![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katsarisWARNING: IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE MOOD FOR A LONG POLITICAL ESSAY ON WORLD AFFAIRS, STEER CLEAR.
There are elections coming up which, the way I see it, may very well end up determining the fate of a nation in the century that is to come.
I'm NOT talking about the United States.
Many other people have talked about the United States, and if I had any way of knowing that Kerry's policies will be significantly better than Bush's, I might comment on them also: So far Kerry's chief advantage seems to be not in actual policy described, but rather in that he's not so offensively obviously stupid, and he doesn't seem to consider arrogance a virtue in its own right. If this will translate to anything better on the ground, your guess is as good as mine.
But no more on the United States -- I don't consider the elections there to be the end of the world no matter the result. Few things really are the end of the world. In the choice between Bush and Kerry I'm not sure it's even a crossroads -- more like a choice of lanes all heading in the same direction, and you only try to choose which one has fewer bumps and less traffic, and which one will help you get off in the right place, rather than have to go another 10 kilometers because you missed your exit.
The election in Ukraine tomorrow Sunday won't be the end of the world either. But from what I hear, it has more of a feel of crossroads than any other election I ever remember hearing about. But to talk about this, I'll have to talk first about the whole global neighbourhood.
An essay on CIS, EU, and the countries on the edge between spheres...
We live in a world of many spheres. Or of many "poles", if you will. I won't even bother to lay out an argument of why it's not a unipolar world after all -- I think that's evident for anyone who's got eyes to see. I *will* care however to mention that I think that a unipolar world is not only currently non-existent, I believe it's even impossible. You're gonna get divisions. If there's a center of power *here*, you're gonna get an alliance of counter-interests *there*, and possibly *there* and *there* as well. Two is simply the minimum. As long as nation-states are in play, these poles are likely to represent alliances of nations. (when city-states were in play, these poles were an opposition between the Delos alliance led by Athens and the Pelopponesean League -- in pre-Civil War America it was between Northern and Southern states. And so forth.)
This doesn't say anything about whether such opposition will be a peaceful rivalry or an all-out war btw. It just indicates that poles and spheres of influence do and will exist. They will be alliances held together by mutual benefit. And occasionally they will be alliances held together by force and the threat of force. You usually can manage to see which is which by measuring the number of benefits offered to the number of troops at the borders.
One such geopolitical sphere that currently exists is the EU. Another such sphere is the CIS -- the Commonwealth of Independent States, aka the leftovers of the Soviet Union. There's no common membership. In fact there's little common anything between them.
In the EU, there's (by and large) freedom. In the EU there's (by and large) democracy and prosperity and equality and peace and the rule of law. As the EU expands it demands that all candidate states must, before becoming member states, hold those principles to as high esteem as the EU holds them, so as the EU is expanded this area of freedom and democracy also expands. You see Kurds of Turkey finally having the right to be taught their language, Turkish army taking a step back from interference with the civil government? That's EU's doing. If Serbia or Bosnia ever get a chance to rejoin the world as equals and not as protectorates -- that'll be EU's doing.
Internally a country that joins the EU knows that it will be economically supported, its citizens know that they'll get the chance to let their voices be heard at the EU level, the four freedoms (movement of persons, movement of goods, movement of capital, movement of services) offer some ensurance against utter monopoly of economic and other power.
On the other hand here's a brief description of what's happening in various parts of the CIS sphere:
Russia: Undisputed leader of the CIS. Freedom of press is almost non-existent. Most of the vocal opponents of Putin have the nasty habit of being assassinated, with the exception of those who luck out and simply get imprisoned instead. And just recently Russia abolished direct elections for the presidents of all the federal subjects (republics, krais and oblasts) that compose it -- those directly-elected presidents will now be exchanged for appointed ones. (American analogy - imagine if Bush made a law that would have him appoint all 50 state governor instead of them being directly elected from the people of those states)
Also very reduced voting for the Russian members of parliament of your choice -- half of them will now be made as a result of party lists instead.
And that doesn't even enter the question of what's happening in Chechnya.
Belarus: The last full-fledged dictatorship of Europe. A week or so ago, Lukashenko, had a vote that in essense proclaimed him dictator for life. Russia, as a point of note, offers her fullmost support for Lukashenko who in the past has shown his admiration for Hitler himself. Lukashenko in his turn has several times called for reunification with Russia, and even made Russian an official language again. (He had once called for a unificiation between Russia, Belarus and *Serbia*, but post-Milosevich Serbia isn't dictatorial enough for his tastes)
Moldova: Moldova is ethnically Romanian in language and, from what I gather, national sentiment. All of it except a tiny part beyond the Dniester river, called Transnistria which is... well, actually Moldovan/Romanian is *again* the dominant national group. However that part of the country is unfortunate enough to have significant Russian/Ukrainian minorities. Which in turn means that they desired their independence from Moldova and reunification with Russia -- even though they have no actual common borders with Russia at all. Which in turn means that Russia sent in troops that placed themselves in Transnistria and now won't budge. Within Transnistria the Russian/Ukrainians are oppressing the Moldovans with the support that only Russia's troops can provide. Did I say that Belarus is the only full-fledged dictorship in Europe? Well I meant internationally recognized state that is full-fledged dictatorship. Besides Russia-backed Belarus, there's however Russia-backed Transnistria.
Georgia: Ah, Georgia. Georgia wasn't among the first members of the CIS. It signed in to CIS, only after Russia sent in a few -- you guessed it -- thousands of troops after an internal civil war. Since then Russia has provided backing for the separationist of Abkhazia who ethnically cleansed out the Georgians from their territory, and also provided backing for the separationists of South Ossetia who also want to reunify with Russia.
Armenia and Azerbaijan: Little to say about these. War between them, one grabs territory of the other, Russia brokers peace. True political freedom exists in neither country.
---
All of the above were only there to give you the (convincing, I think) argument against moral equivalency. There are two spheres, the EU, and the CIS. In the areas "claimed" by the EU, the areas where the candidate member states make a long line to enter, and are freely eager to jump through a number of hoops for the privilege of joining the European Union, there's growing prosperity for both countries and individuals -- and freedoms grow. In the CIS sphere, where the buttons are pushed by Russia there are a number of choices: (a) You'll be led by a Russia-supporting dictatorship (b) If you're not led by a Russia-supporting dictatorship, Russia will create a separatist movement, then send in troops to create "peace" between the separatists and the central government, and all the area controlled by them will be Russia-supporting dictatorships.
Here's the map of freedoms in the world at 2003 -- I colored it with Photoshop using information from Freedomhouse. The line between the EU countries and Romania on the one hand, and Russia/Belarus/Moldova/Ukraine on the other are quite quite clear. Here's that portion in detail (the greener the better for freedoms, the redder the worse):
This Sunday (already "today" as I'm writing this) there are elections in Ukraine - which is the second most populous CIS state, and one that still has kept some hints of actual democracy. The candidates are two -- a Russia-leaning one and a Western-leaning one. Yanukovych, and Yushchenko.
Two candidates, two spheres, a seemingly clear cut-choice. Either way, it will definitely not be the end of the battle for Ukraine, a country on the edge between two geopolitical spheres. But if she steers away from Russia that may be a very good blow to the CIS tyrannical sphere.
The thing is that in the longer-term battle for membership with the West and breaking off the ties with Russia, Western-leaning Ukraine has a big disadvantage: Namely that the EU isn't claiming her, while Russia is. Even Turkey has received a more cordial welcome by the EU than the thought of Ukraine's membership has. EU has clearly wimped out at accepting as part of the European Union a part of the world currently in Russia's orbit -- actually not just in *accepting* Ukraine, EU has wimped out even at clearly naming the possibility of EU membership for Ukraine. Thankfully EU has fallen short of precluding such membership for all time -- but not *significantly* short of it, I'm afraid
This possibility has nonetheless allowed Ukraine's Westernphiles to turn down proposals of customs union (and so forth) by the Russia, knowing that they would be incompatible with EU membership.
The great advantage for Western-leaning Ukraine in this battle of the spheres, is that the Russian sphere doesn't offer anything worth having other than troops and tyranny (and unfortunately energy dependency but let's forget that for the moment). EU does.
Enough with the ramble. Consider this rant as taking the opportunity of the Ukrainian elections to ramble about CIS and the EU instead. Now am off to sleep. Sorry for tiring you out, btw. :-)
There are elections coming up which, the way I see it, may very well end up determining the fate of a nation in the century that is to come.
I'm NOT talking about the United States.
Many other people have talked about the United States, and if I had any way of knowing that Kerry's policies will be significantly better than Bush's, I might comment on them also: So far Kerry's chief advantage seems to be not in actual policy described, but rather in that he's not so offensively obviously stupid, and he doesn't seem to consider arrogance a virtue in its own right. If this will translate to anything better on the ground, your guess is as good as mine.
But no more on the United States -- I don't consider the elections there to be the end of the world no matter the result. Few things really are the end of the world. In the choice between Bush and Kerry I'm not sure it's even a crossroads -- more like a choice of lanes all heading in the same direction, and you only try to choose which one has fewer bumps and less traffic, and which one will help you get off in the right place, rather than have to go another 10 kilometers because you missed your exit.
The election in Ukraine tomorrow Sunday won't be the end of the world either. But from what I hear, it has more of a feel of crossroads than any other election I ever remember hearing about. But to talk about this, I'll have to talk first about the whole global neighbourhood.
An essay on CIS, EU, and the countries on the edge between spheres...
We live in a world of many spheres. Or of many "poles", if you will. I won't even bother to lay out an argument of why it's not a unipolar world after all -- I think that's evident for anyone who's got eyes to see. I *will* care however to mention that I think that a unipolar world is not only currently non-existent, I believe it's even impossible. You're gonna get divisions. If there's a center of power *here*, you're gonna get an alliance of counter-interests *there*, and possibly *there* and *there* as well. Two is simply the minimum. As long as nation-states are in play, these poles are likely to represent alliances of nations. (when city-states were in play, these poles were an opposition between the Delos alliance led by Athens and the Pelopponesean League -- in pre-Civil War America it was between Northern and Southern states. And so forth.)
This doesn't say anything about whether such opposition will be a peaceful rivalry or an all-out war btw. It just indicates that poles and spheres of influence do and will exist. They will be alliances held together by mutual benefit. And occasionally they will be alliances held together by force and the threat of force. You usually can manage to see which is which by measuring the number of benefits offered to the number of troops at the borders.
One such geopolitical sphere that currently exists is the EU. Another such sphere is the CIS -- the Commonwealth of Independent States, aka the leftovers of the Soviet Union. There's no common membership. In fact there's little common anything between them.
In the EU, there's (by and large) freedom. In the EU there's (by and large) democracy and prosperity and equality and peace and the rule of law. As the EU expands it demands that all candidate states must, before becoming member states, hold those principles to as high esteem as the EU holds them, so as the EU is expanded this area of freedom and democracy also expands. You see Kurds of Turkey finally having the right to be taught their language, Turkish army taking a step back from interference with the civil government? That's EU's doing. If Serbia or Bosnia ever get a chance to rejoin the world as equals and not as protectorates -- that'll be EU's doing.
Internally a country that joins the EU knows that it will be economically supported, its citizens know that they'll get the chance to let their voices be heard at the EU level, the four freedoms (movement of persons, movement of goods, movement of capital, movement of services) offer some ensurance against utter monopoly of economic and other power.
On the other hand here's a brief description of what's happening in various parts of the CIS sphere:
Russia: Undisputed leader of the CIS. Freedom of press is almost non-existent. Most of the vocal opponents of Putin have the nasty habit of being assassinated, with the exception of those who luck out and simply get imprisoned instead. And just recently Russia abolished direct elections for the presidents of all the federal subjects (republics, krais and oblasts) that compose it -- those directly-elected presidents will now be exchanged for appointed ones. (American analogy - imagine if Bush made a law that would have him appoint all 50 state governor instead of them being directly elected from the people of those states)
Also very reduced voting for the Russian members of parliament of your choice -- half of them will now be made as a result of party lists instead.
And that doesn't even enter the question of what's happening in Chechnya.
Belarus: The last full-fledged dictatorship of Europe. A week or so ago, Lukashenko, had a vote that in essense proclaimed him dictator for life. Russia, as a point of note, offers her fullmost support for Lukashenko who in the past has shown his admiration for Hitler himself. Lukashenko in his turn has several times called for reunification with Russia, and even made Russian an official language again. (He had once called for a unificiation between Russia, Belarus and *Serbia*, but post-Milosevich Serbia isn't dictatorial enough for his tastes)
Moldova: Moldova is ethnically Romanian in language and, from what I gather, national sentiment. All of it except a tiny part beyond the Dniester river, called Transnistria which is... well, actually Moldovan/Romanian is *again* the dominant national group. However that part of the country is unfortunate enough to have significant Russian/Ukrainian minorities. Which in turn means that they desired their independence from Moldova and reunification with Russia -- even though they have no actual common borders with Russia at all. Which in turn means that Russia sent in troops that placed themselves in Transnistria and now won't budge. Within Transnistria the Russian/Ukrainians are oppressing the Moldovans with the support that only Russia's troops can provide. Did I say that Belarus is the only full-fledged dictorship in Europe? Well I meant internationally recognized state that is full-fledged dictatorship. Besides Russia-backed Belarus, there's however Russia-backed Transnistria.
Georgia: Ah, Georgia. Georgia wasn't among the first members of the CIS. It signed in to CIS, only after Russia sent in a few -- you guessed it -- thousands of troops after an internal civil war. Since then Russia has provided backing for the separationist of Abkhazia who ethnically cleansed out the Georgians from their territory, and also provided backing for the separationists of South Ossetia who also want to reunify with Russia.
Armenia and Azerbaijan: Little to say about these. War between them, one grabs territory of the other, Russia brokers peace. True political freedom exists in neither country.
---
All of the above were only there to give you the (convincing, I think) argument against moral equivalency. There are two spheres, the EU, and the CIS. In the areas "claimed" by the EU, the areas where the candidate member states make a long line to enter, and are freely eager to jump through a number of hoops for the privilege of joining the European Union, there's growing prosperity for both countries and individuals -- and freedoms grow. In the CIS sphere, where the buttons are pushed by Russia there are a number of choices: (a) You'll be led by a Russia-supporting dictatorship (b) If you're not led by a Russia-supporting dictatorship, Russia will create a separatist movement, then send in troops to create "peace" between the separatists and the central government, and all the area controlled by them will be Russia-supporting dictatorships.
Here's the map of freedoms in the world at 2003 -- I colored it with Photoshop using information from Freedomhouse. The line between the EU countries and Romania on the one hand, and Russia/Belarus/Moldova/Ukraine on the other are quite quite clear. Here's that portion in detail (the greener the better for freedoms, the redder the worse):
This Sunday (already "today" as I'm writing this) there are elections in Ukraine - which is the second most populous CIS state, and one that still has kept some hints of actual democracy. The candidates are two -- a Russia-leaning one and a Western-leaning one. Yanukovych, and Yushchenko.
Two candidates, two spheres, a seemingly clear cut-choice. Either way, it will definitely not be the end of the battle for Ukraine, a country on the edge between two geopolitical spheres. But if she steers away from Russia that may be a very good blow to the CIS tyrannical sphere.
The thing is that in the longer-term battle for membership with the West and breaking off the ties with Russia, Western-leaning Ukraine has a big disadvantage: Namely that the EU isn't claiming her, while Russia is. Even Turkey has received a more cordial welcome by the EU than the thought of Ukraine's membership has. EU has clearly wimped out at accepting as part of the European Union a part of the world currently in Russia's orbit -- actually not just in *accepting* Ukraine, EU has wimped out even at clearly naming the possibility of EU membership for Ukraine. Thankfully EU has fallen short of precluding such membership for all time -- but not *significantly* short of it, I'm afraid
This possibility has nonetheless allowed Ukraine's Westernphiles to turn down proposals of customs union (and so forth) by the Russia, knowing that they would be incompatible with EU membership.
The great advantage for Western-leaning Ukraine in this battle of the spheres, is that the Russian sphere doesn't offer anything worth having other than troops and tyranny (and unfortunately energy dependency but let's forget that for the moment). EU does.
Enough with the ramble. Consider this rant as taking the opportunity of the Ukrainian elections to ramble about CIS and the EU instead. Now am off to sleep. Sorry for tiring you out, btw. :-)