The Way Things Should Not Be

In a rare display of political unity, Russia’s executive and legislative branches both condemned the US and British bombing of Iraq. Whereas Americans strongly supported the action (perhaps because they were distracted by the impeachment proceedings – it’s not for me to judge which tail was wagging which dog), the reaction across Russia has been overwhelmingly negative. Let me explain why.

First, as President Yeltsin said, the bombing “should be considered a blow to the whole system of international security, the central link of which is the United Nations and its Security Council.” Which is why Russia took the grave step of recalling its ambassadors to the US and Great Britain for consultations. As one high-ranking Russian diplomat said in an interview with Kommersant Daily, the reason for Russia’s indignation was not out of “some special love for Saddam Hussein,” but because of the US’s obvious attempt to offset the system of international relations.

Second, when Clinton deliberately ignored Moscow’s position, it was seen as a clear attempt to humiliate Russia and lower its international status. Many felt ashamed, as TV6 channel opined, that Russia “can be so deliberately humiliated.” After all, Russia is not just a country of matryoshkas and balalaikas. It is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a seat gained largely due to its role in the WWII victory.

Third, if it can happen to Iraq, who is next? While something needs to be done regarding Iraq, most Russians say bombing was not the answer. Indeed, many Russians ask, “What stops the US from bombing, say, Pakistan for having acquired nuclear weapons? … And what is our guarantee that Russia won’t be punished the same way?” As Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeev said, “the bombing of Iraq showed us the spectrum of military threats in the 21st century ... We are bound to finalize the reform without losing our nuclear potential, the main factor of our national security, so that no one will feel tempted to solve issues by use of weapons against Russia as well.”

w For the first time in many years, it looks like Russia’s military will get what it asked for: 3.5 % of Russian GDP will be spent on the military (just 2.8% was expected before the bombing).

w A political reunification with Belarus is now more real than ever. True, unification with economically retarded Belarus is fraught with problems, but from a political and military point of view, both Russia and Belarus might profit by the unification in the face of a NATO juggernaut. Eight years after the disintegration of the USSR, a new integration is in the making.

The bombing of Iraq fed into what many Russians now see as a larger betrayal of their country’s interests by the West: Gorbachev agreed to German reunification after receiving tacit assurances from the West that there would be no NATO expansion eastward. This was followed by the USSR’S support of Desert Storm in 1991. The reigning foreign policy assumption was that the US and Russia (USSR) were strategic bedfellows for good. Yet the subsequent unfolding of events around NATO enlargement showed that Russian policymakers suffered from a naive openness.

Now we are told (by the local expat daily, The Moscow Times) that our misplaced “fury” over the Iraq crisis is just our hurt national pride talking, that we should instead work on patching our economic holes and secure yet another IMF tranche.

First, what is wrong with having a national pride? Second, I would love to see all Russian resources focused only on solving its acute socio-economic problems. But, then, the rest of the world doesn’t seem ready to give Russia a multiyear handicap. No one is saying, “OK, you catch up, and we’ll wait for you … Oh, and don’t worry about your seat in the hall of great nations, we will hold it for you.”

Instead, competition is getting tougher in the international arena. And, on the threshold of the third millennium, regardless of the Information Revolution, the Iraq bombing shows us that thinking and human nature are still the same: might is right. Or, as we say, “protiv loma nyet priyoma” (there’s no defense against a metallic bar).

To focus only on one’s internal economic problems (no matter how acute), resigning once and for all to a diminished international status, is a short-sighted policy. After all, political influence in the international arena connotes better economic leverage.

This is not to say Russians wouldn’t love to enjoy the comfort and living standards of Switzerland or Japan. It might be so easy to declare political neutrality like the Swiss or to give these ill-fated four Kurile islands to the Japanese (or Sevastopol to Ukraine). We could even let NATO expand to the borders of Moscow – like Stalin once let the Germans do, and enjoy a wonderful life within the borders of a Moscow Free Trade Zone ...

So, shall we swallow our “jingoism” and work hard towards our economic revival, forgetting about superfluous things like patriotism and historical memory? After all, Russian princes didn’t do that badly under the Tatar Yoke, provided they paid their tribute on time.

But what traquilizers could a Western pharmaceutical aid package offer that would hush the voices of our ancestors, put our historical genes to sleep, or

help us forget all the readings we carry in our memory? How can we not consider Sevastopol a Russian city after reading Tolstoy’s Sevastopol Stories or the account of the Sevastopol siege by the Nazis in WWII? How can we agree to the US as ultimate judge on the international arena, knowing that Russia was instrumental in defeating the Napoleonic aggressions in 1814, fighting all the way to Paris with the allies to restore freedom in Europe, knowing that from 1941 through 1944, Soviet Russia alone kept Hitler at bay! How can I keep my mouth shut – and my plume idle – when Russian war veterans are treacherously battered by police in Latvia, when I know that my aunt Mariana’s father perished near Moscow in 1941?

Socialism fell. Good riddance. But not so Russia for now. We want to move on, capitalizing on new political freedoms triggered by gorbachevian perestroika but be free of gorbachevian illusions of a “new type of thinking in a world without wars.” We are overcoming our inferiority complex caused by empty storeshelves, lousy services and poorly tailored suits.

Russia has plenty to be proud of in its past and still has the right to have a tangible say in the world affairs. I know there is this argument about “patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrels.” But we have had our share of internationalism. Whenever I travel to America, I see as many American flags on poles as there are birch-trees back home. The US should be commended for this. In the meantime, we find out that Russian soccer players badly want but cannot learn by heart the text of the new national anthem. There isn’t one.

To quote a popular American commentator, “as someone who wants Russia to be a great nation ... I take it personally when people tell me a great Russia is a thing of the past.” Better still to quote my compatriot Pyotr Stolypin, “you need great upheavals, but we need a great Russia.”