Закрыть

Логин:
Пароль:
	Запомнить меня на этом компьютере
Забыли свой пароль?

  Войти      Регистрация

СИМВОЛ ЭПОХИ: ЛЮДИ, КНИГИ, СОБЫТИЯ / SYMBOL OF THE EPOCH: PERSONS, BOOKS, EVENTS / DAS SYMBOL DER EPOCHE: PERSONEN, BÜCHER, VERANSTALTUNGEN

ДОКУМЕНТ ОТ АВТОРА / THE DOCUMENT FROM THE AUTHOR  /  DOKUMENT DES AUTORS

 Дашичев В.И.

Трудная судьба общеевропейского сотрудничества

(Выступление в Совете Федерации Федерального Собрания РФ 25 июня 2015 г. на парламентском слушании на тему: «Механизмы обеспечения общеевропейского сотрудничества: возможности парламентской дипломатии»)

Дашичев Вячеслав Иванович, доктор исторических наук, профессор, главный научный сотрудник Отделения международных экономических и политических исследований Института экономики РАН; председатель Научно-консультативного совета при МИД СССР (1987—1989); профессор берлинского Свободного (1991), Мюнхенского (1992) и Маннгеймского университетов (1996)

E-mail: v.dashichev@mail.ru

В кратком выступлении сопоставляются два важнейших документа ХХ в., сохраняющих определяющее значение для судеб сотрудничества и безопасности в Европе и развития международных отношений в мире в целом.

Ключевые слова: Парижская хартия, «Проект нового американского века», философия мира и сотрудничества между народами, предвоенный политический кризис, глобальная гегемония США, Евразийский союз, Евроатлантический союз.

Литература

Парижская хартия для новой Европы. Париж: ОБСЕ, 1990 [Электронный ресурс]. Режим доступа: http://www.osce.org/ru/mc/39520?download=true.

Геншер Г.-Д. Сотрудничество, а не конфронтация с Россией! [= Genscher H.-D. Kooperation und nicht Konfrontation mit Russland!] / Пер. В.И. Дашичева // Пространство и Время. 2013. № 1(11). С. 12—13.

Дашичев В.И. Война и мир в прошлом и ныне // Пространство и Время. 2012.а. № 1(7). С. 11—17.

Дашичев В.И. Европа проиграла ХХ век Соединенным Штатам // Мир и политика. 2013. № 10. С. 266—275.

Дашичев В.И. Парижская хартия: шанс на будущее для Европы // Экономическая и философская газета. 2012.б. Сентябрь. № 36(926).

Дашичев В.И. Пора вернуться к принципам Парижской хартии // Геополитика: теория, история, практика: Труды I Международной научно-практической конференции (24 апреля 2012 г. Москва, Военный университет Министерства обороны Российской Федерации) / Под общ. ред. О.Н. Тыняновой, В.Л. Сывороткина. М.: АНО Научно-издательский Центр «ПРОСТРАНСТВО И ВРЕМЯ», 2012.в. С. 242—244.

Коэн С. Новая холодная война и потребность в патриотической ереси ("The Nation", США). Заблуждения США могут привести к войне с Россией [Электронный ресурс] // Сетевое издание «Интернет-проект «ИноСМИ.RU». 2014. 13 авг. Режим доступа: http://inosmi.ru/thenation_com/20140813/222345771.html.

Bahr E. "Europas strategische Interessen." Internationale Politik 62.4 (2007): 86—97.

Bahr E. "Strategische Partnerschaft mit der russischen Föderation." Leviathan 38 (2010): 135—141.

Chossudovsky М. Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War. New York: Global Research Publisher, 2012.

Edge J. "Imperial Troopers and Servants of the Lord: A Vision of TESOL for the 21st Century." TESOL Quarterly 37.4 (2003): 701—709.

Frohlich T.C., Kent A. "Countries Spending the Most on the Military." USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 12 July 2014. Web. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/12/ countries-spending-most-on-military/12491639/>.

Loewenich A. Kriegspläne der USA im Ost-West-Konflikt. München: GRIN Verlag, 2008.

Pilz P. Mit Gott gegen alle: Amerikas Kampf um die Weltherrschaft. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verl. — Anstalt, 2003.

Rozoff R. "Pentagon Plans for Global Military Supremacy: U.S., NATO Could Deploy Mobile Missiles Launchers to Europe." Global Research. Global Research. Centre for Research on Globalization, 22 Aug. 2009. Web. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14877>.

"Statement of Principles." Project for the New American Century. PNAC, 3 June 1997. Web. <http://web.archive.org/ web/20070810113753/www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm>.

Tudyka K.P. Hegemonie und Globokratie: der Richtungsstreit um die Weltordnungspolitik zwischen Europa und USA. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2003.

von Kleine-Brockhoff T. "Eine Ideologie packt ein. In Amerika keimt derzeit eine ganz unamerikanische Debatte: Ist es Zeit für einen Nachruf auf den Neokonservatismus?." ZEIT ONLINE. ZEIT ONLINE, 6 Sept. 2006. Web. <http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/36/neokonservatismus-usa-pnac>.

Dashichev V.I.

Arduous Fate of pan-European Co-operation. (Speech at the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of Russia at the Parliament Proceeding "Mechanisms for pan-European Co-operation: Opportunities of Parliamentary Diplomacy," June 25, 2015)

Vyacheslav I. Dashichev, D.Phil. (History), Professor, Senior Researcher at Department of International Economic and Political Studies of RAS Institute of Economics

E-mail: v.dashichev@mail.ru

Allow me, in brief speech, to comment on and compare the two most important documents of the 20th century that still have a truly great significance for the future of co-operation and security in Europe, moreover, for the development of international relations in the world.

21 Nov. 1990, representatives of the supreme power of all European states, as well as the United States and Canada signed in Paris a fundamental international instrument for establishment of new European peaceful order after the end of ‘cold war’. It entered the history as The Charter of Paris for a New Europe. There was no more significant and important international instrument in the twentieth century than the Charter of Paris. For the first time in the entire history of Europe pan-European consensus on ways to achieve the principles and mechanisms of European security and co-operation was reached. In The Charter, the most important principles of security and collaboration among the European nations have been formulated:

—    “… we renew our pledge to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or from acting in any other manner inconsistent with the principles or purposes of those documents.  We recall that non-compliance with obligations under the Charter of the United Nations constitutes a violation of international law”

—    “With the ending of the division of Europe, we will strive for a new quality in our security relations while fully respecting each other's freedom of choice in that respect. Security is indivisible and the security of every participating State is inseparably linked to that of all the others. We therefore pledge to co-operate in strengthening confidence and security among us and in promoting arms control and disarmamen”

—    “We reaffirm the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States”

—    “… our growing interdependence will help to overcome the mistrust of decades, to increase stability and to build a united Europe”

—    “We want Europe to be a source of peace, open to dialogue and to co-operation with other countries, welcoming exchanges and involved in the search for common responses to the challenges of the future”.

This was a new philosophy of peace and cooperation among peoples for the future of the 21st century, outlined in the Charter of Paris. Seven years have passed. And so, as an antithesis to The Charter, The Project for the New American Century, which the US administration set before the American and world public opinion, comes into being June 3, 1997. Present US presidential Jeb Bush, the representative of the Bush dynasty, took part in its elaboration. Here are much talking passages from this project:

—    “We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. … Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?”

—    “We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities”

—    “… we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. … If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership”

—    “… we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future”

—    “… we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values”

—    “… we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad”

—    “… we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles”

—    “Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next”.

So what happened? Why the United States does transformed the Charter of Paris, the greatest achievement of political thought and practice of the 20th century, into meaningless and worthless piece of paper, and tried to bury it in oblivion? Why Europe, devoid of unity, security and cooperation, has found itself on the verge of a new pre-war political crisis that could at any moment turn into a real war?

The fact is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States received an unprecedented opportunity to establish its global hegemony. They purposefully pursue this goal, not disdaining any means and methods — up to provoke war in Europe. Indeed, thanks to wars in the European continent in 20th century, the United States removed enormous geopolitical and economic benefits and become a superpower, which has imposed its domination to Western-European ruling elites, especially during the ‘cold war’, acting as their defender against Stalin's messianic expansion. About how all this happened, I wrote in my article "Europe Has Lost Out the 20th Century to the United States". US tried to transfer this experience in the twenty-first century and to extend their domination in Eastern Europe. In this, I must say, they have succeeded. All the countries of Eastern and Central Europe were drawn into NATO, and the troops of this block were put forward right up to Russia's borders. In order to achieve this, United States deployed an unprecedented propagandistic war against Russia, presenting it as a dangerous aggressive power, which is alien to the ‘European civilization’ and its values, and threatens the existence of the European countries. In doing so they did not shun unconscionable lies and distortion of historical facts. How can we incriminate Russian intentions of the military invasion into Europe and encourage Europeans to unite under the leadership of the United States to counter this threat? Firstly, NATO's military might is greater than Russian one by 4 times or more. Secondly, Russia has never had intentions to invade Europe, while grandiose military invasion from Europe into Russia took place twice. In the 19th century the Napoleon’s troops had invaded into it and reached Moscow itself, and in the 20th century Nazi Germany troops broke through as far as Stalingrad. And both times, Russian army was able to repel the aggression and was forced to invade deep into Europe while pursuing enemy troops, to achieve complete victory. That is the truth of history. American leaders of the information war against Russia prefer to remain silent about it. Or maybe it is simply because of their ignorance, lack of knowledge history that the US senior policymakers have repeatedly demonstrated?

Whatever it was, Washington was able to put the EU ruling elites in service of itself and to achieve the implementation of one of the most important tasks of the US foreign policy doctrine — ‘to keep Russia out of Europe’. Fear of increasingly being adopted of the idea of the Eurasian Union, i.e. integration space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, was also the reason for this course of action. The implementation of this idea promises to European countries and Russia the big economic, political, scientific, technological and other benefits, including relief from the US dictate the political and economic sphere, which increasingly concerned about a nationally minded circles of the European countries. While for the US, the most important task is to implement the idea of Euro-Atlantic alliance, i.e. US-Europe association, which is regarded as the main geopolitical bridgehead of US policy of domination. Sake of this, many subversive activities aimed against Russia, are held: the creation of ‘enemy image’ in its face; policies aimed at its isolation and locking by unfriendly states; sanctions against Russia; a coup in Ukraine and its transformation into a state hostile to Russia, a hotbed for the unleashing the war in Europe; deployment of US troops and military equipment, as well as anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe and so on.

As a result of these actions, the United States deliberately brought Europe to the threshold of pre-war political crisis. Thus, today's imperative is to not let rabid members of American expansionism to turn this crisis into a war. This scares even the reasonable and responsible representatives of the political and scientific communities in the United States (for example, the famous American historian and political scientist, Prof. Stephen Cohen, about what he was saying at the annual US-Russian Forum in Washington, June 16, 2014).

In the current situation alarming and dangerous intensification of policies aimed at a return to the life of the Paris Charter and its principles, and their widespread publicity among the general public in Russia and the Western countries, is of paramount importance. Their official inclusion in the agenda of foreign policy of Russia and other European countries is the saving against threats hanging over Europe. It would be essential that the Federation Council and the State Duma addressed to the parliaments of European countries with appeal to put again The Charter of Paris and its principles in the service of peace and pan-European cooperation, taking into account the characteristics of contemporary European situation.

Keywords: The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, The Project for the New American Century, philosophy of peace and cooperation between peoples, pre-war political crisis, US global hegemony, Eurasian Union, Euro-Atlantic alliance.

References:

Bahr E. "Europas strategische Interessen." Internationale Politik 62.4 (2007): 86—97.

Bahr E. "Strategische Partnerschaft mit der russischen Föderation." Leviathan 38 (2010): 135—141.

Chossudovsky М. Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War. New York: Global Research Publisher, 2012.

Cohen S.F. "The New Cold War and the Necessity of Patriotic Heresy. US Fallacies May Be Leading to War with Russia. (The Nation)." Network Edition "Internet Project InoSMI.RU." N.p., 13 Aug. 2014. Web. <http://inosmi.ru/thenation_com/20140813/222345771.html>. (In Russian).

Dashichev V.I. "It's Time To Renew to the Principles of the Charter of Paris." Geopolitics: Theory, History, Practice: Proceedings of the First International Scientific and Practical Conference (24 April, 2012 Moscow, the Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation). Eds. O.N. Tynyanova, and V.L. Syvorotkin. Moscow: Scientific and Publishing Center "Space and Time" Publisher, 2012, pp. 242—244. (In Russian).

Dashichev V.I. "The Charter of Paris: A Chance of Future for Europe." Economic and Philosophical Newspaper [Moscow] September 2012. 36 (926). (In Russian).

Dashichev V.I. "War and Peace in the Past and Nowadays." Prostranstvo i Vremya [Space and Time] 1 (2012): 11—17. (In Russian).

Dashichev V.I." Europe Lost the Twentieth Century the United States." The World and Politics 10 (2013): 266—275. (In Russian).

Edge J. "Imperial Troopers and Servants of the Lord: A Vision of TESOL for the 21st Century." TESOL Quarterly 37.4 (2003): 701—709.

Frohlich T.C., Kent A. "Countries Spending the Most on the Military." USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 12 July 2014. Web. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/12/ countries-spending-most-on-military/12491639/>.

Genscher H.-D. "Cooperation, not Confrontation with Russia!." Prostranstvo i Vremya [Space and Time] 1 (2013): 12—13. (In German and Russian).

Loewenich A. Kriegspläne der USA im Ost-West-Konflikt. München: GRIN Verlag, 2008.

Pilz P. Mit Gott gegen alle: Amerikas Kampf um die Weltherrschaft. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verl. — Anstalt, 2003.

Rozoff R. "Pentagon Plans for Global Military Supremacy: U.S., NATO Could Deploy Mobile Missiles Launchers to Europe." Global Research. Global Research. Centre for Research on Globalization, 22 Aug. 2009. Web. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14877>.

"Statement of Principles." Project for the New American Century. PNAC, 3 June 1997. Web. <http://web.archive.org/ web/20070810113753/www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm>.

The Charter of Paris for a New Europe. Paris: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Publisher, 1990. PDF-file. <http://www.osce.org/ru/mc/39520?download=true>. (In Russian).

Tudyka K.P. Hegemonie und Globokratie: der Richtungsstreit um die Weltordnungspolitik zwischen Europa und USA. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2003.

von Kleine-Brockhoff T. "Eine Ideologie packt ein. In Amerika keimt derzeit eine ganz unamerikanische Debatte: Ist es Zeit für einen Nachruf auf den Neokonservatismus?." ZEIT ONLINE. ZEIT ONLINE, 6 Sept. 2006. Web. <http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/36/neokonservatismus-usa-pnac>.

 Читать статью / Read more