When the wind of democratic revolutions swept across Eastern Europe in the 1980s, the Orange Revolution, driven by the same demands of freedom and democracy, nothing then suggested the difficulties that would confront Ukraine — perhaps because no other country had experimented with the mechanisms of democratic governance, yet failed to benefit from its rule of law, equality and liberties. Perhaps also because no other country was so deeply divided; no other country was so torn between East and West.
It is no surprise, therefore, that Ukraine and its periodic crises have degenerated into the present bloody clashes. Nor should we be puzzled to learn that Washington was plotting with the pro-western opposition against the pro-Moscow government.
Last week, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times wrote advising US President Barack Obama to exercise caution in handling the Ukrainian crisis and avoiding the temptation to make Ukraine the front line of a new Cold War.
Speaking last week in Mexico at the end of the North American Leaders Summit, President Barack Obama said he doesn’t see violent clashes in Ukraine and Syria between the governments and their people as part of a “Cold War chessboard” where the United States competes with Russia.
Recently, however, opinion makers here in the United States have been expressing concern that a new Cold War is indeed upon us. The sensational defection to Russia of the American National Security agent Edward Snowden revived memories of cloak-and-dagger cold war spying schemes. The dramatic revelations he made about US spying activities — even on their allies — created unease among allies, and suspicions among competitors.
Plotting with opposition
Indeed the scope of American spying activities seemed as global as its reach was ambitiously imperial. In an analysis of the Snowden documents The New York Times wrote that a close reading of Snowden’s documents illustrates the extent to which the American National Security Agency ‘armed with cyber weapons, assigned not just to monitor foreign computers but also, if necessary, to attack.”
Also last week, the American Public Radio news programme Democracy Now focused on the current bloody confrontation in Ukraine. The clashes pitted demonstrators demanding more freedom against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych backed by Moscow, and held by Washington to be responsible for the violence.
The transcripts of the Democracy Now programme state that although Obama has vowed to “continue to engage all sides,” a recently leaked recording between two senior American officials reveal the Obama administration has been secretly plotting with the opposition.
It must be recalled that the US-led western alliance has been pushing eastward with the expansion of Nato in the 1990s. Under former president George W. Bush, Nato further expanded all the way to Russia’s borders, reviving the obsessive Russian fear of encirclement.
Encirclement from the outside was complemented by ideological action from the inside in the form of NGOs funded by the West. Then the so-called missile defence system, allegedly targeting Iran, was installed along Russia’s borders. It became clear that Russia was being once more encircled by western powers. Such encirclement drove western objectives after First World War and the Russian Revolution, and was the basis of American foreign policy after Second World War. It was then called a policy of containment. And in extending containment as the foundation of American foreign policy, it became the dominant feature of the Cold War, and the rationalisation for wars without end.
The current crisis was fuelled by mistakes committed by both sides in the Ukrainian conflict escalated by the use of force by government security forces. The imposition of sanctions by the EU and Washington was directed at the government, but not at the opposition and related demonstrators.
This, along with the ultimatum given to Yanukovych, “You must choose between Europe and Russia.” recalled the underlying principle of containment. And yet, Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly responded in a deliberately conciliatory fashion: “Why? Why does Ukraine have to choose?” he rhetorically asked.” We are prepared to help Ukraine avoid economic collapse, along with you, the West...,” he reportedly said.
The offer of collaboration was rejected. The essence of the ultimatum was driven by the inevitability of conflict with Yanukovych and Putin and their perceived dogmatism.
Interestingly, the first Cold War was fuelled primarily by the inevitability of reconciling the pragmatism of capitalism and the dogmatism of communism. When the US economic assistance plan for the reconstruction of Europe known as the Marshal Plan was offered to the Soviet Union after the War, Moscow turned it down because it required liberal economic bases, incompatible with the principles of communism.
The struggle for Ukraine suggests that this may not be the end of history after all. But the economic and governance principles likely to provide the people with decent living, and life with dignity, will eventually emerge triumphant.
Adel Safty is distinguished visiting professor and special adviser to the rector at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky and published in England by Garnet, 2009.
