Published Monday, September 8, 2008 at 01:26
by
Ari Rusila
(567 views and 4 comments)
During last conflicts in Caucasus and before in Balkans there has been discussion about EU's position between conflicting parties -between east and west. I can agree with those who advise that EU should not take sides but rather balance its criticism with conflicting parties. From my point of view this could mean an approach with keywords such as understanding, dialogue and multi-polar world.
The Balkans have been the focus of extensive public attention for a long time yet not many people can honestly claim to have a firm understanding of the region, its history or the complexity of the problems. The same one can say about Caucasus. I would like to claim that one factor has its share 1st creating problems and 2nd making difficult to manage them. This factor is lack of dialogue, which in both regions has created one-sided picture in western mainstream media and peoples mind.
In dialogue, one listens to the other side in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it. Debate can have maybe better headlines in news but it is not for sustainable solutions.
Few days ago the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, outlined his country's national interests in a set of five key principles and I think one of them fits to this topic. Quote: "The world should be multi-polar. Unipolarity is unacceptable, domination is impermissible. We cannot accept a world order in which all decisions are taken by one country, even such a serious and authoritative country as the United States of America. This kind of world is unstable and fraught with conflict."
From my point of view West has been living last years in past, today world is coming more and more multi-polar. To copy present situation we need dialogue - EU could facilitate e.g. US/Russia dialogue but then it should avoid to take firm sides.
More Balkan/Caucasus conflicts in my BalkanBlog, address https://arirusila.wordpress.com
loading...
Comments
1. Not take sides? by julian_schaerbeek
on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 14:52
You make intelligent points about dialogue Ari, but I think it is hard for Europe not to take sides between US and Russia when most European countries are in NATO and Europe has been heavily reliant on US for 'defence' since the 1940s. Dont misunderstand me - I am in favour of Europe being a dialogue facilititator, but much as we lefties like to overlook it, Europe owes a huge debt to the US. If we want a more equal relationship with the US - (and Russia) we have to show more responsiblity for military matters, and stop having a 'free ride' on US military spending. Both US & Russia knows that Europe is NOT serious when it comes to military affairs. What happened in the Balkans was a terrible embarassment and falure for Europe, and I dont see how Europe could be any more effective now .....
2. Need of one voice by kim
on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 13:15
I also agree on the points about dialogue. EUrope can be a crucial actor in this area. Europe has a responsibility to the Balkan region. I made promises and its Balkan strategy stands high on the agenda. In my opinion Europe should take its responsibility, but this sometimes also means taking a side. I don't agree that Europe should take a side because of the "dept" to the US or because of the NATO. We should take side because we need to be clear what we want with this area. And to give or policy for the Balkan credibility we need to speak in one voice, and choose a side if we have to. About the US and the NATO, I don’t agree that we have debts. Europe should become more independent, and take its own course. Europe is not a big partner in military, but do we have to be ? Europe can be stronger in other things to my opinion.3. Defence, NATO & US by julian_schaerbeek
on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 14:02
I would love to agree with you Kim. But the fact is that most of Europe is in a defence set-up - NATO - underwritten by US military spending. We cant pretend that NATO does not exist as THE supposed means for protecting most of Europe from military threat. Perhaps Europe should declare that it does not need US military protection through NATO - and save the US and (to a much lesser extent) ourselves a lot of money. But if NATO in its current state IS needed then we do owe the US a huge debt. Can someone tell me I have got my facts wrong?4. thinking about US and NATO should not be first thing by kim
on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 15:15
You are right about the NATO and the role of the US. But maybe I didn’t put it so clear in my comment that I don’t mean that there no interest of NATO or US. But I just don’t like the idée that Europe starts its thinking that way. If the first thing that Europe does is think “ What about the NATO, the US, or debt ? “ , that does not seem right to me. We should start the thinking with “ What do we want with Europe, what is or part in this ? “. If we then speak in one voice, we can negotiate better once the NATO and the US come in the debate.To be able to post comments you need to be logged in. No account yet? Register here! Lost your password?