The West Must Come
to Terms With a Stronger Russia
"There
are many politicians who would like to impose an unequal model of relations
with Russia: a 'teacher-student' or 'prosecutor-defendant' type of
relationship. Russia will not accept such a model. She wants to be understood.
We stand for equality and mutually-advantageous cooperation."
1989 was a turning point for
developments in Europe and the world. History sharply accelerated. The symbol
of this acceleration was the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the countries of
central and eastern Europe, “Velvet Revolutions”
occurred. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes left the historical arena.
These events and the
developments they caused were made possible by changes that began in the Soviet
Union in the mid-1980s. We launched these changes because the time was ripe.
They were demanded by the people, who no longer wanted to live in conditions of
captivity and isolation from the outside world.
Within a few years - a very
short period - the basic structures of the totalitarian system were dismantled
and conditions allowing for democratic processes and economic reforms were
created. And having done that at home, we couldn't interfere with similar
processes in neighboring countries.
We didn't impose change on
them. From the beginning I said to the leaders of the Warsaw Pact countries: we
need Perestroika
and we will reform our country. You decide what you need to do. You are
responsible to your people. We will not interfere.
In fact, it was a rejection
of the so-called Brezhnev
Doctrine - or in other words, the concept of “limited sovereignty.” These words
were met with skepticism at first - as yet another formal statement by yet
another General Secretary [of the Russian Communist Party]. But we upheld this policy. And so events
in Europe during 1989-1990 took place peacefully and without bloodshed - including
the complicated process of reunifying Germany.
East
Germans, with the help of their western compatriots, flood
In the summer of 1989, when,
during my visit to Germany, journalists asked me and Chancellor Kohl about the
possibility of reunification, I replied that this problem arose in the course
of history and would be resolved with further historical development. When?
Probably in the 21st century, we both answered.
Some may say that we were
poor prophets. Indeed, reunification took place much earlier - by the will of
the German people. Not because Gorbachev or Kohl wanted it. In America, people
often recall President Reagan’s appeal: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
But how could one man do that? Besides, there was another position: “Save this
wall!”
When millions of people in east
and west Germany demanded unification, we had to act responsibly - and leaders
of European countries and the United States were then at the forefront of
taking on this responsibility. As a result, we managed to overcome the doubts
and fears - and there were many, which is natural - as well as avoiding redrawing
borders and maintaining mutual trust. Thus, we drew the final line under the
Cold War.
But not everything went as
was hoped after German reunification and the end of the Cold War - including inside
Germany. The forty-year division of Germany had resulted in wide spiritual and
societal gaps - which are much harder to overcome than economic differences.
Germans from the former East Germany realized that the Federal Republic was far
from perfect, especially its social security system. But despite all the “fusion-related
problems," Germans managed to make the unified Germany a dignified, strong
and a peaceful member of the community of nations.
Those who shaped the world
and particularly European policy managed this new opportunity much more poorly.
As a result, Europe has still failed to resolve the central issue - the creation
of a stable security architecture.
Immediately after the end of
the Cold War, we discussed the creation of new mechanisms to ensure security on
our continent. There was talk of a European Security Council or a “directorate”
that would have broad and real authority. Such proposals were put forward by
the USSR, Germany and the United States.
Unfortunately, events took a different
trajectory. This has affected all European institutions and has slowed the construction
of a united Europe. Instead of the old dividing lines, new ones appeared.
Europe was again rocked by war and bloodshed [reference to the breakup of
Yugoslavia].
A lack of trust and outdated
stereotypes remain. Russia is suspected of evil and even aggressive imperialistic
intentions. I was amazed at the June
letter written by politicians of Central and Eastern Europe that was
addressed to President Obama. It was in fact a call to abandon the policy of engagement
with Russia. It's a shame that European politicians aren't considering the
disastrous consequences that could result from renewed confrontation.
Those who want to build a new
wall of mutual mistrust and hostility in Europe do a disservice to their countries
and to Europe as a whole. She [Europe] could become a strong major factor in
global development, but only if it becomes a common home for all Europeans - in
the East and the West.
The early 1990s was marked by
an accelerated expansion of the European Union. I'm not questioning the
achievements of this process. They are real. But not all of it was carefully
thought out. Expectations that all of the continent's problems would be solved through
the construction of a new Europe out of the west alone were overstated.
Upon
hearing news of the fall of the Berlin Wall, President George
H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker applaud the decision
of
East Germany to allow unrestricted freedom to travel to the West.
A more measured pace for the
process of European unification would gave given us more time to develop a
model for relations between Russia and other countries, which, for the
foreseeable future, would not have become members of the E.U.
Clearly, the model of
relations among European countries based on their rapid “absorption” into the E.U.
and at the same time, leaving relations with Russia in a shaky and uncertain
state, has exhausted itself.
But it seems that in Europe,
not everyone is ready to admit that. We are entitled to ask the question: isn’t
this uncertainty related to a reluctance to participate in the revival of Russia?
What kind of Russia do you seek - a strong and truly independent Russia, or
simply a supplier of resources that “knows its place”?
In Europe, unfortunately, there
are many politicians who would like to impose an unequal model of relations
with Russia: a “teacher - student” or “prosecutor - defendant” type of
relationship. Russia will not accept such a model. She wants to be understood.
We stand for equality and mutually-advantageous cooperation.
We can cope with the hardships
that history brings - such as challenges in regard to security, the economic
crisis, the environment and migration issues - but only by transforming the
world - and particularly European politics and economics. I urge all Europeans
to objectively and constructively consider the proposal of Russia's president
[Medvedev] for a new treaty on European security. Having solved that problem,
Europe will be able to speak with a full voice.
