Peace, partnership, and cooperation are imaginable only among people and nations who know who they are. If I do not know who I am, who I want to be, what I want to achieve, where I begin and where I end, my relations with those around me, and with the rest of the world, will inevitably be tense, full of suspicion and burdened by an inferiority complex that may be hidden behind pompous bravado. Distrust of oneself and uncertainty about one's own identity necessarily generate a distrust of others, imputation of evil intentions to the rest of the world and, eventually, an aggressiveness that may result in forcing one's domination upon those who do not desire it.
This is, unfortunately, a fair description of what underlies the relationship between NATO and the Russian Federation. Unlike countries such as Mexico, Sweden or Austria, which are not members of NATO but have common borders with it, Russia -- which is much larger and more powerful than all of the Alliance's other neighbors combined -- is consistently disquieted by NATO's presence and is rather displeased to see it enlarge eastwards.
Of course, one reason for this lies in the inert mode of thinking which persists from the Soviet era, when NATO was portrayed by the totalitarian regime and its media as the Soviet Union's arch-enemy. To a certain extent, this was valid: Although NATO harbored no aggressive intentions -- and, indeed, was unwilling even to help those European countries that were invaded militarily by their Soviet "ally" -- it made no secret of its aim to contain communism and of its perception of the Soviet Union as its strategic adversary. Nowadays, the situation is completely different. Both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are gone, and NATO now pursues other objectives than it did during the Cold War -- even desiring partnership with Russia. But it appears as if Russia has failed to understand or, in fact, to take genuine notice of any of this. This can change only if the new ruling forces in Russia opt for realism rather than populism; choose to nurture common sense rather than nationalist passions; to look for friends rather than for enemies; and to build an open democratic society rather than cling to Soviet-era resentments.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The possibility of such change lies, in turn, in the nature of Russia's identity, or its self-understanding. Despite the remarkable progress Russia has made towards democracy and a market economy, it is somehow still grappling with a problem that, to my knowledge, has burdened it for more or less its entire history, that is, with the question of where it begins and where it ends; what belongs to its domain and what is already beyond it; where it should exercise its decisive influence and from what point it cannot legitimately do so.
Russia seems to be compensating for a lack of self-confidence and uncertainty about its identity -- and thus also about its boundaries -- with imperialist rhetoric and nationalist bombast, which we know well from people like Vladimir Zhirinovsky, but which appears in a more cultured form on a much wider scale. For example, I find it almost absurd that such a large and powerful country should be alarmed by the prospect of three small democratic republics on its border -- Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania -- joining a regional grouping which it does not control. Is it not meaningless to insist on a cordon sanitaire at a time when hundreds of transcontinental missiles could destroy Moscow from Nevada, or New York from the Urals, in a matter of minutes?
My thinking does not emanate from aversion to Russia, or any feeling of superiority -- or, on the other hand, from fear of how Russia might respond to NATO's further enlargement. I am simply trying to call things by their right names and to express my concern for good and friendly coexistence. But is friendship imaginable without candor? Unlike many Western politicians who insincerely seek to placate Russia, supposedly in the interests of peace and friendship, I believe that friendship with Russia is served best if we act towards it as equals and tell the truth to its face, unpleasant as this may be. It is my profound conviction that Russia does not deserve that we behave towards it as we would towards a leper, an invalid or a child who requires special treatment and whose whims, no matter how dangerous, must be understood and tolerated. Such an attitude helps neither Russia nor the West. It merely strengthens Russian misconceptions and leads Western statesmen toward hopeless and unseemly compromises.
Russia is now engaged in a quest to discern its true self newly, to define its position in today's world, to determine, indeed, its very mode of existence. Perhaps this quest will take a long time. But that is no reason to approach Russia as if walking on egg shells. All of the world's regions have problems -- Russia with its self-understanding; Africa with its poverty, famine and tribal wars; and the West with the dilemma of whether it will allow the civilization that it gave, and sometimes imposed on, this planet to destroy itself or to find in the depths of its knowledge and conscience sources of a renewed sense of responsibility for the world.
We are not in a position to reproach one another. But nor are we in a position to be less than frank with each other. Russia needs and deserves no less.
Vaclav Havel is president of the Czech Republic and a noted writer.
Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs