samedi 4 octobre 2008
In politics, we use three distinct versions of language. There is the language of diplomacy where such terms as "territorial integrity", "non-interference in internal affairs", "sovreignty", "human rights" are used. Then there is the language of propaganda. Here we can hear phrases as "unprovoked aggression", "democracy", "freedom", etc. And there is the cold language of (geo)political realities where we talk first of all about national interests, raisons d'état. In the former Soviet zone of "chasse libre" the use of these languages is seriously flawed. Some politicians even seem to believe that the main language is the language of propaganda, and are creating a manichean picture of the evil dictatorial Russia confronting the free and democratic West, first of all the "New Europe". The problem is that there are very few people in our countries capable and willing to explain things in the realistic language of geopolitics. Formally we have a centre of defence policies in Estonia, but unfortunately even they tend to use mostly a more rational-looking language of political propaganda, defending mainly the US propagandistic stances, and, in its own way, the American interests. We have to switch to US own sources, e.g. to Stratfor, to understand what is really going on. The US have never wanted a strong power emerging in Eurasia, be it one state or a bloc of states. And the enlargement of NATO and support for anti-Russian forces in the former Soviet bloc states are a means to contain the possible rise of Russia. But this de facto continuation of the containment policies once formulated by George Kennan were not accompanied by a credible build-up of armed forces. Thus, when the US ground forces are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Georgian president Saakashvili (who was the only one generously armed by the US) behaved very irresponsibly, Russia used its window of opportunity and taught Americans and their clients a lesson. Some Russia's neigbours seem to have learnt it well, and what we shall probably see in near future is a rapprochement between Ukraine and Russia. I have very little hope that the Estonian politicians will even change their anti-Russian rhetoric or that they are able to see clear in what is really going on in the world. But without such a clear vision, any reasonable politics is impossible. What is possible, and what our politicians practice, is more or less blind adherence to US interests and the US political propaganda. As we can see from the fiery rhetoric of Mme Kristina Ojuland, our former minister of foreign affairs.