that dominate in the modern global politics. There are many smouldering conflicts in the today’s world. There is always bloodshed where the forces, brought from outside, begin trying to “arrange” something; then the possibilities of appeasement become absolutely illusive. No one believes it would be possible that peace and order come to Iraq and Afghanistan soon. The future of Balkans with the Kosovo issue does not seem brilliant either. And what for the South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Most likely, they are lost for Georgia forever, but she is not going to accept that fact. Comparative legal order and quiet in Chechnya will also be remaining only till the “legalized” gunmen will be more afraid of than the unlawful ones. Probably, Saakashvili miscalculated the real force of his army. At the end of the day, that does not matter much, as the worst for him would have begun in case he had managed to restore the Georgian jurisdiction on that territory. It would have happened same thing that happened to Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan: successful Blitzkrieg would have turned into a half-partisan war bringing casualties unjustifiable to the electors with any war successes. Any Russian officer who used to fight in Chechnya would tell you that main losses of the Russian Army happened not when it attacked the cities, but when it drove out the enemy fighters from their hidden shelters. What is the most frightening thing about possible interference by the West in Iran? This is about what might begin in the country after the military phase of the operation is over – the country would be immersed in a chaos and common robbery. It appeared so obvious that there was a hope there would not be new volunteers to trigger a backlash. Alas, there are still such people. Now, when the heavy drops of the military gale are falling abundantly in the Caucasus, everyone is appealing to the UNO and its Security Council, while the latter turns out to be unable to do anything, like it was about Serbia, Iraq and Kosovo. The problem is not that it is hard to find a solution suitable for everyone exercising a veto. The reason is paradoxical: those two organizations only exist de jure, not de facto, i.e. they do not exist as a real political mechanism. And the world community, on whose behalf they act, does not exist anymore either. The world has become too global and has lost touch with the legal base that regulated inter-state relations somehow. The big business is standing behind big politics, and it possesses its own morals and vision of goals and ways of their achievement. As a result, many things have turned into a mirage. This applies, for example, to mutual understanding, cooperation and collective security. For us, another example is more obvious, that of CIS, where two members are shooting at each other using all their means, while the others pretend that to be no business of theirs. Today’s leaders of big and strong powers seem to be too busy to get engaged in working out the political doctrines of the global order. Serious talks, where something must be won and something must be conceded, have replaced with informal meetings and friendship in family way. However, relations between countries and relations between the leaders is not the same. And we were assured that such informality helps drawing together and mutual understanding, also allowing easier finding answers to the rising questions. If all that were so, we would not have to deal with tensions about Yugoslavia and Iraq, Iran and Georgia, Czechia and Poland, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The tragic events of the recent years make one doubt whether any serious talk has ever taken place at the gatherings of the world leaders. It appears they just have rejoiced their belonging to the world elite and that joy allowed them forgetting about the world where interests of “business entities” may unite and disunite the countries no less than hostile ideologies do. Pavel Voshanov 26.08.2008 |
