Перейти к содержанию

Валерьянка для стратегов


Рекомендуемые сообщения

Господа, данная статья была опубликована в местной американской газете, причем газета не такая уж известная... Причём здесь Восточные страны...? Если уж пугать их, то выпускать данный материал в их прессе... А то получается, что сегмент читателей не тот выбрали...

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

  • Ответов 77
  • Создана
  • Последний ответ

ИЗВИНИТЕ, Яша, но называть "Foreign Affairs"

в местной американской газете, причем газета не такая уж известная...
- это дилетантство.

Да, кстати, тему я так назвал, думая, что кто-нибудь из уважаемых форумчан найдет-таки, чем успокоить американских стратегов от политики. И ответ мне неожиданно пришел со страниц "The Moscow News" - вот это точно "местная российская газетка, причем мало известная". Тем не менее, слово - нашему МИДу С. Лаврову:

Russia in Global Affairs

By Sergei Lavrov Special to The Moscow News

Russia's Foreign Minister shares his reflections on what role his country plays on the international scene

 

 

 

The title of this article coincides with the name of a journal published by the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy. And as in the case with the journal, the idea of 'Russia in global affairs' continues to agitate minds both in Russia and abroad, especially in the past few months. Indeed, there is good reason for this. The international situation continues to evolve and with it Russia's role in global politics. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the process of crystallization in world politics has visibly intensified. Some essential elements of a new international architecture are taking shape. These include the growing importance of the Russian factor in mainstream international politics. This also brings up a large number of questions, which I will attempt to address.

The Russian analysis of the international situation is based on the premise that in the past few years events have been unfolding, well in keeping with our ideas and evaluations, in the direction of multipolar democracy. This is demonstrated, inter alia, by globalization's "Asian face" and the expanding practice of "strategic dialogues."

 

The current situation has corroborated the validity of the fundamental principles of our foreign policy - pragmatism, diversity, multilateralism, and the advance of national interests, but without slipping into confrontation. Formulated during Vladimir Putin's first presidential term, these principles have been gaining ground in the foreign policy practices of other states, including the world's major powers.

 

A key to understanding current international relations is that they are in a state of flux, which by definition rules out any status quo (except for the basic principles of international law). The impression is, however, that our partners would like to secure dominant positions in any new world order. I am convinced that this approach is anti-historical, purely utopian, and based on one of the many myths that have emerged since the end of the Cold War, specifically the myth about "winners and losers." The "winner" complex is not simply a psychological problem. It increasingly comes through in practical matters of world politics, when proposed solutions do not rely on an objective analysis of the situation, not on general principles of international law, but on considerations of "political expediency." In this logic, for example, one former autonomy may have independence, while others may not.

 

Russia cannot cooperate on the basis of this worldview. Our principles of cooperation are the same for all partners, including the CIS nations, China, India, the United States, Europe, and other leading states, which demands equality and interaction, joint analysis of threats, joint decision making, and joint implementation of the decisions that are made. Russia, from its own history, remembers very well the obsessive idee fixe of changing the world, and cannot subscribe to analogous projects that are being put forward today, whatever they are called - global advancement of freedom and democracy or "transformative diplomacy." The world is going through a deep transformation with more and more countries searching for ways of integrating into the democratic space, but it would be irresponsible to artificially accelerate this process. We choose in favor of adapting our foreign policy objectives, as well as our domestic development objectives, to the conditions of globalization that are already causing too many problems to create new ones of our own making. This is one basic difference between the foreign policy philosophy of Moscow and the approaches adopted in certain Western capitals.

 

The position of "constructive uncertainty" on such fundamental differences is hardly appropriate, especially due to the rapid, fast-flowing course of events, creating a force majeure in global politics. In these conditions, there is a pressing need for maximum responsibility and far-sightedness in responding to crises and conflicts. There is no alternative to solving these problems by political and diplomatic means.

 

It is noteworthy that many of these developments are occurring in the Middle and Near East and have an inter-civilizational dimension. This applies to the tension around the Middle East peace plan following the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian National Authority as a result of a democratic election. This also concerns the serious problems that remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, the escalation of events around Syria and Lebanon, and the twists and turns concerning Iran's nuclear program. Do these events need any further push? Any settlement (if this is our shared goal) is only possible not by isolating but involving the relevant states, regimes and political forces, which presupposes a certain measure of criticism and controversy. The choice is basically between further escalation in the "clash of civilizations", and compromise, which will require the abandonment of outdated notions, prejudices and simplified, one-sided views of the world, which are out of sync with the reality of multilateralism as an optimal method of dealing with international problems.

 

Due to its historical, geographic, and cultural specifics, as well as the multi-ethnic and multi-confessional nature of its society, Russia is not in a position to take sides in the global conflict between civilizations, escalated by, among other things, extremist practices, provocations, and breaches of international humanitarian law. Nor does Russia intend to stay on the sidelines. The only viable approach for us is to follow a proactive foreign policy strategy, designed to maintain international stability and reduce tension with a view to finding mutually acceptable solutions through negotiations. Russia is ready to play the role of a bridge: In fact, this country has served as a bridge between different cultures and civilizations almost throughout its history.

 

We can be part of the general effort to reach a compromise, which always requires time and patience, but we cannot possibly accept the practice of dictate and ultimatums, which would drive all of us into a corner. This is the rationale behind our proposals on internationalizing the nuclear fuel cycle, our initiatives concerning Iran's nuclear program, and our contacts with Hamas, designed to get this organization to accept the conditions of the Quartet of international mediators in the Middle East settlement. British experience in Northern Ireland shows that this is not easy. Any compromise is only possible within the bounds of law, without detriment to international security, and with unconditional respect for obligations arising from international treaties and agreements, including nonproliferation regimes.

 

Russia will not be drawn into a confrontation with the Islamic world. This has been repeatedly stated by President Vladimir Putin. Addressing a credentials-presentation ceremony recently, the Russian president said that "in dealing with any, even the most acute international problems, we invariably and consistently rely on politico-diplomatic means and methods, the search for compromise and consensus."

 

Russia cannot, and will not play the role of a "front-line state" in the Cold War - now between civilizations. Nor is Europe, which has not as yet quite realized that it has become part of the Islamic world, apparently prepared for this.

 

Russia rejects tunnel vision, which is opposed to the creative search for compromise as the main product of the art of the possible . Russia rejects arguements based on such notorious postulates as "we cannot compromise our principles" or "those who are not with us are against us." With the end of the Cold War, dogmatism and ideologized approaches toward international issues have lost their appeal. We cannot espouse a strategy that is driven by considerations of prestige. History shows that insanity can be collective. For example, in the early 20th century, Russia allowed itself to be drawn into the confrontational logic of European politics that sparked the tragedy of World War I and a national catastrophe in Russia. The 20th century has shown that it is the sacred duty of each State to think for itself and not entrust its fate to an uncontrolled course of events, especially since this country's foreign policy cannot be hostage to electoral cycles in other countries.

 

There is strong concern about energy as a major factor in global politics. Those who are accustomed to thinking in geopolitical terms suppose that this scenario changes the strategic stability equation, diminishing the importance of nuclear deterrence. At any rate, everyone agrees with Russia's choice of energy security as a main theme for Moscow's rotating presidency in the G8. This refers to the country's responsible international leadership at a critical stage in the evolution of the global situation. At the same time it is clear that in any scenario for sustained development of Russia's energy sector in the foreseeable future, the energy resources of the Near and Middle East will not be excluded from the global energy balance. So the imperatives of global energy policy dictate the need for a moderate and respectful approach toward any problems in the region, including its socio-economic and political modernization. After all is said and done, the stark choice is between stability in the energy sphere and a policy of "controlled destabilization" and "transformation."

 

The energy theme is also highly relevant and topical in the CIS area. The changes that are occurring there are essential to freeing politics from the legacy of the past, and fit into the logic of accord that has become a general unifying principle for a globalizing world since the end of the Cold War. Specifically, this is the realization that there is no alternative to democracy and the market as key foundations of social development. This said, the speed and forms of transformations should be predicated on the specific conditions of a particular country.

 

Strange as this may be, not everyone is prepared to face up to the fact that market prices for natural gas within the CIS mean the end of the "old, nostalgic" Common-wealth and the onset of a realistic, mutually beneficial policy in the post-Soviet area whereby all countries in the region are treated as equal and truly sovereign. This is an approach that we are also urging our international partners to follow. I realize of course that those who had hoped to "contain" Russia in global affairs by getting it bogged down in a sluggish confrontation within the CIS refuse to see the new quality of the situation within the Commonwealth. We interpret market signals, in particular to the liberalization of Gazprom shares, as a vote of confidence in our actions on the part of the business community, which seems tired of the over-politicization of energy matters.

 

Fifteen years ago, Russia acquired freedom and the right to take a broad, unfettered view of things, not least in international affairs. Experts on Russia (not only Sovietologists) and Russia policy shapers cannot but understand that it would be naive to expect Russia to make do with a fringe status in the world, rather than the role of a world leader. We are ready, indeed, we want, to play as part of a team, and are open to argument, debate and persuasion. Yet wherever there is a shortage of far-sighted leadership, Russia will not evade responsibility. It will offer its own analysis of the situation, its own vision of possible solutions, of course acting within the framework of multilateral diplomacy and collective efforts. This is what our partners expect from us, and we have no right to dash their expectations, especially when so much is at stake for the entire international community.

 

Nothing could be further from our intentions than trying to impose our approaches on anyone. It should be borne in mind, however, that Russia's ruling authorities, just as authorities in any democratic country, are accountable, above all, to the people and are duty bound to defend their interests. The present foreign policy course of the Russian leadership - for all the critical discussions about its particular aspects (as befits a genuinely democratic society) - enjoys broad support in the country. We regard this as a crucial foundation of public accord - Russia's crucial achievement in the past several years. The Moscow News

 

 

 

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

Интересно, а зачем Вы обозначали тему с вопросом "как думаете, господа разведчики, чем вызвана такая истерика" если заранее уверены в своем варианте ответа... Решили проверить все ли думают так как Вы, или рейтинг себе набиваете...?

За себя могу сказать, что я не боюсь ошибок (я на них учусь), но мне не очень нравиться когда я наступаю на чужие грабли... style_emoticons/default/tnp.gif

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

Заархивировано

Эта тема находится в архиве и закрыта для дальнейших ответов.


×
×
  • Создать...