Full version - Aspen Institute Prague
Transcription
Full version - Aspen Institute Prague
No 2 | 2014 2 | 2014 Index: 287210 CENTRAL EUROPE Aspen Institute Prague is supported by: CENTRAL EUROPE REENTERS HISTORY Marek Cichocki, Robert Cooper, Tomáš Klvaňa, Luuk van Middelaar, Peter Pomeranstsev, Emmanuel Todd Ukraine Can Be a Neutral State An interview with Roman Szporluk Right in Ascendance or Mainstream in Decline? Frank Furedi W W W . A S P E N I N S T I T U T E . C Z POLITICS Exit Politics I. Krastev | Russian Minority in Estonia after Crimea M. Ehala Czech Export J. Bureš | Eurasian Commonwealth V. Inozemtsev, A. Barbashin Another Code of Nabokov L. Engelking | Hašek in Galicia A. Kaczorowski ECONOMY CULTURE No 2 | 2014 Advisory Board Walter Isaacson (co-chairman), Michael Žantovský (co -chairman), Yuri Andrukhovych, Piotr Buras, Krzysztof Czyżewski, Josef Joffe, Kai-Olaf Lang, Zbigniew Pełczyński, Petr Pithart, Jacques Rupnik, Mariusz Szczygieł, Monika Sznajderman, Martin M. Šimečka, Michal Vašečka Editorial Board Tomáš Klvaňa (chairman), Luděk Bednář, Adam Černý, Martin Ehl, Roman Joch, Jan Macháček, Kateřina Šafaříková, Tomáš Vrba Editors Aleksander Kaczorowski (editor-in-chief ), Maciej Nowicki (deputy editor-in-chief ), Robert Schuster (managing director) Tra n s l at o r s Tomasz Bieroń, Julia Sherwood, Nicholas Furnival Published by Aspen Institute Prague o. p. s. Palackého 1, CZ 110 00 Praha e-mail: [email protected] www.aspeninstitute.cz Year III No 2/2014 ISSN 1805–6806 © Aspen Institute Prague The ideas expressed in the articles are authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board or of the Aspen Institute Prague. Content F O R E W O R D Radek Špicar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 E D I T O R I A L Aleksander Kaczorowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 COVER STORY The Shock of Ukraine—Robert Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Why Enlargement Brakes?—Marek Cichocki. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 We Live in a World of Ailing Powers. An Interview with Emmanuel Todd by Maciej Nowicki. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 What Does the Russian Elite Really Believe in?—Peter Pomerantsev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Europe: the Return of Politics—Luuk van Middelaar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 C O M M E N T Tomáš Klvaňa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 THE INTERVIEW Ukraine Can Be a Neutral State. An interview with Roman Szporluk by Filip Memches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 C O M M E N T Ivan Krastev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 POLITICS A Plan for NATO—Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russian Minority in Estonia after Crimea—Martin Ehala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Soviet Central Asia: The Changing Politics Of Leadership Transition—Luca Anceschi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Europe and the Problem of Force—Wojciech Przybylski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Right in Ascendance or Mainstream in Decline?—Frank Furedi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C O M M E N T Leonidas Donskis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 45 49 53 57 61 ECONOMY Czech Foreign Trade in Healthy Condition—Jan Bureš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eurasian Integration: Putin’s Futureless Project—Vladislav Inozemtsev, Anton Barbashin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Social Role of Business in Central Europe—Katharina Bluhm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Africa Wrapped in—Genetically Modified—Cotton—Tomáš Nídr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C O M M E N T Aviezer Tucker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 68 72 76 80 C U LT U R E Another Code of Nabokov—Leszek Engelking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Two Recapitulations and One Stocktaking—Václav Burian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 A Broken Trail—Wojciech Stanisławski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Hašek in Galicia—Aleksander Kaczorowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 3 Dear readers, debate “Central Europe: fit for the future” assessed the first ten years of the EU membership, reviewed the region’s record in the EU and the challenges for the next decade. Participants also discussed the eponymous report drafted by a 15-member High Level Reflection Group, including a member of our Supervisory Board, Jiří Schneider. The content of the new Aspen Review Central Europe embraces the inauspicious situation in Ukraine, and thus engages into the debate on EU position in the world. We find ourselves at the historical crossroads, where EU member states are challenged to re-think their relations with neighbors and political involvement in the region. Reflecting the complexity of the situation, our cover story section brings you different viewpoints analyzing the Ukrainian crisis. Sir Robert Cooper addresses the redefinition of the EU´s foreign policy vision and role in global politics, Marek Cichocki looks at the EU through the lens of a non-member state such as Ukraine, while the interview with French historian Emmanuel Todd points out to the importance of demographics that will define the future balance of power in Europe. In this issue you will also find Katharina Blum’s assessment on the standing of Corporate Social Responsibility environment in Central Europe as well as interesting insights on the recent European Parliament elections from Frank Furedi and an ex-Member of the European Parliament, Leonidas Donskis. Last quarter was an immensely busy period for us at the Institute. In early April, we organized the first event commemorating this year’s triple anniversaries: the end of Communism, and the Central European countries’ accession to NATO and the EU. The expert 4 A S P E N A real commemoration of the democratic transformation came with the Aspen Annual Conference. The two-day event “The Big Bang. 25 Years Since Annus Mirabilis”, held in the beginning of June, was the highlight of this spring. The conference gathered eminent guests such as the Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, Slovak ex-Prime Minister Iveta Radičová, Ukrainian journalist Mykola Riabchuk, Professor Péter Balázs, Slovak diplomat Martin Bútora, Professor Cameron Munter and many others. Keynotes, debates and panels were structured so as to look ahead rather than only to reminisce. The positive feedback both from the national and international media and the engaged audience convinced us that it is crucial to foster and support debates on the future of Central Europe. During the event we also hosted a gathering of the International Committee, R E V I E W / F O R E W O R D events are part of our regionalization strategy and the efforts to establish the Aspen brand in the Central European region. composed of presidents and directors of all Aspen Institutes, and convened a meeting of the Aspen International Advisory Board. These and other side-events of the conference helped us strengthen the Aspen network and endorse our activities. In the midst of celebration mood however, we did not neglect other fields of interest. Following our focus on the digital agenda and Internet economy, we held an expert meeting titled “E-commerce as a Driver of Competitiveness” in April. The participants from e-business background shared their professional views on the actual state of e-commerce in Central Europe. Subsequently in June, with Platform for Internet Economy and Google Czech Republic, we co-organized an informal breakfast meeting with a Hungarian entrepreneur Adam Somlai-Fischer, the co-founder of Prezi. The event was focused on countless opportunities of the Internet entrepreneurship for Central European start-ups. Another topic we have been devoting our attention to is the concept of creative placemaking, which is the process of deploying art and cultural activities as tools to economically and socially revive localities, cities and regions. In May, we organized a public debate on that issue in the framework of the European Economic Congress in Katowice, Poland, another one took place at the music festival Pohoda in Slovakia in July. These two A S P E N R E V I E W / F O Cementing the network of supporters and collecting feedback from them is essential for us. For that purpose, we gave a BBQ party for the Friends of the Aspen Institute Prague in May, at the beautiful setting of the Vítkov Hill. Besides introducing the Institute´s activities to new members, it was a great opportunity for networking among the members themselves as well as with the AIP staff and representatives of the Board of Directors. If you are interested in joining the group, please contact me or my colleagues via a form available on our website. There, you will also find information about the upcoming events this fall, such as the presentation of the crowdfunding study or the Creative Placemaking Festival in November. I wish you a great summer and an inspiring reading. RADEK ŠPICAR Executive Director Aspen Institute Prague R E W O R D Photo: Aspen Institute Prague 5 EDITORIAL Central Europe Re-Enters history Aleksander Kaczorowski The specter of post-totalitarianism is again hanging over Central Europe. This term was coined years ago by Václav Havel. The author of The Power of the Powerless (1978) realized that the system prevailing in his country was a completely new socio-political phenomenon, the essence of which was a combination of dictatorship and consumer society. The post-totalitarian system survived wherever the citizens were content with the status of consumers: in the shape of the monarchy of Putin, Lukashenko’s state-owned farming estate, or the post-nomenclature oligarchies of Ukraine. Their fate was not determined by Huntington’s phantasms, but by the lack of a real perspective for a democratic integration (not only in terms of capital, production or trade) with the West. More than twenty five years ago Mikhail Gorbachev provoked communist elites in Central Europe to support the changes desired by the most active sections of the societies when it turned out that a necessary condition of internal reforms initiated by him in the USSR was the deepening of economic dependence of the region. At the same time, he himself encouraged them to act by ruling out military intervention in the region. He probably imagined that it would be possible to combine a relative democratization (glasnost’) and the consolidation of society around the Communist elite, allowing economic reforms to be carried out (perestroika). But it did not happen. The drive for freedom of the nations of Central Europe and the 6 A S P E N R ALEKSANDER KACZOROWSKI Editor in Chief of Aspen Review Photo: Jacek Herok Soviet Union in the years 1989–1991 led to the greatest geopolitical changes since the Second World War. In the area between the Adriatic Sea, the Baltic and the Black Sea, the best remedy for the challenges of globalization, structural backwardness of the region and lawlessness was seen in a “return to Europe.” Perhaps history is repeating itself now. Perhaps the post-totalitarian regime of Putin, trying to preserve its influence in Ukraine, provoked some local oligarchs to support the libertarian and pro-Western aspirations of the most active segments of the Ukrainian society. If so, the best remedy for the post-totalitarianism of Ukraine is a “return to (Central) Europe”. This is how Central Europe re-enters history. E V I E W / E D I T O R I A L COVER STORY The Shock of Ukraine Sir Robert Francis Cooper The EU needs to look again at its relationship with Russia. A relationship is unavoidable; but it should be treated exactly like that: an unavoidable necessity, to be handled witha certain coolness. If President Putin wanted to shock us, he succeeded. The Russian seizure of Crimea is shocking on four counts. First it breaches of one of the basic principles of international law; second, the discovery that the Russian view of the world is that force and power are the things that count is shocking; third, the Russian lied, and spread their lies in propaganda broadcasts to an extent we have not seen for years; and finally, the Russian policy of promoting instability and chaos in Ukraine is perhaps most shocking of all. Russia’s annexation of Crimea is without a precedent not just in the post-Cold War period, but in the whole post-war period. Crimea has not been a disputed territory, though its special relationship with Russia has always been understood. This was recognized in the agreement with Ukraine on the naval bases; but this agreement also made clear that Russia accepted Crimea as a part of Ukraine. The Russian action is in breach of the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, the Budapest Treaty as well as its bilateral agreements with Ukraine. The basis of international order is territorial, and the acquisition of territory by 8 A S P E N R E V force was something we believed in Europe had been banished to the history books. States break up, sometimes by negotiation as Czechoslovakia did, sometimes in bloodshed like Yugoslavia. Sometimes incorporation has never been fully accepted as in East Timor. But it is hard to think of another case where one state has taken over some of its neighbor’s territory in the post-war period; this was after all something we fought a war over in the Persian Gulf in 1991, with Russian support. Mr. Putin, as usual, quotes what he claims to be precedents—the tribute illegality pays to the law. He mentions Iraq (2002) and Libya. I have sympathy with those who say that it would have been better to stick more closely to international law. But in neither case was the acquisition of territory involved. The precedent he gives most space to is Kosovo. Here too neither the US nor anyone else added to their national territory. And the Kosovo declaration of independence came eight years after the military action, following a period under UN supervision, and a multilateral process involving the UN and many countries. I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y The Kosovo story begins in fact long before the military action, and includes many years in which the Albanian-speaking people were treated as second-class citizens. All this is different from Crimea.1 What does this action mean? It tells us that the world that Russia wants is one of power and not of law. Power and law are not incompatible— power may be used in accordance with the law and in support of the law. But in the Russian view—it now seems—power decides. Might is right. But it is not. Once you have decided that only power matters there is no longer any sense in talking about right and wrong.2 In this world, there are no rules, and power is limited only by opposing power. This is familiar as the classical “realist” position in international relations, a well-established theory, which applied in practice is capable of producing a nightmare world. Given these shocks, it is time that we—and this applies especially to Europe—awoke from the dream that Russia is going to become like us in any foreseeable timeframe. We have become used to a world in which things got better. Almost all of us are more free, more secure, more prosperous than at any time in our history. The tensions of the early days of the Cold War, with the regular crises over Berlin, gave way to the negotiated stability of the Berlin agreements and the Austrian State Treaty. The Soviet Union continued to enforce its will in the Warsaw Pact through armed forces, but kept to its sphere of influence. The state was oppressive, but there was stability. Then came 1989 and we seemed to have a chance for stability with freedom. We hoped that the intelligent and humane policies of Gorbachev would continue, and that little by little Russia would join our world, a more prosperous world in which the basic concepts were legal and economic: contract not conquest. This world is governed by law; and the power that enforces the law is jointly owned, and the society that A S P E N R E V I E W / C results is open. Freedom, prosperity, security: they all come from rules. It turns out that the Russian state does not need to join this world. Russia’s state, like Saudi Arabia’s, is funded by revenue from natural resources, and it does not need to be a part of the capitalist/democratic world.3 The dominant mode of thought in the Russian state is pre-capitalist; exploitation of natural resources is a form of conquest—you tear wealth from the earth as from the hands of your enemies. In such countries, revenue is collected from exported resources. Taxation, and therefore democracy, are less necessary. The idea of empire can still be rational for a country that functions in this way. This action tells us that the world that Russia wants is one of power and not of law. Power and law are not incompatible—power may be used in accordance with the law and in support of the law. But in the Russian view—it now seems—power decides. Over the years since Putin arrived in power we should have taken better note of Russia’s return to bad habits. Mikhail Khordorkovsky, Aslan Maskhadov, Anna Politkovskaya (killed, mafia style, on Putin’s birthday) Alexander Litvinenko, Sergei Magnitsky, and many more should have taught us the sort of state we were dealing with. The EU needs to look again at its relationship with Russia. A relationship is unavoidable; but it should be treated exactly like that: an unavoidable O V E R S T O R Y 9 necessity, to be handled with a certain coolness. The terminology of “strategic partnership” was always ridiculous. (The EU has only one strategic partner—the USA). Even “partnership” applies only in a limited number of fields, such as Iran or commercial relations—though here too Russia’s record of keeping its commitments is poor— in the WTO, on overflying rights, or in its abuse of health regulations as a weapon against this or that member state. Doing business with those who lie and break their word requires, at the minimum, continuous skepticism. The benefit of the doubt should be systematically withheld. Whenever we find ourselves drifting towards thinking that Russia is trustworthy or predictable, we should pinch ourselves and wake up. Now Russia has arrears to make good; and they will need a track record before they can be taken seriously as partners. Most shocking is Russia’s active destabilization of a neighbor. It is wrong to think in terms of a return to the Cold War—nothing ever returns in the same form—but this nonetheless recalls Stalin’s approach to Europe in the first years after the war, when his policy was to wait while Europe fell deeper into crisis, making it into material for a Communist takeover. This is how George Marshall saw Stalin at a meeting with him following six weeks of fruitless negotiation on the future of Germany. Stalin doodled wolf’s heads on a note pad, showing no sign that he thought it urgent to put Germany or Europe back on its feet. On his return to Washington Marshall set in hand the work that became the Marshall Plan—which meant rebuilding Europe without Russia. The situation today is not the same. In one respect it is worse. Stalin’s policy was passive; but he was a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist, and the previous decade had provided support for the idea that capitalism was doomed to collapse and that conflict between capitalist countries was written into the laws of history. So Stalin was in no hurry. Mr. Putin’s policy includes the active 10 A S P E N R E V promotion of chaos. Perhaps he understands the West better than Stalin. Perhaps he understands that free and successful countries across the border from Ukraine make people there want the same for themselves; and he fears what would happen if, one day, something similar appeared on his own borders. Most shocking is Russia’s active destabilization of a neighbor. It is wrong to think in terms of a return to the Cold War, but this nonetheless recalls Stalin’s approach to Europe in the first years after the war, when his policy was to wait while Europe fell deeper into crisis, making it into material for a Communist takeover. In its dealings with the EU, Russia has contested the terminology “common neighborhood.” For the EU side, this was inexplicable; but it may be the Russians disliked the implication that our relations with the countries in between were on a similar footing. It is true that Russia’s history and cultural links with Ukraine go back a long way—but so do those of the Habsburg Monarchy. That there was some kind of contest over Ukraine was apparent from the (failed) Orange Revolution onwards. But the contest was a strange affair because the EU was only half-heartedly engaged. Some EU member states are opposed even to the thought that I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y Ukraine might one day apply for membership (hence their refusal to admit that Ukraine is a European country). The real contest is not between the EU and Russia but between Russia and those in Ukraine who would like a closer association with the EU. The European view has always been that we should not ask Ukraine to choose between Europe and Russia. In spite of everything this remains correct. Here is another difference in philosophy between the EU and Russia. The EU thinks of countries as equal, free to choose their own future.4 Russia seems to believe in a hierarchy in which strong countries do what they want and weak countries do what they are told. The EU wants strong, well-governed states on its borders; Russia wants weak states, which it can dominate. If the Eurasian Union is based on this logic—an economic version of the Warsaw Pact—it will probably not do well. The test of power in the long run is peace, not war. The men in balaclavas are unlikely to be good at administration. Our response to all this matters. The threat posed by Russia to an order of law and security needs a response. We need to give Russia incentives to restore legality; and disincentives to go further. Whatever we do should be sustainable over a long period; since it is unlikely that these policies will be reversed quickly. In the post-war period, Moscow’s policies targeted points of weakness. They all failed: Truman sent assistance to Greece and Turkey where Stalin was helping the civil war in the one and threatening the other. The Berlin was countered by the Berlin blockade—plus a retaliatory ban on trade with the Soviet Zone. The US and others responded with armed force in Korea. And over the time Soviet attempts to incorporate the countries of Eastern Europe into their sphere of influence also failed. Some of the failure was built into the policies: ordinary Germans did not want chaos, and by end of the blockade, they were convinced that the allies, especially the Americans, were their friends. But without the A S P E N R E V I E W / C Western, mostly American, response Stalin’s policies might have succeeded. We have our own weaknesses, of which the most important is our dependence on Russian energy. Much has been done to improve the position of many EU members, but also much remains to be done still. The most important weakness, however, is the weakness of Ukraine, which has been badly governed ever since it left the Soviet Union (and even worse while it was inside). Borderlands are difficult places. Belgium has been the scene of more battles per hectare than anywhere else on the earth5; Alsace-Lorraine (and the Saar) was a problem for centuries before it became the cornerstone of a solution, and a cause of war before it became a cause of peace. Alto Adige was subject to battles through a thousand years and terrorist attacks until late in the 20th century. And borderlands are all the more difficult when relations between the bordering powers are contested. Ukraine will need financial help. This will be useless unless Ukraine has a legitimate government that unites the country. Financial conditionality is not enough. If politics remains corrupt, assistance will be wasted. If Ukraine is to be strong, its government needs to respond to legitimate local interests. It may be right too, for the EU to assist with security and justice as well as with economic management. A purely technocratic program will be money wasted; the weakness in Ukraine is political and like the Marshall Plan our response needs to be political. These programs should also be accompanied by a major media effort. Not propaganda, but reliable reporting. Whether this can work will depend on finding leaders in Ukraine with courage and vision. Unhappily, post-Soviet Ukraine has been governed in ways that are not so different from post-Soviet Russia. Unless this can be changed, that is where they will end up. Mr. Poroshenko says many of the right things, and he is rich O V E R S T O R Y 11 enough to have no excuse for corruption himself. He has a strong mandate. But turning a corrupted state around is one of the most difficult tasks in the world. His job is to re-found the state. For this he will need the courage of a lion and the cunning of a fox. To repeat, this is not the Cold War. Putin is not Stalin, and Russia is not the Soviet Union. Oil and gas is a big part of the government budget but a decreasing part of GNP. The names of Magnitsky, Khordorkovsky and Politkovslaya should remind us that there is a free society waiting to get out. Therefore, we should not cut ourselves off from Russia, nor from the Russian people, but we should be careful, skeptical, and less starry eyed in dealing with its leaders. One final difference from the beginning of the Cold War needs attention. In 1945, the Soviet Union was a world scale power. The threat of a Communist takeover in Europe was real. Communism was strong in many European countries. Today no one believes in Communism; Russia is rather second rate, and has little to offer the world except gas. Putin’s Eurasian Union looks like a further step in retreat. Russia is now a regional nuisance rather than a global threat. It is no longer a serious threat to the USA—though it now challenges the order that America has built. But with Western Europe an established ally, and most of central Europe secure, Washington’s interest in Ukraine is not of the same order as its interest in Western Europe seventy years ago. Europe’s interest however is unchanged: this is to have well governed neighbors. Europe must therefore be ready to take more of the burden. If we do, we can be sure of American support. We will also need courage and vision. PS: This is a bad moment for Britain to question its own EU future. SIR ROBERT FRANCIS COOPER, KCMG, MVO (born 1947 in Essex, United Kingdom) is a British diplomat and advisor currently serving as a Special Advisor at the European Commission with regard to Myanmar. He is also a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations and is an acclaimed publisher on foreign affairs. Photo: Archive of Robert Cooper 1 One might accuse Mr. Putin of being inconsistent: if he wants to quote Kosovo as a precedent for the legitimacy of his actions, he should recognise it. But inconsistency is the least important of his faults. 2 “Force should be right. Or rather right and wrong, between whose endless justice resides, should lose their names, and so should justice too.” Troilus and Cressida 3 A question for the future is whether China, which is closer to being a normal capitalist country, will in the end also need a more normal legal system. 4 Having equal rights, that is. This is not the same as having equal influence. 5 Belgium was contested at different times by France, Spain, the Netherlands—at one time a considerable power—the Empire/Germany, and Britain. 12 A S P E N R E V I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y Why Enlargement Brakes? Marek A. Cichocki The case of Ukraine and the European reaction on it proved once again a general truth about the enlargement. Without this most effective soft power weapon in the EU’s arsenal, the European project remains helpless towards the external world. For a long time enlargement was estimated as the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the EU’s foreign policy, a symbol of its unique effective soft power. It was even something more because enlargement was also taken as the proof for EU’s ability of strategic thinking and acting vis-à-vis its nearest neighborhood. Thus, there was a substantive link binding the political will to extend the borders of the European unity project with the strong European self-confidence. Now, a decade after its most successful enlargement of 2004, the strategic impetus of the European project has slowed down to such extend that the whole process of enlargement is in danger to brake entirely. This development tells us a lot about the current state of the EU and how much the world around Europe has changed recently as well. The EU of today doesn’t believe any more in itself. The idea of enlargement has been always accompanied by deep hesitation on Europe’s ontological status, raising endless and inconclusive questions of the real borders of our continent. In a nutshell, the optimists and proponents of the enlargement argued that the real borders of the European project start always where reluctance to set and promote the European values A S P E N R E V I E W / C occurs. The geography does not matter much from that point of view which—being embedded in a sort of European idealism—has reflected a naïve but moving conviction on Promethean essence of the integration. The process of integration has to maintain its open nature as the founding fathers indicated in the Rome treaty and the prosperity, peace and happiness cumulated in united European countries cannot remain an exclusive good and must be shared with those who barely aspire to be members of the club. This idealistic approach has revealed in two recent decades to have quite practical geopolitical consequences as it has provided the basis for a powerful and attractive response of Europe to the collapse of the Soviet Union and changed entirely the fate of the Central and Eastern part of Europe. Jan Zielonka, a Polish scholar who analyzed the impressive enhancement of enlargement capabilities in Europe in the outset of 21st century, argues in his book on The EU as Empire that this strength and ambition encapsulated in the enlargement project derives from the fact that the EU turned into new form of a postmodern empire, an internally highly complex but externally assertive political entity. If that was the O V E R S T O R Y 13 case, this new empire had been in deep crisis before it started really to exist. It is to imagine that the process of enlargement has not been driven by any deep strategic convictions but by pure interests of a part of the EU members. In short, it is quite conceivable and justified to see the enlargement in terms of occasional national interests rather than of strategic goals and values. First and foremost it was German unification that triggered the idea of eastern enlargement to be on roll. It seemed a natural next step in the wake of the fall of Berlin wall and not by accident it was completely consistent with economic and security interests of a big Germany placed now in the middle of the continent. This development was in the interest of the UK as well, which sought to water down the political dimension of the Union and hoped to reach that aim through enlargement. There was an additional factor enabling the whole process of enlargement. Russia was practically absent from the international political stage in Europe of the 1990s, and this fortunate situation facilitated completion of the eastern enlargement. Now the interests linked to the eastern enlargement have been mostly satisfied, at least in the German case, but the favorable international aura for new candidates has passed definitively. The Europe’s failure in the Arab Spring has shown the limits of the European foreign policy and of its ability to influence positively the situation in North Africa and Middle East. But especially in the East the EU has faced the strong opponent to its further enlargement policy—Russia, which has resolvedly refused to accept any activities of the EU in its post-soviet sphere of influence. The crisis on the Vilnius summit in 2013, the refusal of Yanukovych to sign the association agreement and the attempt to suppress the civil protests in Ukraine with the Russia’s support marked the turning point. For the first time (with exception of Georgia in 2008—the warning never taken seriously in Europe) the EU’s soft power exerted in order 14 A S P E N R E V to widen the European influence in the neighborhood with rather modest promise of future membership has met with violent response. It was a shock for many in Europe and it has confirmed many fears and prejudices that have History accelerates again and the lack of strategic assertiveness and strength of the EU in times of an unprecedented upheaval in Ukraine can undermine in turn the European project as such. always accompanied the process of enlargement. It is paradoxical that the most successful political and economic project, which enlargement probably was in the whole postwar integration history of Europe, has become for many in Western and Southern parts of the Union the source of all evil. Immigration, unemployment, confrontation with Russia have been indicated as negative consequences of the enlargement process and fueled the rising political power of far right, anti-European parties in many of old member counties, foremost in France and the Netherlands. One could currently doubt whether the idea of enlargement is still present in the EU’s political agenda. But history accelerates again and the lack of strategic assertiveness and strength of the EU in times of an unprecedented upheaval in Ukraine can undermine in turn the European project as such. It is not clear whether the societies and the political elite in old member states I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y really understand the meaning of current challenge comprised by the future of Ukraine. France, immersed in its own identity fatigue, seeks to keep Germany as close as possible in the framework of a restored small Europe. The UK is on the way to its deep splendid isolation from the EU and European affairs. Germany, as usual, is dramatizing the issue of its potential leadership in the EU, which can never be realized partly because of the historical identity problems partly of the failed strategic choices (Russia first). If this political uncertainty and instability correlates now with the wide spread anti-European mode in electorates, the EU’ external activities can become blocked for a long time. Finally, it is a question of the ability to provide new political instruments in order to solve the new political problems. If not enlargement, then what? After the last successful rounds of enlargement, but simultaneously facing the growing problems in accession negotiations with Turkey, the EU failed to construct new political instruments for its political presence and influence in the neighborhood to replace the enlargement perspective, which the EU itself doesn’t believe in any more. For a short time the concept of the ENP gave some basis for rather modest hopes which, however, were quickly frustrated after the Europe’s failure in Libya and at the Vilnius summit. There is a strong suspicion that Europe would have probably left Ukraine on its own and played it into the hands of Putin if it had not been for the victims at Majdan and the strong resistance of many ordinary Ukrainians, who didn’t accept the fact that a new wall had been built by Yanukovich between their country and Europe. This confused the politicians and the public opinion in the West and put them under obligation to act, even if reluctantly and with lacking self-confidence. The case of Ukraine and the European reaction on it proved once again a general truth about the enlargement. Without this most effective soft power weapon in the EU’s arsenal, the European project remains help- A S P E N R E V I E W / C less towards the external world. But there is one more, even more important lesson to be drawn from the Ukrainian case: the EU without enlargement perspective loses its own compass, contests its own values, and turns into an irrelevant selfish club of members. MAREK ALEKSANDER CICHOCKI is the Research Director of the Natolin European Centre in Warsaw as well as Editor-in-chief of the magazine “New Europe. Natolin Review”. From 2007 to 2010 Advisor to the President of the Republic of Poland and Sherpa for the negotiations of the Lisbon Treaty. Since 2003 he is also publisher and Editor-in-chief of the “Teologia Polityczna” yearly. Permanent professor in the Institute of Applied Social Sciences of the University of Warsaw. Photo: Archive Natolin O V E R S T O R Y 15 We Live in a World of Ailing Powers The supernova shines with an extremely bright light, but a moment later it falls apart. Today’s EU is a supernova— says Emmanuel Todd in an interview with Maciej Nowicki How do you assess the actions of the EU in Ukraine? The EU position on Ukraine is awfully vague and chaotic. And little wonder: we do not know whether the Union still exists at all. Europe today is not a community. It has become a tool to pursue national interests by individual states. This is particularly true in the case of the economy— Berlin imposed an economic policy on the EU, which benefits only the Germans. And this is what we also see in this case. Let us start from the beginning—when Yanukovych’s rule was collapsing, we saw Steinmeier, Sikorski and Fabius in Kiev… EMMANUEL TODD But Fabius left after one day… France is a completely confused country. It has no goals in domestic and external policy. It can do only one thing: adapt to the Germany line. Let us be clear—it was Steinmeier who took Fabius to Kiev—as part of his hand luggage. Why should Fabius go to Kiev? For the French, Ukraine means absolutely nothing. Just as for the whole of Western Europe. There are only three countries interested in Ukraine, countries for which it is something specific. I mean Germany and Poland, for historical and obvious reasons, and Sweden—for rather 16 A S P E N R E V French demographer, political scientist, sociologist, historian. An employee of the Paris Institute of Demographic Studies (INED—Institut national d’études démographiques). Author of much publicized books, including The Final Fall (orig. La Chute final. Essais sur la decomposition de la sphère Soviétique, 1976 ), which announced the end of the USSR, and After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order (orig. Après l’empire. Essai sur la Decomposition du système américain, 2002). Photo: Photo: Frédéric Sénard puzzling reasons. Germany, Poland and Sweden have used the EU to pursue a policy which suits them. Initially, it was not a matter between Russia and the EU. It became such as a result of I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y the pressure of these three countries. And with a disastrous effect. After the annexation of the Crimea the EU sought to drive Putin into a corner, force him to react. And it lost this battle. It was only after the fact that the EU noticed that only Putin had an army. Europeans were trying to do something historically new and certainly absurd—to pursue a policy of expansion without military resources. I think they took their illusions seriously and came to the conclusion that in today’s world the only thing that exists is the economy. 80 % of voters believe that Hollande is ridiculous. Industry is in decline and unemployment is at historical highs. European elections interest no one. Europe is not associated in France with any positive values. And it looks like this in most EU countries. Citizens of Southern Europe have become subhuman, and the whole Union is a disgusting hierarchical machinery, in which the stronger—today Germany—is always right. The Union is collapsing. And the games with Ukraine and bringing Yanukovych down remind me of the supernova phenomenon. The star shines with an extremely bright light, but a moment later falls apart. Today’s EU is such a supernova. This policy of expansion without military resources had been working very well for Europe. For example in 2004. In the case of Ukraine it somehow failed. Ukraine does not have its own dynamics. It is an amorphous zone, unable to modernize on its own—modernization has always come from the outside. Ukraine could slip out of the Russian orbit only by leaping onto the orbit of another power. But where? America is too far away. And Europe is not a military power and has no money. And even if it had, it does not intend to make Ukraine its satellite, pumping billions of euro there. As a result, the EU has achieved only one thing through its recent actions: it has speeded up the disintegration of Ukraine. Europe had come with the same intentions as always: with the dream of drawing another state into the liberal, capitalist, harmonious space. And in fact it destroyed the strained state, which had not even have the time to hatch. And Russia? Russia is growing in strength. An extraordinary amount of time and energy was wasted to convince everyone that Russia was in dire straits, that nothing good was happening there, and only a further decline is possible. Millions of articles have been written about how disgusting Putin is. Of course, Russia is not a democracy—it has always been a rather brutal country, where the collective was more important than individuals were. At the same time never in its history has Russia been such a free country as it is today. Under the tsarist regime and especially under Communism it was much worse… That is not all: in 1976, I wrote a book in which I predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, based on demographic data. Mortality was increasing, the number of births was falling etc. Today, the opposite is true—mortality decreases, the average life expectancy lengthens… You accuse the EU. And Russia? After all, it is the actions of Moscow in the east of the country which are aimed at dismantling Ukraine… Let us get beyond anecdotal evidence. It is time to understand that something more is at stake. Let us go back to 1989. After the fall of communism, Russia was incredibly weakened. And the balance of power moved towards the EU—Europe united and became a political actor. But today we live in different times. Take France: A S P E N R E V I E W / C It is still lower than in Mongolia. Not to mention alcoholism or mental diseases—the statistics are staggering… That is true. But the situation is improving. The number of acts of violence, killings and alcoholics decreases. Fertility rate is at 1.65— it is still not enough. But in Poland it is only 1.3. O V E R S T O R Y 17 And how far will this go? You have always insisted that the attempt to draw Ukraine into the West would never work, because part of Ukraine is too deeply rooted in Russianness. But Putin has exactly the same problem. Dimitri Trenin emphasizes that the absorption of Ukraine would be very difficult for Russia, stabilizing the east of the country would cost more money than Moscow has, and they would also have to separate the West, which is very anti-Russian. I do not think that the Russians want to divide Ukraine. They know that Ukraine is not uniform, that the western part desperately does not want to be Russian. I think that Moscow would prefer a federation and controlling Ukraine through Russian-speaking provinces. It seems to me that the Russian project assumes maintaining the integrity of Ukraine… The unemployment rate is 4 %. Added to all this is a sense of pride in overcoming the terrible 20-years long crisis—because in the 1990s Russia slid down incredibly low. This is a country where today, there is hope. In short, on the eastern border a power is reborn, which again becomes attractive to its periphery… And which says—Putin has repeatedly emphasized this—that Ukraine is just a pipe dream, that Ukrainian people have never existed… In Russia, we see an effective nation building, and in Ukraine we see defeat. Of course, there is such a thing as the Ukrainian culture. Anthropological patterns are different here than in Russia—much more individualistic, anarchic, closer to those in Poland. But Ukraine has one fundamental problem. Russia had existed before the rise of the Soviet Union, while Ukraine practically never did. It was not about recovering after a big change, after the earthquake, which the collapse of communism was. Here it was necessary to build the state from scratch. And this project was completely unsuccessful. Ukraine is now a failed state. We were constantly hearing about the demographic problems of Russia. So let me quote a number here— since the fall of the Soviet Union, the population of Ukraine has shrunk by 12.5%. And it is not just an ordinary demographic crisis, as until recently in Russia. A large-scale migration is superimposed on that. Europe, Canada and the USA steal the best part of the population from Ukraine: the young and the educated. A society from which young people with degrees are fleeing does not have too much of a chance of success. And one more thing: in 1991, Russian-speaking residents of the east of Ukraine did not mind finding themselves outside Russia. In the 1990s, everyone wanted to dismantle Russia, even the Russians themselves. Because then, Russia was collapsing. Today, Ukraine is falling apart. Why do people want to go back to Russia? Not because Putin has manipulated them but because Russia becomes attractive again. 18 A S P E N R E V But how do we know that Russia really has such a plan? And even if it has, how do we know that everything will go according to the plan? Apparently Putin’s plan was to control Ukraine through Yanukovych, but as we know, Yanukovich was brought down… It is true—we do not have any guarantee that this will happen. The train of history may be unable to stop. Perhaps Moscow will have to take the Donbass Region, for Russian-speaking population wants to go back to their mother country at any price. Because for these people it is the only way of regaining self-esteem. And then a further breakdown of Ukraine will occur. Because the inhabitants of Kiev and the inhabitants of Lvov are completely different species. And they will be unable to live together in peace. A further disintegration will happen. And that is why I understand the concerns of the Poles. Because what is happening today is exactly what Poland wanted to avoid… I do not forget Katyń or the fact that the Red Army stood with its guns down during the Warsaw Uprising, allowing the massacre of Poles. But Stalin also did I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y their lost pride. How do we know what will satisfy them? Russians are nationalists. Nationalism is idiotic but as they have been maltreated for the last 20 years, it does not surprise me at all that they want to go on a rampage now. Besides all powers are by nature unbearable. There is no such thing as a very nice power. You need to find a balance and learn to live in peace. Poland has no other choice. You could at a pinch suspect Moscow that it wants to regain the “new Russia,” of which is Putin speaking so much. But I think that the Russians have once and for all come to terms with the fact that Poland is part of the West. And one more thing: I would like to clarify what I said earlier. It is true—Russia regains strength. But this is not a return to the old empire, it is not some incredible dynamics. The current geopolitical balance was disturbed only because Russia is coming back to relative health. We live in a world of ailing powers. What led to the disasters of the twentieth century was the demographic dynamics. The French, the Germans, the Russians were developing at a crazy pace and seeking territories for expansion. Today, everybody is experiencing a more or less serious demographic collapse. From the Russian point of view, some great territorial progression makes no sense, because even as it is now, Russia is too big for its population. Therefore, we are moving towards a great disaster. The demographic crisis also has its positive side. In such a universe, it is easier to get along. something good for Poland—he moved it, he gave Poland boundaries which were geographically and ethnically flawless. The most important problem for Poland after 1989 was whether the Germans would question the border on the Oder and Neisse rivers. It did not happen. But today the boundaries are moving again: Ukraine exploded. And this is just the beginning of a change— because Russia is going up, and the EU is losing its importance. And on top of it, chances that Poland will behave sensibly here are less than 1 in 10. Because Poland is too accustomed to an aggressive attitude towards Russia. It is unable to get rid of this posture. I have no doubt about the fact that Poland has found itself in a bad situation. But I do not quite understand your position. Poland recognized the borders of Ukraine and abandoned any revisionist leanings. We have not claimed the right to, for example, Lvov, which had been a Polish city. While Russia is practicing full-blown revisionism today, questions the existing borders. Who is aggressive here? Let me put it another way—today’s Europe has nothing to do with Europe from the 1990s, which was dynamic, full of optimism. If push comes to shove, it will just leave the Poles to their own devices. Because it is weak and full of hypocrisy. In contrast, recovering the lost power by Russia is a long-term phenomenon, with which you will have to learn to live. I do not think that the policy of confrontation with a resurgent power, that is Russia, where the main ally of Poland is supposed to be a power losing importance, that is the EU, is a good policy. It is rather a recipe for disaster and disappointment. MACIEJ NOWICKI is Deputy Editor in Chief of Aspen Review Central Europe. Photo: Maciej Nowicki Well, what are we supposed to do? You assume that the West and the Poles are full of resentment and negative emotions, and the Russians are an embodiment of moderation and common sense. But the Russians are driven today mainly by one thing—an attempt to recover A S P E N R E V I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y 19 What Does the Russian Elite Really Believe in? Peter Pomerantsev In the Kremlin’s world view there is no such thing as genuine political philosophy, there is only “political technology,” a very post-Soviet term which defines all political language as mere means At a somewhat high-minded conference in Kiev this May, the west’s (slightly self-appointed) intellectuals, from Bernard Henri-Levi through Leon Wieseltier, Paul Berman and François Heisbourg, gathered to discuss “the meaning of Ukrainian pluralism for Europe, Russia and the world.” Most agreed about the importance of what is happening in and over Ukraine, and that today’s Kremlin poses a new authoritarian challenge. Many argued that Russia is the carrier of a powerful ideology based on social and religious conservatism, and that it was key for the liberals of the world to unite and stand up to it. While I agree that Russia is indeed a challenge to the global order, I think it is a grievous mistake to believe it a carrier of a genuine conservative message. The danger is that after confronting a powerful, and very real religious conservative movement in the face of radical Islam, the west now misdiagnoses Russia’s underlying, dangerous ideology, and thus uses the wrong strategy to defeat it. While religious conservative rhetoric has become a staple in Russian propaganda, with attacks on decadent gay-Europa contrasted with invocations of Holy Russia, one should always be careful at taking the Kremlin’s words at face value. 20 A S P E N R E V The same Russian elites who now profess themselves religious conservatives were committed democrats just a few years ago, and avowed young Communists in their youth. They might now shout about Holy Russia fighting the fallen west but the vast majority, allegedly including Putin, have their children and funds in the same west they so decry. “The same people who used to be Komsomols then became committed democrats and have now transformed into patriots—and we’re meant to believe them?” asked the dissident Alexey Navalny at his rigged trial last year. Indeed the claim that Russia is any sort of religious bastion doesn’t stand much scrutiny: only 3% of Russians who say they are Orthodox (in itself only a certain amount of the population) go to church often; many who say they are religious also say they don’t believe in God; divorce and abortion rates are very high. Even Russian homophobia has less to do with religious values but more with the huge influence of prison culture which sees passive gays as the lowest of the low: it’s prison songs, known as “chanson,” rather than hymns, which are Russia’s most popular musical form, and Putin consciously models his language to imitate a gangster rather than a priest. I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y Whatever it is Russia, is not on the edge of a religious revolution à la Khomeini. So how to understand the mind-sets of the Kremlin elite? What does Putin really believe? To understand this generation of Russian power-brokers one needs to go back to the late Soviet period when they came of age. The Soviet 1970s and 1980s were punctuated with a very cynical attitude to the official, ruling Communist ideology. “Perestroika came much too late,” remembers Alexander Yakovlev, one of Gorbachev’s mentors, “the years of social stagnation almost killed social idealism… sowing cynicism, disbelief and social lassitude.”“Cynicism and double think was the defining emotion of the late USSR,” agrees Lev Gudkov, head of the polling group Levada Center, “exemplified by the joke “we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” Homo Sovieticus learnt to live with a split consciousness: a private world with one set of values and a public one where lying was ritual. To ask what any one person “believed” was always the wrong question: Soviet citizens grew up with several narratives in their heads, and switched between them whenever necessary. Now the people who grew up with this mind-set have grown up they have created a system which is always transforming itself according to the latest need. The Kremlin regime’s salient feature is a liquid, shape-shifting approach to power: freed from the cumbersome body of “hard” totalitarianism, the leaders of today’s Kremlin can speak like liberal modernizers in the morning and religious fanatics in the afternoon. The regime morphs from monarchist to oligarchy, from free market authoritarianism à la Pinochet to sinister populism à la Chavez, its willfully contradictory slogans taunting any attempts at definition: “conservative modernization,” “managed democracy,” “competition without change.” For the past two years a “Holy Russia” versus “decadent west” message has been useful to rebrand a new generation of domestic dissidents as “fifth columnists.” Since hundreds of thousands began A S P E N R E V I E W / C to protest against Putin’s regime in 2011/2012 the Kremlin has managed to change the agenda away from domestic corruption and economic stagnation to discussion about the “clash of civilizations.” It has worked, Putin’s ratings are back up. But it is critical to understand that this rhetoric is a case of the Kremlin using the church and religious language for political purposes, rather than the church taking over the Kremlin. In the Kremlin’s worldview there is no such thing as genuine political philosophy, there is only “political technology,” a very post-Soviet term, which defines all political language as mere means (if another political language works better at any given time- one can switch to it). The “political technologists” are the key figures of the Russian system, modern viziers who control the political process like Wizards of Oz, creating political parties to set the agenda, scripting media and setting up faux civil society organizations to drive the national debate the way the Kremlin wants. Perhaps the most famous political technologist is Vladislav Surkov, who ran the inner Russian political system in the first decade of the 21st century, is credited with inventing “sovereign democracy,” and now helps Putin in controlling Russia’s near abroad, including Ukraine. In a semi-autobiographical novel, “Almost Zero,” Surkov tells the story of a rotten PR man, Egor. Having grown up in the sham ideology of the late USSR, and then seen so many political models, from liberalism through mafia state, change with such blistering progression, Egor feels himself a sort of post-Soviet superman who can see through the fakery of all political language “through to the heights of creation,” filled with a triumphant cynicism, convinced all motivations are corrupt. Though the novel’s satire of contemporary Russia might seem anti-establishment, it actually feeds into the underlying mind-set used to buttress Putinism: reform in Russia, or Ukraine, is impossible as democracy everywhere is a sham. An offshoot of this cynicism is a conspiracy-laden explanation of world affairs: if all motivations are corrupt then hidden forces are behind everything. O V E R S T O R Y 21 And this liquid approach to ideology poses its own global dangers: it means the Kremlin can reach out and build alliances with quite different groups, finding the right message for each. European right-nationalists such as Hungary’s Jobbik and France’s Front Nationale are seduced with anti-EU rhetoric; the anti-globalist left with anti-Americanism. The Kremlin’s propaganda news channel, RT (formerly Russia Today) is a platform for the Kremlin’s efforts to attract a contradictory kaleidoscope of ideological friends: Julian Assange had a show on RT, 9/11 conspiracy theories are given generous space; Nigel Farage of the right-wing non-parliamentary United Kingdom Independence Party is also regularly featured. What all these groups have in common is a hatred of the west, and Russia is successfully maneuvering itself to be the leader of the world’s resentment against “western hegemony,” whatever the source of that resentment is. This is potentially a very large constituency. China and India, for example, have been slow to criticize Russia for annexing Crimea. RT is the world’s most watched news channel on YouTube, with over a billion hits. The anti-western alliance is growing: and Putin is determined to be at its helm. So how does the west respond to this new threat? If one frames the conflict with the Kremlin as “Russian religious-conservatism” versus “liberalism” one only strengthens the Kremlins illusions, firming up sectors of its global alliances. Instead, the west has to reveal Russian cynicism for what it is, constantly showing how words and actions do not match up. To counter the underlying Kremlin message that no change is possible because all motivations are corrupt, the west should focus on positive examples of change and support those who believe it is possible. But the west’s ability to battle Russian cynicism is badly undermined by our own readiness to launder and profit Russian money coming to the west, and ignore our own money laundering laws. Even the sanctions against Kremlin elites over the Crimea were mild, stopping at anything that 22 A S P E N R E V would damage the Kremlin system. Practically this helps to strengthen the Kremlin system, allowing its elites to manipulate western governments by making them dependent on Russian cash, but just as importantly it reinforces the Kremlin argument that the west’s values are a sham. This needs to change. If western governments are not prepared to squeeze the nexus between Russian money and its recipients in the west, then civil society needs to step in, investigating, naming and shaming corrupt flows and those who profit for them. At present, UK anti-corruption NGOs such as Global Witness or Tax Watch barely engage with Russia: an absurdity, given that so much Russian money flows through the UK. Ultimately, international networks of anti-corruption NGOs could play a similar role to that of Human Rights campaigners played in the 1970s and 80s. Russia has signed up to any number of international anti-corruption initiatives and commitments. It has at least officially pledged to fight corruption at home. It is up to an international civil society push to make these initiatives real and force both Russian and western governments to “abide by their own laws.” This is ultimately what makes the challenge of the Kremlin’s underlying ideology so important. Two versions of globalization are at stake. One based on corruption and cynicism, which argues that all ideals are for sale and all motivations are corrupt, and the other which strives for a utopian global village. The most committed utopians are now to be found in Kiev and Moscow, prepared to risk their lives for what they believe in. In this sense Ukraine is indeed key, the theater where the clash of cynicism and idealism is most urgent. PETER POMERANTSEV is a television producer and nonfiction writer, the author of Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia (2014). He lives in London. Photo: Archive Pomerantsev I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y Europe: the Return of Politics Luuk van Middelaar The Union after the Euro-crisis and in Ukraine Crisis On New Year’s Eve 2011, a sober but moving ceremony took place in the Estonia theatre in Tallinn. Prime-minister Ansip withdrew his country’s first euros from an ATM outside the building, walked back inside and delivered a fine speech to the nation. “First and foremost,” he started, “what the euro means to us is security. The euro is our security that Estonia is really part of Europe.” Those were the days when American commentators were predicting the euro’s precise end date, speculators were betting billions on a Greek exit, and euro governments were struggling summit after summit to prevent “financial contagion.” Even its friends joked that Estonia had bought “the last ticket to the Titanic.” Three years on, it seems the small Baltic country was smarter than many Anglo-Saxon pundits. Not only has the eurozone survived the crisis, but due to a grave conflict with Russia, the rest of Europe, too, is learning fast to appreciate the political value of membership. Meanwhile, Latvia adopted the euro too, Lithuania is next in line and Poland could accelerate its bid. For these countries, euro membership is not just a matter of economics, but also of politics— even security. A crisis is a moment of truth. When the ground under your feet is shaking, when an opponent A S P E N R E V I E W / C suddenly knocks on the door, you discover what inner strength you possess. An individual or political body can learn more about themselves in such single moments than weeks or years when time is just going by. Two such moments of brutal clarification hit the countries of Europe in a short time. The euro crisis mercilessly tested the resolve of leaders and peoples to save the single currency. The geopolitical standoff around Ukraine forces a joint response to a show of force. Both these vital tests bring uncomfortable truths, but also empowering clarifications. In both cases, it is about the Return of Politics. Four principles in particular can be seen with new clarity. First: the European Union is about politics, not just the economy. Second: it works through power, not only with values and rules. Third: it has become a daily reality for all, not just a ”project” for a few. Fourth: the Union is a club of states and peoples, and bound to remain so. To grasp their full significance, we must resist the media temptation to simply move the spotlights onto the next drama. As twitter conversations move seamlessly from banking policy priorities and Greek coalition puzzles to Kremlin-watching and Maidan-support, one risks O V E R S T O R Y 23 overlooking the powerful insights the euro saga holds for the Union’s upcoming challenges. Both in the euro crisis and now in Ukraine questions of sacrifice and solidarity come to the fore. Are we ready to help others to protect monetary stability and unity? Are we ready to inflict pain on Russia, and face some in return, to stand up for European interests and values? These tough questions are perhaps the surest sign the Union is moving into new political territory. Unsurprisingly, Euro-skeptics watch the contours of a more political Europe with suspicion and are ready to exploit people’s fears for it in the upcoming European elections. Marine Le Pen of the Front National and Nigel Farage of British UKIP, both cheering when the euro was in danger, are today fully aligned with the Kremlin over Crimea. More intriguingly, the euro-federalist camp has its reserves too. The Return of Politics challenges some illusions and shakes the self-image of the Brussels orthodoxy. Was the European Community not supposed to be the avant-garde of global peace, the forerunner of the End of History or at least the supersession of the nationstate? Was “Europe” not the promise of an End to politics-as-we-knew it? Hence perhaps the lukewarm welcome in federalist circles to its Return. Let us look in more detail at these four political fundamentals. to avoid bank runs or a Great Depression. But mid-2012, once German and French banks had reduced their exposure to Greek debt, it was felt in some circles that a Grexit was financially manageable. What tilted the balance, also in Berlin, The Hague or Helsinki, were political arguments. These were related to such things as possible instability on the Balkans, Europe’s image in the world, the Franco-German relationship, even the survival of the European Union. Here lies the euro storm’s most important political lesson. Whatever the divisions and hesitations on the way, the invisible political glue that held the Union was much stronger than anybody had foreseen. It is worth keeping this in mind before panicking over future challenges. 2. Beyond Rules and Words There is a limit to rule-based policies. That European states gave themselves rules to pacify interstate relations is historically the Union’s greatest asset. But on fixed rules alone you cannot base joint action when you are faced with unforeseen circumstances. With Ukraine, Europe’s enlargement and neighborhood policy is reaching its limits— geographically and conceptually. Europe wants to be a force of normative attraction for its neighbors and at the same time to deny that it thereby projects power. This self-denial becomes untenable. In the negotiations about stronger ties, the EU side asked Ukraine to choose between signing the Association Agreement with Europe or joining the Customs Union with Russia. This was a truly existential geopolitical choice—as it turned out, a matter of war and peace!—so it was rather light to justify it with bureaucratic rules (in this case, of the WTO)… Events will push European countries to acknowledge that, like it or not, they are, jointly, a power-player. Just as values and standards alone cannot constitute a foreign policy, rules alone cannot constitute economic policy. In the Greek emergency, member countries learned the hard way 1. Invisible Political Glue The European Union was from the start a political project. But with the economic dress it chose—a market, a currency—this raison d’être disappeared from sight. In emergency situations, the underlying politics reappears. See today’s debate on sanctions against Russia, where security interests trump commercial interests. But in the euro crisis too—although fought out in the financial language of banks, deficits, loans and “spreads”—political arguments outplayed economic ones. The economic costs and risks of a eurozone break-up naturally played a role; all wanted 24 A S P E N R E V I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y that a monetary union cannot survive a shock by relying purely on rules for debt and deficit. It required not only better rule enforcement, but also better crisis management. (The argument in certain German and Dutch circles that if only the Maastricht debt rules had been respected, all would have been fine, is pure theory: it comes down to saying that as long as nobody plays with fire, you do not need a fire brigade.) versa!). We are economically interlinked, but also politically. In recent years, national elections in the Greece, the Netherlands, Italy or Germany have been intently followed across the rest of Europe, and so will the 2015 UK elections and the Scottish referendum—not out of exotic curiosity but as the tremors and rumbles of a now common political space. This experience is radically new. As recently as twenty years ago, “Europe” mattered to just a few groups: big business, farmers, the first “Erasmus” students… Today, through the currency and free movement, it is a daily experience for all citizens. It is normal that it should take time to digest this discovery. It also explains that Europe is no longer an uncontested ideal, but a matter of political judgment. As a result, Europe entered national politics. More than ever, European politics is domestic politics. During the euro crisis, national political leaders and parliaments played a central role. It could not have been otherwise. The central EU institutions did not dispose of enough financial firepower and competencies, nor the legitimacy to change the rules on which they are built. Nevertheless, authoritative European voices such as Jürgen Habermas or Jacques Delors deplored the implication of national leaders in the crisis management as a “renationalization of European politics,” even comparing it to the 1930s. They misread the situation. What we are seeing, instead, is a “Europeanization of national politics.” This can strengthen the common adventure. Since 2010, people experienced what it really means to share a currency. They now know that what happens with debts in Italy, housing bubbles in Ireland or banks in Cyprus can have a direct impact on their jobs, their pensions, their savings in Germany, Portugal or Estonia (and vice versa!). We are economically interlinked, but also politically. 4. The Nature of the Beast—Call it a Union During the debt crisis, many American and some European critics claimed the euro countries stood before the fateful choice to “Unite or die,” either to jump to a federal eurozone or to collapse. A moment of truth, they said. Indeed. But had they better grasped the Union’s nature, they could have foreseen right away that European politics is and remains a matter of in between. Eighteen 3. Daily Experience and Domestic Politics The most crucial political discovery of recent years is the degree of interdependence of our countries. Since 2010, people experienced what it really means to share a currency. They now know that what happens with debts in Italy, housing bubbles in Ireland or banks in Cyprus can have a direct impact on their jobs, their pensions, their savings in Germany, Portugal or Estonia (and vice A S P E N R E V I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y 25 states with one currency: perhaps unpractical, but a political fact of life. The euro is here to stay (as the markets have finally understood), and so are the member states. This latter clarification is crucial for people’s trust in the joint enterprise. For too long the history of integration has been portrayed as a slow erosion of the nation-states by a new centre, the Union as a half-baked provisional entity on the way to a perfect federal future. This view is historically wrong and politically irresponsible. A political Europe cannot be built against the states, only with the states. In the debate, it is hard to get this view across. The sterile opposition between a good “Community method” and bad “intergovernmentalism,” between true Europe and national politics, still holds sway. Angela Merkel tried to break the conceptual deadlock when in 2010 she proposed the term “Union method” to express the new political reality. But she hit some nerves in Brussels and within her own party and retreated from this semantic stand. A pity. If the Union is to retain the support of its citizens and member-peoples, it is urgent to fight the public suspicion of a Brussels plot, while making clear we do have a shared destiny. Europe’s political life would be helped by a proper self-understanding. The Union is not a “normal” international organization (Look at France during its referendum on the constitutional treaty in 2005, or the United Kingdom today: would any country ever have such a passionate public debate about its membership of the World Health Organization or even NATO?). Nor is it a US-style federation or becoming one. Some enlightened minds keep hoping for the “United States of Europe.” At every occasion, they shout their disappointment that this is not happening, thereby eroding further the trust in the Union’s necessarily imperfect achievements. The better is the enemy of the good. A European public will not arise by asking people to step out of their German, Polish, British or Maltese cloths, but only by repeating time and 26 A S P E N R E V again that it is precisely—and also as Germans, Maltese etc.—that they are European. The great French historian Jacques Le Goff once pointed out that the idea of a common European space gained ground at the same time as the kingdoms of France, Spain and England developed, in the fifteenth century. Le Goff: “Europe was born as a federation of kingdoms.” Today we are shaping the continuation of this long, rich history of the peoples and states on our continent. The Return of Politics is not a ghost of the past, nor a temporary anomaly, but the only realistic way to preserve Europe’s unity and liberty for the future. LU U K VA N M I D D E L A A R political analyst and historian, is the author The Passage to Europe: How a Continent Became a Union (Yale University Press 2013, paperback released on 5 June), winner of the European Book Prize 2012. He worked in The Hague and Brussels and has been the speechwriter to the European Council President since 2010. He writes in his personal capacity. Photo: Sake Elzinga I E W / C O V E R S T O R Y TOMÁŠ KLVAŇA Decisions and Consequences An Impossibly Beautiful Dream I. Essentially, there is a poor world, a rich world and one world between the two. In the really poor world you do not see stray dogs running around the cities: even people there go hungry. In the rich world, there are no running dogs either: citizens tend to care about animals one way or another. It is in the zone between rich and poor where there are starving, exhausted dogs with dangerous eyes roaming the metropolis. It is not pleasant, living in the zone between, yet much depends on the dynamics. You may be on the way up. You may be on your way down. You may be stuck, with no dynamics at all. The post-communist world abounds with the in-betweens. The visuals of such places are unmistakable; the decay of concrete structures covered in primitive graffiti, the omnipresent kiosks and stalls on the broken pavement of sidewalks, the stink of urine in underpasses, the pawn shops and gambling dens, the dilapidated buildings, the police occupied with crime in the wrong way, the dour faces on buses and trams. On a bus, people dream of utopia beyond their frontiers. Utopia? Here is how I recently pictured a utopia, going for a jog in one of those in-between loci, Belgrade. It occurred to me on a bridge over the Sava, a mighty—but, curiously, not the largest—river in the city known for the confluence of the Sava and the Danube. My utopia goes like this: In the distant future (because when else than in the future do utopias happen?) there is A S P E N R E V I E W / C TO M Á Š K LVA Ň A Vice President of the Aspen Institute Prague, Chair of the Aspen Review Editorial Board and a Visiting Professor at New York University in Prague. Photo: Archive Tomáš Klvaňa a lottery. To save precious resources, it is organized as a mind game. The lottery manager invites online participants to guess which number (from one to one thousand) is on his mind. Everyone has a minute to think about that number. The manager then reveals his choice— 534. All of those who guessed the number will claim the prize online. The manager will immediately transfer the amount in bitcoin to their bank accounts. Yes, in the distant future we shall be perfect. And we shall use bitcoin, the landless, government-less currency without a central O M M E N T 27 bank. How else can you describe perfection than as a complete honesty and truthfulness? Some people have no use for utopias. They point to communism, a utopia of a kind, as a source of immense suffering. Others sneer at the idea of unified Europe and see in it a dangerous, counterproductive way of provoking dormant furies of Europe’s wars. That is unfair to utopias because they have no say in how we use them. They are best understood as impossibly beautiful dreams against which we measure our aspirations. Just because we are incapable of telling the truth does not mean that honesty should not be taught to children. towards the dream, is nowhere in sight, not even in the face of the greatest energy crisis ever. We have it exactly backwards. We treat our current European institutions in a soft-hue manner whilst the dream is substituted by tangential technicalities. Take the Ukrainian crisis. The reigning view holds that Europe has failed to deal with it properly and Vladimir Putin is laughing at us. Such criticism originates in exaggerated expectations and unrealistic demands put on our current institutions. One swift, clear, smart and unified European foreign policy towards Russia is simply not yet feasible. The French, Italians, Poles and Fins just cannot see eye to eye on all required variables. Seen in that light the European—and American—game in Ukraine is successful so far. Moscow is intimidated by the impact of the crisis on its economy and by the prospect of an even bigger hole into which it might be slumping. Putin was taken aback by the strength of revulsion towards him that he incited among politicians and citizens in Europe, and despite the knowledge that the West will not go into war over Ukraine, he seemed to be backpedalling. Meanwhile Ukraine has a legitimate president determined to rid the country of the armed subterfuge in the east and lead his people on their (admittedly long) way to the EU. II. We need the unified Europe, the superstate, the one Kissingerian telephone number to be one such impossibly beautiful dream. In the in -between places of Europe amidst urban decay, surrounded by gloom and stray dogs, we grasp more thoroughly the importance of this dream. Political dreams, however, require institutions and it is important to keep the two concepts separated and approached differently. This is a mistake we make here in Europe: while in our euro-discourse we lack true vision, we approach the EU institutions in an imprecise and dreamy—rather than pragmatic and realistic— manner. There is no unified goal to European politics. More accurately, the only vision to be found there is among those who wish to destroy the dream. They have advanced in the recent European elections, albeit less than was expected and feared. Still, subsidiarity does not count as a vision and a tobacco directive is no calling. Single-issue activists who wish to throw regulation at everything they perceive as problem have captured many bureaucratic bastions in Brussels and we, the Europeans, allow them to do so, because we just do not care enough. On the other hand, the European energy policy, which would be a useful step 28 A S P E N III. With the advent of a strong adversary: Putin’s Russia, Europe has reluctantly re-entered history from which it took a leave in the magical year of 1989. People are often forced to make uneasy geopolitical decisions in the course of history. One cannot simply continue with the flow. Europe and—to some extent—also Obama’s America still refuses to acknowledge the depth of the problem. There is no decisive agreement regarding the obvious: for the first time since the end of the Cold War we have a regime in Russia that directly challenges core values of the Western liberal democracy. Europe also R E V I E W / C O M M E N T houses a vocal political constituency looking sympathetically at Russian mix of nationalism and cultural bigotry. The challenge facing us is extraordinary. Let us recall the Cold War years. The West knew its vision by heart and has rolled out policies adequate to the task, from strong military forces to international financial bodies and investing in research and development. Neither the United States nor Europe is eager now to be as strong as they were then, to revisit the ethos of those years, but nothing less would do. I am not calling for another Iron Curtain and containment of Moscow, but hoping for the best is no policy. The lesson is clear: Let us dream big and loud in Europe but approach our institutions realistically. Let’s build them one careful step after another. Let us pause in the federalist drive lest we counterproductively strengthen the demolition brigade. And let us instead focus on the basics: A S P E N R E V I E W / C Let’s finish the integration of the markets Let’s advance and implement the free trade zone with America Let’s make NATO the zone’s stability guarantor. It will emphasize defense as a cornerstone in the current crisis and reinvigorate the Atlantic military alliance’s mission. It may force the Europeans to take defense seriously at last. All political dreams require right political decisions to be useful. In Belgrade, Chisinau, Kiev and other post-communist capitals of the past 25 years people made different choices than in Prague, Warsaw and Tallinn. It cost them dearly. Once a bridge over the Sava River became the casualty of a poor choice, next time it might be worse. The decisions Europe needs to make are large-scale, geopolitical, and they will have momentous consequences. O M M E N T 29 Ukraine Can Be a Neutral State The people who took part in the revolution on the Maidan were born after the downfall of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the situation got out of control of the elites— says Roman Szporluk in an interview with Filip Memches. Was the revolt of the Ukrainian society, which we saw on the Maidan, directed against the Ukrainian power and business elite, or was it an emanation of conflicts within the elite? The initiators of the dramatic events in Kiev, of this revolution—because this is how we should call them—turned out to be people of the younger generation, very pro-European in their political outlook. The principal reason for their coming to the Maidan was to oppose the cancellation of the signing of the association agreement with the European Union. And it was the pressure of these people which caused the split within the ruling camp. Some people around Viktor Yanukovych made a turnabout. I think, therefore, that what occurred was a real revolution rather than a conflict within the ruling clique. ROMAN SZPORLUK American historian of Ukrainian descent. He graduated in law at the University in Lublin (Poland), defended a Ph.D. in Russian history at the Stanford University. In 1965–1991 he was professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and in 1991–2005 at the Harvard University, for a time he ran the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. His publications include The Political Thought of Thomas G. Masaryk (1981), Communism and Nationalism: Karl Marx versus Friedrich List (1988, second ed. 1991), and Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union (2000). Photo: Archive of the Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University But still, even if we assume that the primary causative factor here was a grass-roots protest, we cannot turn a blind eye to what was happening with the political and business establishment. A fairly widespread opinion is that the oligarchs saw opportunities for themselves connected with the future integration with Europe, so when Yanukovych decided to stop this process in its tracks, they rebelled against him… A S P E N R E V I E W / I For people who came to the Maidan, the Ukrainian regime—including the predecessors of Yanukovych—is a continuation of Soviet power, that is a corrupt and illegitimate system. At the same time, the ruling circles and business— N T E R V I E W 31 both among the oligarchs, and less influential businesspeople—include persons who know the West. They are the ones whose children are studying in prestigious British universities, and who have villas in the south of France. They also want Ukraine to be a European, civilized country, because they are aware that in a free and democratic country they can enjoy a much better life. in which the Russians will feel safe, then Putin and his companions will have cause for concern. But Kiev is now making a mostly geopolitical choice. It did break the umbilical cord tying it to Moscow, it set a course towards the West. However, in internal politics you cannot see any radical steps. The oligarchs, who have been capitalizing on the existing economic situation, continue to play a key role. When it comes to geopolitics, realists came to the fore in Ukraine. They are not planning a rapid NATO accession, they are not preparing a military agreement with the West against Russia. The challenge is, rather, a geo-economic or geo-cultural transformation. Ukraine can be a neutral state. And joining the European Union can take place no earlier than in ten, maybe twenty years. And when it comes to the oligarchs, they are much impressed with the West, and they are also fed up with pathologies such as corruption. The events on the Maidan were not the first revolt of the Ukrainian society since the Soviet Union collapsed. In late 2004 and early 2005 the Orange Revolution broke out. But then the tragedy which took place nine years later had been avoided. There was no bloody internal confrontation. Why? The answer is very simple: almost ten years had passed. As a historian, I am keenly aware of the importance of the passage of time. One generation goes, another comes. This is a very important issue. The people who took part in the revolution, which broke out recently, were born after the downfall of the Soviet Union. The Orange Revolution ended in a compromise, a deal between various factions of the establishment. And in February this year it seemed that a second installment of the Orange Revolution would come to pass: that Yanukovych would remain President, opposition MPs would be co-opted to the government of the Party of Regions and somehow things would drag on until the next election. But the situation got out of control. Yanukovych was forced to flee, and thus there has been a radical change. Except that the oligarchs, assuming that the government will not try to discipline them, are so wealthy that even without any reforms they can live at a level which is beyond the reach of an average Ukrainian. Such pathologies like huge corruption are most painful for ordinary citizens. Of course, the oligarchs do not have to bribe traffic policemen leaping on drivers from behind a tree and demanding a fine. But the general mood is changing, especially among more educated segments of the public or those who have direct contacts with Europe. And if you talk about oligarchs, we have an open question here. Time will tell if the pro-European masses will manage to persuade them. In fact, this will decide if the revolution of 2014 could be considered victorious. By the way, the oligarchs feel at home in the West. During the Orange Revolution Russia did not intervene. This year it attacked Ukraine annexing the Crimea… Moscow was terrified that Kiev could begin to make serious European reforms. Vladimir Putin feels threatened because of the fact that the revolution of 2014 will have a strong impact on Russia. Because it is not an anti-Russian revolution, but an anti-Soviet one. If Ukraine becomes a democratic country 32 A S P E N R Was the overthrowing of President Yanukovych necessary? Immediately after that, Russia took Crimea. E V I E W / I N T E R V I E W All revolutions are unexpected, and when they already occur, it turns out that they are also inevitable. No one expected what happened in France on 14 July 1789, but then it was clear that something had to happen. To use Marxist language, a qualitative rather than a quantitative change took place in Ukraine. In February this year negotiations between President Yanukovych and the parliamentary opposition were still going on in Kiev, also involving foreign ministers of other countries. But the protesters on Maidan vetoed the outcome of these negotiations. And now a fundamental question appears: whether this qualitative change is the first act of a grassroots process of a civil society emerging? And as for Putin, he does not think of the Ukrainians as a separate nation. For him the creation of the Ukrainian state meant carving out a piece of Russia. By annexing the Crimea he began to implement a program of reconstructing the Russian empire. In the visions of Putin there is no place for a democratic Russia. But to have a guarantee that Russia does not become a democracy, he must prevent the democratization of Ukraine. And he can achieve it only by annexing Ukraine or transforming it into a larger version of Belarus. the family. Therefore, he does not want to let Ukraine become a European country, because it would mean it would distance itself from Russia. Besides, if the Ukrainians are also Russians only If one of the greatest disasters of the twentieth century was the collapse of the USSR, as Putin famously said, the current host of the Kremlin considers the reconstruction of the empire as his task. more crazy ones, they—following Putin’s line of thinking—can give a bad example to other Russians, the ones living in the Russian Federation. For if it turns out that in Odessa and Kharkov you can freely use the Russian language, then this situation will give the lie to Kremlin’s propaganda about the persecution of Russian speakers in Ukraine. But that would mean that Vladimir Putin actually never recognized the sovereignty of the Ukrainian state… Once, when George W. Bush was the U.S. president, Putin told him in a private conversation that Ukraine was not a real country. This is the authentic view of the Russian President, but of course Putin does not express it openly. If one of the greatest disasters of the twentieth century was the collapse of the USSR, as Putin famously said, the current host of the Kremlin considers the reconstruction of the empire as his task. Although of course he does not say it out loud. It should also be stressed that Putin sees the Ukrainians as a nation much closer to Russians than Georgians or Kazachs. For him the Ukrainians are brothers who have betrayed A S P E N R E V I E W / I And here we come to historical policy. The Kremlin, which likes to emphasize the role of the Soviet Union in the victory over the Third Reich, is trying to tarnish the image of Ukraine by attaching a fascist label to current authorities. At the same time Banderovite emblems appeared on the Maidan… On the current Ukrainian political scene, there are some elements considering themselves as ideological descendants of radical, extreme right-wing forces present in the Ukrainian society in the twentieth century. These elements, however, are probably weak. It is true that in the interwar Poland the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists was very influential among Ukrainian N T E R V I E W 33 youth. However, in elections to the Sejm the majority of Ukrainians voted for democratic, moderate, progressive parties, etc. When it comes to today’s Ukraine, we are dealing with relics of the old nationalism. Of course, you should not underestimate them. However, historical arguments used by Moscow are fakes. Please note that among the demonstrators on the Maidan there were Russian speakers considering themselves Ukrainians and Russian speakers considering themselves Russians. In Ukraine there is at the moment no Ukrainian-Russian ethnic conflict Balkan style. Moscow, however, would want such a conflict. Russians are still struggling for their country to become democratic. They do not want to be subjects in an empire. Nevertheless, Putin has managed to fool the Russian society. Television controlled by the regime says outright lies about Ukraine and the West. However, if the Ukrainian political events inspire the Russians, it may form the basis for a Ukrainian-Russian reconciliation. Because it must be emphasized that the Ukrainian democratic movement is not anti-Russian, but anti-Putin. And perhaps it was for this reason—not feeling any hostility towards the Russians—that the Ukrainians gave them Crimea practically without a fight? Kiev wanted to avoid a situation in which Moscow would use force on a mass scale. The peaceful surrender of Ukraine in the Crimea saved the lives of many people, and Putin has lost this excuse to undertake much more dangerous anti-Ukrainian steps. If the Ukrainian political events inspire the Russians, it may form the basis for a UkrainianRussian reconciliation. Because it must be emphasized that the Ukrainian democratic movement is not antiRussian, but anti-Putin. Or maybe he really got the green light, which emboldened him and led to the destabilization of the situation in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Odessa districts? But the Crimea scenario was not repeated. It seems that the annexation of the peninsula was not the first act of an annexation of other regions of Ukraine. Or maybe the point is that the Kremlin fears a repeat of the 1990s and interprets events in Ukraine as an anti-Russian offensive of the West? There are two Russias. Putin persecutes Russia too. He abolished free elections and local government. Russian intellectuals are censored. Even in the Soviet era I thought that the most important ethnic issue in the USSR was the Russian question. People laughed at me. They said that there were other issues, such as Jewish, Ukrainian and Estonian. It seems to me that the question has not lost its relevance. The 34 A S P E N R You said that besides Putin’s Russia there is a more democratic and anti-imperial Russia. Where do you see it? After all, the vast majority of Russians support the current president. The history of Russia in the twentieth century is very sad. The February Revolution, which was to lead to democracy, failed. In October 1917 the Bolsheviks seized power. The Russian democratic emigrants described the Bolshevik Revolution as national suicide. In this sense, it cannot be compared to the French Revolution. Then it seemed in the period of perestroika that Russia E V I E W / I N T E R V I E W was moving towards democracy. But under the presidency of Boris Yeltsin democracy lost again. Dreams, ideals, positive sentiments must be translated into specific political solutions which would be convincing for the public. And here the West may help, not only by providing various loans, but also by sending experts who would offer appropriate advice. But it is also a challenge facing the young generation of Ukrainians. They must be aware of the fact that in the immediate future they may have to give up some comforts for the sake of long-term investments. Is it a condition for democracy emerging in Russia that it would not be an empire, but a nation-state? Yes. And in the early 1990s it seemed that events were moving in that direction. For one thing, Yeltsin was responsible for Russia’s secession from the Soviet empire. It was Russia, which rebelled against the Kremlin and announced its own independence. And then it signed agreements with Belarus and Ukraine concerning the dissolution of the USSR. Later, however, there has been a regression. In the history of Russia the scenario has always been that when controlling ethnically non-Russian areas, the government has done it through undemocratic measures and applied them also in the ethnically Russian centre of the country. In this way, the Russians themselves become victims of colonial violence. And the structure of the Ukrainian society itself? Does it not constitute an obstacle on the road to political consolidation? This structure is determined by the borders of Ukraine. Historically speaking, they extend from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Crimean Khanate. So we are dealing with a very culturally diverse society. In various lectures I liked to repeat: imagine a country in which one district capital is Bakhchisaray, former capital of the Crimean Khanate; imagine a country including the once Hungarian towns of Transcarpathia; imagine a country in which there are both Lviv and Donetsk, Kharkiv and Ternopil. A very significant fact is that the most pro-Western areas of Ukraine are those belonging to Poland in the past, even before the era of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. At the opposite extreme is the Donbas. It is located in an area, which in the tsarist times was politically backward. Donetsk was founded in the nineteenth century. Its name was once Yuzovka from the name of its founder, the Welsh industrialist John Hughes. There were no universities there at the time, only metallurgical plants and coalmines. Indeed, given such diversity of the country, some people claim that Ukraine must decide what is to be the key to its integration—should Donetsk be the “future” of Lviv or the other way round. But, in my opinion, it is Kiev which should provide a model acceptable both for Donetsk, for Odessa, and for Lviv. The West may help, not only by providing various loans, but also by sending experts who would offer appropriate advice. Is the ruling camp governing Ukraine, now preparing for reforms, not facing a certain risk? My point is that the reforms may prove to be very costly for the broad masses of Ukrainian society and hence very painful, so the public opinion may rebel against the pro-Western course. This is a very serious problem. Poland struggled with it in 1989 and later. And Ukraine is now in a worse situation than Poland was then. A S P E N R E V I E W / I N T E R V I E W 35 And what about the Crimea? Today, of course, chances for recovering it are very small. But also without it Ukraine can democratize, especially that a considerable support for undemocratic forces is coming from there. At the same time it must be emphasized that any initiatives aimed at forcing the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine to use the Ukrainian language are inexpressibly stupid. Maybe the source of these problems is that when in 1991 Ukraine gained independence, the Russian language dominated there? So for the past 23 years the aim was to somehow strengthen the position of the Ukrainian language. It is true. The Ukrainian language was discriminated against in the Soviet times and in a sense it is sometimes also discriminated against today. In Kiev, it happened to me several times that I addressed restaurant waiters in Ukrainian, and they responded in Russian, claiming that they did not know Ukrainian. There is a need for affirmative action, but certainly not at the expense of Russian-speaking citizens. There must be a real equality. Therefore, public sector employees in Ukraine should be bilingual: so that they would be able to deal with Ukrainian-speaking citizens in Ukrainian, and with Russian speakers in Russian. FILIP MEMCHES is a columnist of the Rzeczpospolita daily Photo: Archive Filip Memches 36 A S P E N R E V I E W / I N T E R V I E W IVAN KRASTEV Exit Politics In 2011, Adbusters magazine released the now famous poster in which a ballerina danced over the symbolic bull of the New York Stock Exchange, calling on activists to occupy Wall Street. At the top of the poster, one reads the line: “What is our one demand?” In a democracy without representation, all political movements have the right of a single demand. It might be very concrete—say, lowering the bus fare in San Paolo or dispensing with plans to rebuild the Stuttgart railway station. In such cases, there is a fair chance that the demand will be met. Or the demand can be grandiose and symbolic, as in ending capitalism, and then the meaning becomes the demand itself. In order for the protest to be successful, it should be either concrete or symbolic. The middle level—messy space of actual politics that cannot be addressed by crowds huddled in public squares—has disappeared. In many respects, the current revolt against political representation resembles the situation in ancient Rome, when plebs (Rome’s middle class) decided to leave the city, separate themselves, “go away,” and thus demonstrate their collective rejection of the status quo. Beginning 453 BC, the plebs would occasionally exit the city, evacuating Rome and encamping on one of the neighboring hills as an explicit expression of their civic anger. “They are without any leader,” wrote Titus Livy, the great chronicler of ancient Rome, “their camp being fortified with a rampart and trench, remaining quiet, taking nothing but what was necessary for sustenance, they kept themselves for several days, neither being attacked, A S P E N R E V I E W / C I VA N K R A S T E V is a Bulgarian political scientist. He is president of the Center for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna and a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Photo: Center for Liberal Strategies nor attacking others. Great was the panic in the city, and through mutual fear all was suspense. The people left in the city dreaded the violence of the senators; the senators dreaded the people remaining in the city, uncertain whether they should prefer them to stay or to depart; but how long would the multitude, which has seceded, remain quiet? What were to be the consequences then, if in the meantime, any foreign war should break out?” This secession was nothing more than an appeal for the re-founding of the political community around principles dear to its rebellious citizens. As Livy indicates, the plebs agreed to return to the city only when the senators O M M E N T 37 succeeded in fashioning a narrative that recognized the plebs’ significance to society as well as their power. The institution of the tribunes—the ones who have the power to veto the decisions of the senate—was born out of the secessions. Secessions were different from conspiracies and civil wars. They were not about changing those who govern. They were about the principles according to which power is exercised. In a society that believed in the cyclical nature of history and where the future was simply another name for the past, they were truly revolutionary. The secessions did not hope to bring change; they demanded the restoration of cosmic order. Today’s mass protests, in many respects, are acts in search of a concept; they are praxis, if you will, without theory. They are the most dramatic expression of the conviction that the elites do not govern in the interest of the people and that the electorate has lost control over the elected. They stand for an insurrection against the institutions of representative democracy but without offerring any alternatives (or even an openness to endorse nondemocratic replacements). This new wave of protests is leaderless not because social media made leaderless revolutions possible (last we checked ancient Rome was not wired), but because the ambition to challenge all forms of political representation has made political leaders unwelcome. In my book, In Mistrust We Trust, I argued that while globalization has empowered the middle-class individual, it has disempowered the voter. Once upon a time, a voter’s power derived from the fact that he was a citizen- soldier, a citizen-worker, and/or a citizen-consumer. The citizen- soldier was important because the defense of the country depended on his courage to stand against his enemies. The citizen-worker was significant because his labor made the country rich, and the citizen-consumer mattered because his consumption drove the economy. But globalization liberated the elites from their 38 A S P E N dependence on citizens. When drones and professional armies replace the citizen-soldier, elites lose interest in the views of citizen-soldiers. The flooding of the labor market by low-cost immigrants or outsourced production reduces the elites’ willingness to cooperate. As a result, the citizen-worker gets detached from the citizen-voter. During the recent economic crisis, it became evident that the performance of the American stock market no longer depended on American consumerism. The general strike had lost its political power. At the same time, elections fail to evince either the drama or the capacity to solve social problems that they once did, while rebellion from below has become unconvincing. Capturing the government is simply no longer a guarantee that things will change. Voter power is constrained today not just because the voter has lost his additional capacities that derive from his other social roles and participation in stable social groups but also because the voter does not know whom to blame for his misfortunes. The more transparent our societies become, the more difficult it is for citizens to decide where to direct their anger. We live in a society of “innocent criminals,” where governments prefer to claim impotence rather than power. In her classic mystery Murder on the Orient Express, Agatha Christie tells the story of a very unusual murder in which all twelve suspects are guilty of committing a crime, and the police are forced to either acknowledge it or pretend that a stranger who exited the train is the culprit. Our angry citizen finds himself in a similar dilemma. He is angry at power but he does not know who to blame—those in government, those behind the government, the very idea of a government, the market, Brussels (for those who are EU members), and so forth. If a citizen today seeks to criticize, say, rising inequality, to what should he turn to find those responsible? The market? The government? New technologies? Could any government succeed in reducing inequality on its own without destroying his country’s compet- R E V I E W / C O M M E N T itiveness? The futile attempts of several leftist governments to increase taxes on the superrich are the most powerful demonstration of the constraints that governments face in an era of global markets and international capital flow. It is unclear if it would make more sense to topple the government or pity it. Voters feel helpless today because the politicians they choose are candid about their lack of power. It is up to citizens to decide whether to trust that the politicians do in fact have their hands tied or to treat the cries of powerlessness as the ultimate power grab. “I am tired of austerity, I want promises,” reads a graffiti in Brazil. The author of the outcry captures something fundamental. In a democratic politics without alternatives, politicians make a virtue out of promising nothing. But a stance of “no promises” translates to even less power for the voters. Democracy is nurtured by promises because politicians who fail to fulfill them can be held accountable. When there are no promises, there is no civic responsibility. “I didn’t promise you anything” is a line out of a cheap romance novel. After hearing it, the only thing the jilted lover can do is run away and cry. It is through this prism that we can apprehend the meaning of the wave of protests that have rocked the world in recent years. The prism also enables us to ponder the political changes they may bring. The protests are a rejection of a politics without possibility, but they are also a form of acceptance of this new reality. None of the protest movements emerged with a platform for changing the world, or even the economy. In this sense, they are not anti-capitalist revolution. In fact, they might be seen as capitalism’s safety valve. Karl Marx would probably tell today’s rebels that anti-capitalist protest is essential for the relegitimation of global capitalism. Neither are the protests examples of Fukuyama’s revolution of the global middle class—at least not in the sense of them being a demonstration of its empowerment. After all, it was during these protests that the middle class proved its own loss of political strength. But if the protests do not signal a return of revolutionary politics, neither will they represent an effective strategy of citizen empowerment in the age of globalization. Where governments are less powerful than before, corporations are more mobile, and political parties bereft of the capacity to build a political identity around visions for the future, the power of citizens derives from their ability to disrupt. From “Democracy Disrupted. The Global Politics of Protest,” University of Pennsylvania Press 2014. Published with the gracious permission of the Author and Publisher. A S P E N R E V I E W / C O M M E N T 39 A Plan for NATO: Central Europe Indistinguishable from Western Europe Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas NATO must demolish the remains of the Cold War border of the Eastern Block Europe—a great strategic zone, from Estonia in the north through the Visegrad countries in the middle to Bulgaria in the south—is contrary to the legal, political and strategic foundations of the Alliance. NATO remains incoherent, which weakens its unity. It encourages NATO’s opponents to test the ability of the Alliance to deploy collective defense. Lack of cohesion and unity provokes war. The Iron Curtain partially survived and tempts Russia with hopes of returning to Central Europe. It is one of the reasons for President Vladimir Putin’s attempts to restore the lost tsarist and Soviet empire. The Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union do not exist, but on maps of forces and resources, in organization charts and many key NATO documents you can see a sharp difference and boundary between the area of the North Atlantic Alliance before the eastward enlargement, and the territories of all states admitted after the Cold War. All that despite the fact that the expansion began—from the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary—more than fifteen years ago, in 1999, in the previous century and millennium. But the most important documents—the North Atlantic Treaty and the accession protocols, or in the current NATO Strategic Concept from 2010—there is no foundation for maintaining differentiation or boundary. The Treaty and the Concept do not divide the member states into old and new, Eastern and Western, better and worse, more defended and less defended. So the NATO practice of investing more, both in terms of quality and quantity, in Western Europe than in Eastern A S P E N R E V I E W / P “But Russia Would Never Agree to That!” The ongoing incoherence of the North Atlantic Alliance represents the achievement of a permanent goal of Russia. The first decade after the accession of the three Visegrad countries was an era of excessive caution and appeasement to Russian demands and prohibitions for NATO. Russia imposed on the alliance an impassable limit to its real presence. Russia psychologically and politically invaded the heads of the people running NATO and planning its future. The Alliance claimed that nobody from the outside could have vetoing power, but at the same time, it recognized the Russian veto. Any idea for a significant strengthening of the potential of the multinational alliance in Central Europe was countered O L I T I C S 41 by the headquarters in Brussels and the capitals of Western member states with a firm response: “But Russia would never agree to that!” The dogma of the primacy of the interests and wishes of Russia, repeated like a mantra, usually ended any discussion and killed the will to meet the challenges. Therefore, only in 2009—after the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008—the first contingency operational plans were created regarding the introduction of multinational allied forces to Poland in the case of mounting a collective defense. And only in 2010 the contingency plans included Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia—the remaining Central European member states directly bordering with Russia. Developed hurriedly after a lost decade, the plans quickly proved inadequate. As a result of the events of 2014 in Europe they are being urgently revised and strengthened. But contingency plans—even revised and expanded—are not enough. It would be best if they never had to be applied. But to achieve this, NATO has to deter potential aggressors effectively. Deter not only with nuclear but also with conventional forces. NATO must organize and deploy its resources in such a way that no one could find a weak point to attack. Therefore, the allied Central Europe must change to a large extent, even if “Russia would never agree to that!” In any case, Russia does not agree to the territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova. Thus, it does not agree to one of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the entire international order since the end of World War II. The North Atlantic Alliance must stop succumbing to the Russian veto and psychological warfare. of the Alliance in Europe, a potential opponent or another external observer should see one and single—without any distinguishable parts—area from Iceland, Norway, Great Britain, Spain and Portugal in the west to Estonia, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey and other member states to the east. On the map of the world, rather than just Europe, there should be no differences—on the Western side—up to Alaska and Hawaii, in accordance with the North Atlantic Treaty. NATO assets must be distributed uniformly or concentrated where they are most needed now, not where they were most needed in the era of the Warsaw Pact and the German internal border. Some types of resources should be located well inside Without the Iron Curtain NATO must demolish the remains of the Cold War border of the Eastern Block. Looking at the network of headquarters, bases, schools, installations, infrastructure and all other resources Land, Sea, Air, Special and Cybernetic Forces In Central Europe multinational bases should be established, serving the co-stationing and developing comprehensive cooperation by any kind of armed forces of NATO member states: 42 A S P E N NATO must organize and deploy its resources in such a way that no one could find a weak point to attack. or even in the center of the European part of the Alliance. This is where the highest institutions of political and military command should be placed, as well as installations using space technology, centers of strategic planning and analysis, NATO schools and other resources used equally by all member states. But the combat forces, command centers below the highest level and most of the intelligence, observation and logistical resources require deployment closer to the outer borders of NATO and the potential battlefields. This means mainly the countries of Central Europe and the Mediterranean. R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S land, sea, air, special, and cybernetic. The process of forming separate cyber forces is only starting in many NATO countries, but close cooperation at this stage can be extremely valuable and speed up the process. What is needed is at least one base for each type of armed forces. For the Navy we need two bases on two different seas. The bases should be placed in as many countries as possible. No base has to be limited to one type of force, but every type of force needs a host base. Naval bases are needed on the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. Only Poland has non-freezing military ports on the Baltic: Świnoujście and Gdynia, as well as the great deep-water commercial port in Gdańsk. Romania occupies an important strategic position on the Black Sea coast, in the immediate vicinity of Ukraine. Unique opportunities for maneuvers and training of ground troops and special forces with air support are offered by the Drawsko Pomorskie training ground in north-western Poland near the Baltic Sea and the German border—it is the largest training ground in the European part of NATO. It is already extensively used by many countries of the Alliance. It could become a permanent multinational center for enhancing the Allied combat readiness. in Europe will be the base in Poland, with even more advanced anti-missile rockets, but combat readiness is predicted for the distant 2018. For the sake of NATO the United States may bring the deadline forward to 2017 or even 2016. Both in Western and Central Europe—without distinction—the European NATO countries should soon start creating a multinational second layer of the shield, defending against shorter-range missiles, aircraft and large spy and combat drones. To increase the credibility of the transatlantic bond a small portion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is deployed in four Western European countries and Turkey, to be used by the Alliance as a whole in the event of war. The United States should offer a similar solution to at least one country in Central Europe. We Should Work Faster on the Anti-missile Shields of the U.S. and NATO For the first time installations essential for the entire North Atlantic Alliance are placed not in Western Europe, but in Central Europe. Domination in European airspace means domination over Europe. The ability to attack or blackmail European countries with missiles and aviation means enjoying a decisive strategic advantage on the continent. A significant strengthening of the integrity and safety of NATO will therefore be ensured by the American missile defense base in Romania, created for the needs of the U.S. and the entire Alliance. Its construction has already started and combat readiness is planned for 2015. A complement to the U.S. missile base A S P E N R E V I E W / P Nuclear Weapons “The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies” is, according to the Strategic Concept of NATO, nuclear weapons. To increase the credibility of the transatlantic bond a small portion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is deployed in four Western European countries and Turkey, to be used by the Alliance as a whole in the event of war. This policy and strategy contributed to the success of the Alliance—no one has ever launched a regular attack on the territory of a member state. The United States should boldly cross the Iron Curtain, offering O L I T I C S 43 a similar solution to at least one country in Central Europe. The transatlantic bond cannot stop at any impassable line drawn by Russia. A uniform treatment of the entire area of NATO in nuclear policy and strategy is the best and only way to avoid any new national programs for the development of nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994, to ensure respecting its independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders by Russia and the Western powers. And then it lost the Crimea for an indefinite period. The Ukrainian decision from ten years ago is now widely considered to be a historic mistake. Only the Atlantic Alliance can ensure a collective rather than an individual nuclear deterrence. on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation.” The document stated: “In the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defense and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.” It also said: “The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO’s nuclear posture or nuclear policy—and do not foresee any future need to do so. This subsumes the fact that NATO has decided that it has no intention, no plan, and no reason to establish nuclear weapon storage sites on the territory of those members, whether through the construction of new nuclear storage facilities or the adaptation of old nuclear storage facilities.” In return, Russia has committed itself to substantial self-limitation in the field of conventional forces. In 2014, it all lost its validity. Cohesion must be added to the NATO Strategic Concept, or introduced as a principle and goal of the Alliance through a special document at the next summit. A similar goal—geographic cohesion—is pursued since 2009 by the European Union. The North Atlantic Alliance should adapt the idea from its neighbors in Brussels. Command Continental or Global In a chosen country of Central Europe NATO should create a new—corresponding to new challenges—headquarters with tasks covering the whole of Europe or the world. It should be a battle command directly subordinated to the Allied Command Operations, ACO, in Mons, Belgium. The most justified choice would be a European missile and air defense command or a global cyber-war command. Rebus Sic Stantibus Rebus sic stantibus—circumstances have changed. Russia changed them using aggression and threats. The North Atlantic Alliance should announce—to avoid dangerous misunderstandings and miscalculations—that the declarations from before the enlargement to the east, differentiating the status of the member states, now only have a historical character. In any case the declarations were not treaties and were not legally binding. They were totally unrelated to collective defense or peace support missions (for example, in Ukraine). The main declaration was the document signed in 1997 and called the “Founding Act 44 A S P E N GRZEGORZ KO S T R Z E WA - ZO R B A S a political scientist and specialist in American studies, graduated from the Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC, where he defended his doctoral thesis on strategy and nuclear policy under the supervision of Eliot Cohen and Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was the chief negotiator of the agreement on the exit of the Soviet Army from Poland. He is a Professor at the Military University of Technology and commentator of the w Sieci weekly. Photo: Archive Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S Russian Minority in Estonia after Crimea Martin Ehala The Crimean Anschluss has raised security concerns in the neighboring countries of Russia. Having a relatively large Russian speaking minority, Estonia certainly needs to analyze the situation and take appropriate measures. According to the 2011 census, there are 1.29 million people in Estonia, roughly 70% of whom are ethnic Estonians and the remaining 30% Russian-speakers. The vast majority of Russianspeakers are ethnic Russians, but this category includes also Ukrainians, Belarusians, and representatives of dozens of other ethnicities who speak Russian as their home language, but may still value their heritage in the form of “symbolic ethnicity.” Historically the Russian speaking population has largely been formed after the annexation of Estonia to the Soviet Union in 1940. During the Soviet period, immigration of Russians and other Soviet ethnicities into Estonia was encouraged by the Soviet authorities. As a consequence, the share of ethnic Estonians in the population dropped from 93% in 1940 to 61% in 1989. After regaining the independence in 1991, the trend reversed, partly due to withdrawal of Soviet troops and their families from Estonia in mid-1990s. Currently, about a half of the Estonian Russian-speakers live in the capital Tallinn area where they constitute nearly 50% of the population. Residentially, most of them are concentrated into a few ethnic suburbs. About 30% of Russianspeakers live compactly in industrial cities in East A S P E N R E V I E W / P Estonia, near the border of the Russian Federation. The proportion of Russian speakers in these cities is around 90%. The region is strategically crucial to Estonia, as it has the mines of oil shale, fuelling the largest national power plants. The remaining 20% of the Russian-speakers are scattered in other cities and towns of Estonia where they are a small minority. Currently, about a half of the Estonian Russian-speakers live in the capital Tallinn area where they constitute nearly 50% of the population. As Russian was the official language in the USSR, the Russian speakers of Estonia had little or no motivation to learn Estonian. After the collapse of Soviet Union, the language status was reversed: Russian lost its official position and Estonian was re-established as the only state O L I T I C S 45 language. Since most of the Russian speakers were monolingual, one of the main goals of Estonian language policy during the last 25 years has been establishing Estonian as the main language of communication. quite different interpretation of world events, particularly of those in Ukraine. Because of the large proportion of Russian speakers in Estonia, their segregated pattern of residence in the border areas, and their adherence to the Russia’s channels of mass media there is an inclination to see them as a potential threat to Estonia’s internal security and territorial integrity, especially after the annexation of Crimea. While such potential may be present in principle, its possible realization also depends on several other crucial elements. According to the social identity theory, the interethnic stability is contingent on three social psychological factors—the perception of legitimacy of the interethnic power relations, the perception of ethnic deprivation; and the perception of the strength differential between the competing groups. For example, the Russian separatism in Ukraine actualized its potential after all three conditions became satisfied. First, the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovich enabled to construct the perception of the Kiev government as illegitimate. Second, the subsequent withdrawal of the official status of the Russian language by Ukrainian parliament strengthened the perceptions of deprivation. Third, the strong support of Russia for the pro-Russian powers and the weakness of the pro-Ukrainian powers in Crimea made the idea of changing the status quo realistic. To analyze the situation in Estonia, the perceptions of legitimacy, deprivation and strength need to be taken into account, too. What concerns legitimacy, there is no doubt that the status of Estonia as an EU and NATO member is perceived legitimate amongst the Estonian Russian speakers. Ethnic Russian politicians run for seats in the European Parliament, Estonian Riigikogu, and at municipal level. It must also be noted that the vast majority of Russian speakers support ethnically mixed major parties, such as the Centre Party, the Social Democrats, and to a lesser degree the liberal Reform Party. These parties provide What is certain is that at present, no Russian politician or community leader in Estonia denies the need to learn and know Estonian, and this opinion seems to be shared by the majority of Russian speakers, too. This enterprise has been followed by some success: in 1990, as many as 85% of Russian speakers did not know Estonian at all; by 2013 this has fallen to 25%. Those figures reflect self-assessment, which may not be fully accurate. What is certain is that at present, no Russian politician or community leader in Estonia denies the need to learn and know Estonian, and this opinion seems to be shared by the majority of Russian speakers, too. Despite increased language knowledge, there are still little personal contacts between the members of the main linguistic groups in Estonia. Roughly a half of Russian-speakers live in a virtually monolingual Russian environment where there is little contact with Estonians, and about 45% of Estonians have no daily contact with Russian speakers, either, according to a recent survey. The phenomenon is often characterized as living in parallel worlds, the more that the Russian speakers mainly follow the TV channels of Russia while Estonians prefer Estonian and Western channels. Obviously these media provide 46 A S P E N R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S a legitimate path to power for politically active part of the Russian speaking community—most of the opinion leaders of the Russian speakers are the members of these large parties. On the other hand, the support for ethnic Russian parties has been for many years extremely low, just below 3%. Furthermore, the participation activity of Russian speakers at the EP and local elections is the same as amongst Estonians, while it is somewhat lower at the national parliamentary elections. All this indicates that the Russian speaking community seems to be politically well integrated to Estonian society and participates in democratic processes, recognizing its legitimacy. However, it must be taken into account that differently from local elections, not all Russian speakers can participate in national and EP elections. These are restricted to citizens of Estonia, but only 54% of the Russian speakers have Estonian citizenship, while a quarter has Russian citizenship and a 20% is still stateless. This brings us to the ethnic equality issue where Estonia is the most vulnerable. While in objective terms, the Russian speaking minority is by no means culturally threatened; such perception is quite widely held. It has two main sources, the issue of citizenship and the issue of Russian-medium schools. Estonian citizenship policy is grounded on the fact that Estonia was annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. People of the Russian-speaking minority—that formed during the Soviet period— were seen as immigrants who had to apply for citizenship requiring Estonian language examination. While in the first 10–15 post-Soviet years, they applied to citizenship in large numbers, it has considerably slowed down in recent years. This may be partly due to rational choice: a stateless permanent resident of Estonia has the advantage of travelling visa free to both the EU and Russia, while Estonian and Russian nationals need a visa to Russia and the EU, respectively. A S P E N R E V I E W / P Even if it is profitable to be stateless instrumentally, the sense of being a “second class citizen” is the strongest drawback of this status. This is annoying to the people who have been born and lived all their lives in Republic of Estonia, but are still not recognized as its citizens. Some of them have taken a principal stand not to apply for citizenship because they believe that they have a moral right to have it by birth. Some have even stated that they would not take the Estonian citizenship even if they were given to them as a gift, since it is too little and too late. The other major issue is the reform of the Russian-medium schools that started 2007. According to the plan, in the last three grades of the secondary school, 60% of the subjects must be taught in the Estonian language. Before the reform, the Russian-medium schools had the right to teach all subjects in Russian. The goal of this reform is to increase the knowledge of Estonian amongst Russian speaking youth. While there is a public consensus about the need to know the Estonian language, there is disagreement on methods how this goal should be reached. Quite clearly, the reform has made many Russian speakers worried, because of the fear that learning in Estonian would weaken the overall learning results, particularly if the teachers themselves were not native speakers of Estonian. Reducing the Russian-language education has also increased fears of linguistic and cultural assimilation. The third factor influencing interethnic stability is the perceived strength differential. The ease of the Crimean annexation showed that if the population welcomes the external intervention, separatism would be hard to counter. So, Russia’s bold willingness to support its diaspora’s separatist sentiments certainly increased the perceived strength of the Russian speaking minorities in the nearby countries. However, as the subsequent developments have showed, the power balance has remained quite constant compared to the pre-Crimean O L I T I C S 47 time. First, the West has assured its unity by economic sanctions and by increasing its military presence in the Baltic Countries, countering power with power. And second, Russia has failed to show clear and easy success in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. Instead of finding unanimous popular support, it has only managed to raise a small fraction of separatists to an armed confrontation. Thus, the stalling of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine is a cautionary example for everybody who dreams of a miraculous return of the USSR. Most likely any such attempts would turn into a lose-lose situation for all sides. Considering this, the question that the Estonian Russian speakers might ask in their hearts is whether their deprivation is really of such magnitude, and the Estonian state so illegitimate that taking the separatist cause would be preferable to any other option. Some answer to this question was aired at the latest celebration of the victory in the WWII in Estonia on May 9th. In the last years, these celebrations have been massively decorated by the orange-black Georgian ribbons. Many Estonian Russian speakers liked to display them in their cars permanently as an identity sign. This year, the display of Georgian ribbons was considerably decreased. As the Ukrainian separatists use this ribbon as their identification, the symbol has acquired aggressive imperialist connotations. A notable drop in the use of this symbol in Estonia might be a sign of disassociation from the sentiments characterizing its wearers in Ukraine. There is no doubt that the Russian speakers feel somewhat deprived in Estonia, because of the citizenship and educational policy. The positive thing about the Ukrainian crisis is that perhaps the first time ever the Estonian mainstream political discourse has started to realize that the only long-term security guarantee against Russia’s imperialistic ambitions would be the welfare of all people in Estonia, notwithstanding their home language. This has already led to some positive steps—the ministry of justice has started 48 A S P E N translating Estonian legislation to Russian, it has promised that the consumer information of medical products needs to be also printed in Russian; and that the school reform needs adjustments. Thus, at present it seems that the lesson of Ukraine might have an improving rather than obstructing effect on the interethnic relations in Estonia. MARTIN EHALA Professor of Literacy Education, Senior Research Fellow, University of Tartu Photo: Eva-Maria Truusalu R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S Post-Soviet Central Asia: The Changing Politics Of Leadership Transition Luca Anceschi The entrenchment of authoritarianism in Central Asia might survive the demise of the first generation of leaders Uzbekistan, Central Asia’s most populated state, is due to celebrate its next Presidential election in 2015. The biggest question mark surrounding the Uzbekistani consultation is related to the incumbent’s decision to participate: should Islam A. Karimov, first (and only) President of post-Soviet Uzbekistan, opt to file a candidature, there will be very limited room to end his tenure at the helm of the Uzbekistani state. No alternative candidate—coming from within or, less likely, beyond the regime ranks— will have a chance to unseat Uzbekistan’s longterm president. Karimov, in other words, is most certainly expected to remain president for life. This latter proposition captures in full the fundamental conundrum that, in the last five years or so, has come to characterize the political landscape of the Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan). To date, no regional state has established a viable procedure to ensure the smooth completion of political transitions, leaving the fate of leadership change in the hands of incumbents. This failure has come to compromise, in the medium term, the effectiveness of A S P E N R E V I E W / P regional governance, as the ageing authoritarian leaders have preferred to engage in conservative policies rather than introduce much-needed socio-political change. This conundrum has virtually frozen the political landscapes of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan— the key constituents of Central Asia’s political community. Throughout the post-Soviet era, the two republics have been dominated by the figures of I.A. Karimov (Uzbekistan) and Nursultan A. Nazarbaev (Kazakhstan). The careers of Central Asia’s elder statesmen, interestingly, unfolded in parallel trajectories: both appointed at the helm of their respective republics in the Gorbachev years, Karimov and Nazarbaev carefully managed the transition to independence to establish the consolidated authoritarian regimes over which they continue to preside in the mid-2010s. The Kazakhstani political discourse is currently dominated by speculations on the presidential succession. The ageing president (b. 1940) has entered another term in office in April 2011, when he won yet another election. Interestingly though, Nazarbaev’s electoral triumph—even one of his opponents did apparently vote for the incumbent, O L I T I C S 49 who was re-elected with a stunning 95.5 percent of votes—opened a phase of inexorable decline for the Kazakhstani regime: although Nazarbaev is firmly at the helm, his age and (reportedly) poor health have encouraged the spread of rumors on the presidential succession. has been subjugated to the logic of power personalization established by the incumbent president. A pre-arranged, extra-familial succession, in this sense, appears to be a very likely outcome for the post-Nazarbaev transition. Interestingly though, this scenario is contested by the (small) internal opposition, which is timidly pointing out to Kazakhstan’s republican nature when outlining its preferred tool to engage with the post-Nazarbaev transition: a free and fair election. To a very similar extent, the “democratic” option seems an unlikely outcome for leadership transition in Uzbekistan. In this context, the highly authoritarian nature of Uzbekistani politics prevented the establishment of any form of internal opposition: the leadership transition, in other words, will be almost certainly orchestrated from within the regime ranks. Recently, however, an increasing number of international observers advanced relevant doubts in relation to the president’s actual capacity of appointing a successor, arguing that the Karimov regime is more fragmented and unstable than its Kazakhstani counterpart. There is no better way to elaborate upon the latter proposition than by focusing on the many misfortunes experienced by one of the president’s daughters, Gulnara Karimova. A successful pop star, a globally recognized twitterata, and a wealthy businesswoman, Gulnara has recently fallen from favor: having lost most of her assets, the once-successor-inwaiting is now under house arrest, with virtually no prospects of rising to the top of Uzbekistani politics. Gulnara’s brutal treatment might be an indicator of Karimov’s limited influence vis-à-vis the choice of his own successor: other forces, internal to the regime but not totally aligned with the president, might have orchestrated the marginalization of the president’s daughter. This context, ultimately, offers a relevant perspective to make sense of the recently announced constitutional reform that enhanced the powers of the Uzbekistani prime minister. With Gulnara under arrest, no opposition allowed to operate An increasing number of international observers advanced relevant doubts in relation to the president’s actual capacity of appointing a successor, arguing that the Karimov regime is more fragmented and unstable than its Kazakhstani counterpart. Nazarbaev himself has refused to publicly announce a successor, and, in his later years in power, opted to focus on legacy-building rather than engaging openly with the issue of leadership change. Inevitably, this perceived vacuum paved the way for many speculations on Kazakhstan’s future leadership. A significant number of élite members have been jockeying for positions of power in the lead-up to the inevitable leadership change. The focus of the international community, on the other hand, remained firmly concentrated on Nazarbaev’s immediate family, and particularly on daughters Dinara and Dariga, who are nevertheless unlikely to take the lead after their father’s demise. Focus on the “First Family” does ultimately reveal the peculiar nature of power diffusion in Nazarbaev’s Kazakhstan, where the Central Asia’s traditional tendency for dynasticism 50 A S P E N R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S freely in the country, and a big question mark hovering over Karimov’s health, long-term Prime Minister Shavkat Mirziyoyev might somehow appear as the current front-runner in Uzbekistan’s relatively imminent transition. The lessons learned throughout the only orchestrated transition experienced in Central Asia to date, however, indicated that, when it comes to relatively unexpected leadership change, unpredictable outcomes are not to be ruled out. On 21 December 2006, official sources announced the death of Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan’s long-term president and Central Asia’s most eccentric leader. During his later years in power, many observers connected the wider stability of Turkmenistan with Niyazov’s permanence in power. In this sense, the authoritarian stability ensured by Niyazov’s mercurial rule was expected to come to a more or less abrupt end at the very moment of the leader’s demise. The transition to power instigated by Niyazov’s relatively unexpected death did however unfold in a surprisingly smooth trajectory. In less than 24 hours after the leader’s death, the regime had proceeded to arrest the constitutionally mandated successor, Parliament speaker Ovezgeldy Atayev, to regroup around the figure of Gurbanguly Berdymuhamedov, one of Turkmenistan’s Deputy Prime Ministers and a relatively unknown élite member. Berdymuhamedov’s accession to power was sanctioned by an orchestrated multi-candidate election— the first in Turkmenistan’s history—that saw him emerging as the dominus of post-Niyazov Turkmenistan on 14 February 2007. There are two major conclusions that can be drawn by this cursory analysis of the post-Niyazov transition. First, Berdymuhamedov’s rise to power was smooth, but not entirely legitimate, as the regime marginalized the mandated successor to shape the transition in line with the internal power play. Interestingly, the eventual winner has to be considered as an outsider in Turkmen politics: Berdymuhamedov was never A S P E N R E V I E W / P listed amongst Niyazov’s likely successors, and he maintained a low profile in the Cabinet while occupying a relatively marginal ministerial position (Health and Pharmaceutical Industry). Despite the many unconfirmed rumors, there is no substantive evidence to conclude that Turkmenistan’s second president was endorsed by the late Niyazov: Berdymuhamedov’s accession to power, in this sense, has to be considered as the function of his alliance-making skills. The 2006–2007 transition, furthermore, did not have any significant impact on the quality of Turkmen governance. Although it failed to replicate the brutality and many of the eccentricities experienced under Türkmenbashi, post-Niyazov authoritarianism did ultimately remain quite extreme. To date, Berdymuhamedov has continued to rule Turkmenistan in non-democratic fashion, crashing internal and external opposition, exerting an oppressive control over the media, and even venturing into the launch of a cult of his own personality. In this sense, the Turkmen transition witnessed a change in the state’s leadership, but not in its governance methods. Ultimately, it cannot be linked to a process of regime change, insofar as no liberalization of the domestic political landscape has followed the demise of Niyazov and the emergence of a new leadership. And this is exactly the risk that we might incur in if we are to equate regime change to leadership change when reflecting upon the impending transitions in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan: there is no certainty to suggest that future leaders in Astana and Tashkent will endeavor to liberalize their respective political landscapes. In this sense, the entrenchment of authoritarianism in Central Asia might survive the demise of the first generation of leaders, as the political experience of post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan has somehow indicated. The Kyrgyz Republic remains to date the only Central Asian state to have experienced multiple changes of leadership. Inaugural president Askar Akayev was toppled by a popular revolution in O L I T I C S 51 March 2005, when demonstrations erupted all over the country to protest against the unprecedented level of corruption reached by the regime. The accession to power of Kurmanbek Bakiyev did the abandonment of a strongly presidential electoral system. This was perhaps the only instance of regime change that Central Asia has experienced since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Kyrgyzstan’s parliamentary era is currently making its (relatively) initial steps, with President Almazbek Atambayev governing over an increasingly unstable and fragmented system. While there is certainly no recipe to improve the quality of governance after a change in the leadership, the political experience of post-Soviet Central Asia seems to indicate that local leaders have failed to identify even the most rudimentary praxis to ensure smooth, constitutionally enshrined transfers of power. The political transitions emerged to date in the region ( Turkmenistan in 2006–2007, Kyrgyzstan in 2005 and 2010) did all take place after traumatic events. This systemic failure might indeed explain why Central Asia-watchers (and perhaps the local population too) are taking a long, big breath before venturing in the cloud of uncertainty surrounding the impending transitions in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. There is no certainty to suggest that future leaders in Astana and Tashkent will endeavor to liberalize their respective political landscapes. In this sense, the entrenchment of authoritarianism in Central Asia might survive the demise of the first generation of leaders, as the political experience of postSoviet Kyrgyzstan has somehow indicated. LUCA ANCESCHI Lecturer in Central Asian Studies, University of Glasgow. His book Turkmenistan’s foreign policy— Positive Neutrality and the Consolidation of the Turkmen regime (Routledge 2008) represented the first book-length account of Turkmen foreign policy published in Western languages Photo: Archive Luca Anceschi not however bring about more transparent governance, as the post-Akayev regime soon began to imitate the diffused practices of nepotism and state-capture that its predecessor implemented during the 1990s and early 2000s. Ultimately, Bakiyev’s extremely corrupted regime was also the victim of popular discontent, as a second revolution erupted in April 2010 to topple the leadership in Bishkek. The 2010 Kyrgyz Revolution, after the brief interim presidency of Roza Otunbayeva—the only Central Asian leader to have willingly relinquished power in the post-independence era—led to a complete revision of the state’s constitutional infrastructure and 52 A S P E N R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S Europe and the Problem of Force Wojciech Przybylski The recent events in Ukraine have laid Europe’s inability to act in the face of hostile Russian action bare. Faced with military intervention at its doorstep, it has reached for the traditional toolkit of diplomacy—declarations and consultations. By renouncing the use of force or war, is Europe giving in to anyone who will not hesitate to use those in pursuit of their goals? If so, it may soon have to surrender the European way of life, which is so attractive that many people already risk their lives in order to achieve it. A brute, naked force has an edge over talks. Violence remains the essence of power. In economic terms, Europe is undoubtedly a big fish; yet if it is to cease being small fry in political terms, it needs to understand the following lessons. Only through the joint construction of military potential will we be able to bolster European standards around us as well as globally. It is appropriate that we do this only in the name of liberal principles: freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. On the one hand, these principles require that we condemn the use of force, including war. On the other, they require us to be prepared for war. Thus far no attempt to rebuild European military strength has been successful. However, the world had never seen such peaceful process as the creation of the European Union. Yet, the EU exists. The essence of politics in modern-day Europe is deteriorating. While it is true that the world has A S P E N R E V I E W / P changed dramatically in the past few centuries, this change has not been so profound that military force would have ceased to play the deciding role in the creation of the political order—quite the contrary. The sincere intentions of Europeans have done nothing to limit the level of violence in the world over the last few decades. Devastating conflicts on the scale of world wars have been avoided, but clashes are occurring with great frequency, even in our immediate neighborhood. Syria is currently a site of conflict, Russian forces have occupied part of Georgia, and it was not so long ago that blood was spilled in the Balkans. Europe is mindful of its historical tragedies and it is not so much reluctant to use force as it is unwilling to admit that force remains at the center of politics, and that the use of violence is the essence of political power. A bitter pill to swallow is the fact that even as a continent we still are a small fry in political O L I T I C S 53 terms. In modern political thought, however, there is no resolute answer as to how violence may be placed at the heart of power and how it may be harnessed. This is why the leaders on our continent compensate for their own sense of weakness by developing diplomatic instruments that they deem “o be our y.” They are unwilling to face the fact that the power of European countries is based on the same law as that of global communities, namely, that it is necessary to be prepared to use force not only in the name of one’s interests but also in the name of shared values. At times the European countries make limited, and thus pitiable, attempts at armed intervention, as was seen during the recent conflicts in Libya and in Mali. We should, however, remember the Balkans and ask ourselves how many human lives were saved by all that pathetic prattle about human rights and by our inability to intervene. Do we truly believe that tragedy will remain at bay because we can defeat aggression through words alone? We live by the conviction that the European community can survive only if we renounce violence. The memory of the tragedy of war provides a warning, although its power fades as violence remains at the heart of political action. How else can we characterize the pressure that, for example, Germany and the International Monetary Fund put on Greece where it had to accept the conditions of financial aid against its better judgment and common sense? Fortunately, in this case, those actions did not lead to armed conflict, but allusions were made to wartime violence and occupation in many statements. European Union leaders used a kind of force against one of its member states. means other organizations have at their disposal; corporations, media giants, individual pressure groups, and even individual people often control a country’s agenda to a greater extent than its parliament. The influence this power has on the lives of communities is enormous but incidental. They appear sporadically and do not institutionalize themselves so much as state organizations do. Nevertheless, regardless of who these new “strongmen” are, their activity is straightforwardly political. They use the power of words and sometimes money to shape the world order and eliminate the monopoly on power held by governments and states. We should, however, remember the Balkans and ask ourselves how many human lives were saved by all that pathetic prattle about human rights and by our inability to intervene. The discord between power and force is best illustrated by comparing Europe and the United States. In his 2002 article “Power and Weakness,1 Robert Kagan demonstrated this by use of two metaphors. He compared Europe to the stance of Venus, which is closer to the peace-loving philosophy of Immanuel Kant. America was compared to Mars, the god of war, and closer to Hobbesian ideas. The text caused great controversy at the time, in part due to the fact that George W. Bush was also using similar rhetoric in declaring war on terrorism. Ten years on, Kagan explained that the text was published earlier and was not intended to be a justification for the policies of the White House. It had, however, been in part inspired by Europe: A Power without Force We will attempt to make use of two terms in order to describe how communities choose the direction they take: power and force. It is possible today to be sincerely convinced that power— political power in particular—is nothing more than braggadocio when held up against the 54 A S P E N R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S the notorious essay that British strategist Robert Cooper had written on the weakness of Europe.2 In his essay, Robert Cooper echoed his countryman, historian Michael Howard, who had noted the significant weakness of a Europe that is convinced of the primacy of liberal values and yet is not prepared to take up arms to defend them: the civilized countries have given up the position that had given them strength. This is of course not always true. There are, nevertheless, few significant exceptions to the rule. No one would seriously claim that the power held by the president of the United States is mere braggadocio. We may add the leaders of Russia, Pakistan, and China to the list of the powerful, but not the peaceful and prosperous Switzerland, Germany, or Denmark. Nobody suspects Russia, Pakistan, or China of harboring liberal tendencies. Nevertheless, soon enough, other countries outside Europe may join the group of Western/liberal powers. Lately, even Brazil has been arming itself in order to defend its wealth of natural resources and its modernization project. It is countries such as Brazil and India who will join America in shaping the free world. of course impossible to compare the numbers of fatalities, as every human life lost is a tragedy. Nevertheless, in considering the evil that armed conflict may potentially bring, it is worth bearing in mind that in times of peace we witness events both bloodier and crueler. It would not be entirely perverse to ponder the social benefits of warfare. What strength lies in war-readiness? As strange as it is to say, war is above all an instrument of social change and, despite appearances to the contrary, progress. Why then should not liberalism support wars on the understanding that participation in an armed conflict is a driving force of change in society? Robert Nisbet, a major American sociologist, described in his 1988 pamphlet The Present Age3 how America’s participation in the wars at the start of the 20th century pushed it toward progress: equal rights, new technologies, and social change. This came about at the cost of tradition, the strength of local communities, and religion. Nisbet, a staunch conservative, naturally bemoaned this. Should liberals—not to mention socialists—seriously consider their stance in light of this? Regardless of where one’s ideological sympathies lie, it must not be forgotten that every war brings change with it, at times a radical one. Could we envision the 20th century economic and social dynamism of Warsaw, or even Poland, had the war not ploughed through the fabric of cities and, in doing so, leveled social status? The People’s Republic of Poland was not responsible, as the Soviets oversaw the rebuilding of hierarchies and dependency structures. With reference to the wartime memories of Ksawery Pruszyński, it is difficult to deny that war and the catastrophe of the Warsaw Uprising created an entirely new society in Poland. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not calling for war to be declared in the name of progress in the style of 19th century Marxists. I am, however, drawing attention to the fact that wars in principle are responsible for fewer fatalities War, or Being Prepared for Change The consequences of a political decision always ultimately decide someone’s existence or lack thereof. The failure to take action can place decisions about human existence into the hands of others. In extreme situations, this applies to conflicts that cost human lives. This also concerns crime, but above all war. We must remember, however, that the essence of war is not death, but the achievement of a defined political goal. Many armed conflicts naturally spiral out of control and leave casualties in their wake, yet those armed conflicts are less lethal than road accidents and we are almost as indifferent to them as to detective shows. Traffic accidents claim over one million lives worldwide every year. Armed conflicts from the second half of the 20th century and the present day have claimed ten times less lives annually. It is A S P E N R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S 55 than assumed and that their purpose is not to kill an enemy but to achieve political goals. Secondly, it is precisely warfare that is the main driving force of the change that liberals are eager to achieve, particularly in democracy, and which involves an element of social awareness even in participation in a distant combat mission. the certainty of this that provided the catalyst for democratic changes in Central Europe. Václav Havel’s concept of “the power of the powerless” made sense of the odd situation in which the leadership in fact lacked the necessary strength to lead, and thereby it lost. That strength was harnessed by the democratic social movements. It was they who replaced the old leadership. Their weakness, however, was and still is the fact that they turn their backs on the essence of politics and thereby on the scene of potential conflict. The fate of democracy and the European social model is dependent on whether we will be able to rise up and take advantage of force to create order in the name of liberal values. Violence and dictatorship are nevertheless written into every level of state institutions, no matter how democratic they are. We do not have to use them. If, however, we rule out the use of force, we pave the way for those who will not hesitate in their use of uncontrolled, unlimited force. In other words, if Europe does not take common stance against Russian imperial ambitions to the point of even risking a war, then the European way of life will hardly be as attractive in the future so that one hundred people at another square would be willing to die for it. Force without Power What are the consequences of a policy that rules out the possibility of warfare? If we are not convinced that strength—including physical force—creates political power (and the countries of Europe do after all aspire to that power), we are destined to become an antique relic, moved from shelf to shelf by rising powers that will not look favorably upon our civilizational model. This may be our undoing in the long run. We cannot, however, frantically build up our armies and demonstrate our readiness to fight. It is necessary to arm ourselves until Europe becomes a great power, or we must use the tactics of a weak player who is indispensable to everyone but who threatens no one. That strength can also bring about positive effects in the right circumstances, if current leaderships weaken and lose the power to set the agenda. The strength of conviction which mere conversation represents only occasionally wields this power. In general, it must be backed up by force, as it is traditionally understood. Even in Poland, we tend to prefer to use the word “power” to represent the concept of force in political discussions. However, understanding of the modern world is only possible with the recognition that it is force that creates power and infuses it with meaning. Political power is at times toothless but, in the social world and especially in the world of politics, force can always bite. It was WOJCIECH PRZYBYLSKI is Editor-in-Chief of Visegrad Insight and Res Publica Nowa. Photo: Piotr Bekas 1 http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7107 2 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/07/1 3 Robert A. Nisbet, The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America, Liberty Fund 2003. 56 A S P E N R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S Right in Ascendance or Mainstream in Decline? Frank Furedi The main reason why the old mainstream parties have failed to contain the rise of populist movements is because they stand discredited in the eyes of sections of the electorate. They not only lack the political arguments to reverse this state of affairs but also the political language to communicate across the cultural divide. Commentaries on the spectacular rise of right-wing populist parties throughout Europe often shift between the postures of incomprehension and moral condemnation. During the past two decade (and especially since the Eurozone crisis) such reviews are often drawn towards providing a diagnosis of a political pathology, where supporters of populist parties are represented as patients who don’t quite know what they are doing. Some of the characteristics attributed to their behavior are that of resentment, an impulse to protest or to lash out against the political elites or against globalization or against change, an act of political helplessness or a reaction to multiculturalism. Supporters of these parties are always characterized as suffering from a powerful and irrational fear—fear of others, fear of immigrants, fear for their national identity, fear for their way of life. They are typically condemned as narrow-minded bigots or racists—embarrassing reminders of the prejudiced culture of the bad old days. A S P E N R E V I E W / P The tendency to portray supporters of populist parties as simpletons is invariably coupled to an analysis that depicts these political organizations as ones that set out to cynically exploit and manipulate people’s grievances. At best these are protest movements that represent the negative impulse of a backlash. The possibility that for many people voting for a right wing populist party is a positive choice and not just a gesture of protest is rarely considered. Yet for many voters of nationalistic populist parties the decision to reject the old established pro-EU mainstream parties represents a positive affirmation of a way of life. They Don’t Talk to Us Once upon a time the north-eastern Hungarian city of Miskolc used to be a socialist stronghold. In the recent years the far right and fascist-inclined Jobbik party has displaced the Socialists as the party of the poor and the dispossessed in Miskolc. After a few conversations with people from Miskolc it becomes all too evident why they switched their allegiance. Gyuri and his wife Zsuzsi used O L I T I C S 57 to vote for the left but now feel cheated by the corrupt politicians who “lied and betrayed them.” They hope that Jobbik will stand up for ordinary Hungarian people. Janos, an elderly former steel worker provides a compelling explanation of a political world turned upside down in Hungary’s second largest city. He claims that “they don’t talk to us.” By the word “they” he means the established mainstream parties. A recent analysis of Jobbik’s success in provincial Hungary echoes Janos’s point. According to a fascinating commentary in the Magyar Narancs , people in the countryside opted for Jobbik because the Left appears to be only interested in their votes.1 Hungary represents an extreme example where a significant section of the electorate— whose voice has been ignored and marginalized—has sought to defend their interest by voting for a far right chauvinist and racialist movement. Jobbik did not have to fight off political parties competing for the allegiance of the people who voted for them (20 percent of the electorate). The other parties—especially the Socialists—were either not interested or not able to find a language for communicating with the socially and culturally insecure people of provincial Hungary. Janos’s words, “they don’t talk to us,” resonate with the British experience. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s “Bigotgate” moment is paradigmatic in this respect. During the 2010 General Election he was overheard denouncing a 65-year old lady who asked him about his views on immigration as a “bigoted woman.” That Brown was not prepared to have a conversation with people who are concerned about immigration is testimony to the psychic distance between the Westminster elite and the working class pensioners uncertain about their place in the world. “They are bigots and there is nothing to discuss” is a sentiment that spares politicians from the challenge of discussing some very difficult issues. This time I am talking to a group of self-employed artisans in the Kentish town of 58 A S P E N Sittingbourne in England. They are all going to vote for UKIP in the EU elections. Their decision to support UKIP is at least in part motivated by the negative impulse of giving the old parties a bloody nose. But they also have positive reasons for embracing UKIP. As far as they are concerned, UKIP speaks their language and addresses their concerns. When I inquire to find out just what it is about their lives that UKIP is able to address their response suggests that it is their sense of cultural insecurity what is at issue above all. UKIP’s outlook, which is a mixture of traditional Toryism, conservative Liberalism and Little England patriotism has very little in common with that of Jobbik. But then the parties to which the generic label right wing populist is applied—Danish People’s Party, the Dutch Party for Freedom, the French National Front, the Greek Golden Dawn—often have very different policies and aspirations. Outwardly what they share is a common hostility to the EU and immigration. Inwardly what animates their supporters is their estrangement the cultural values promoted by the political establishment that dominates the EU and member societies. In a world where culture has become politicized they regard their identity as being under threat by governments who regard old traditions with scorn. They Are Not Like Us European media outlets have become obsessed with the rise of EU skepticism and populism. What such reactions often express is an apprehension that the prevailing institutions of society have lost touch with a significant section of the public. What is at issue in the numerous disputes between the political establishment and its populist opponents is not simply political differences but ones that are also profoundly cultural. It is evident that in the current post-ideological era the differences between Left and Right have lost much of their political significance. Even questions like the role of the welfare state or R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S economic strategy are rarely the topics of serious debate. Instead what divides Europe are issues of culture. Recent protest and controversy over subjects like family values, gay marriage, genderequality sex education, abortion, circumcision of boys, multiculturalism or immigration indicate that cultural issues have become politicized to the point that they deeply divide societies. The origins of Europe’s culture war lie with the shift in focus of governmental activity in the post-ideological era. Since the 1980s mainstream parties have lost much of their political baggage and identity. They have displaced the language of ideology with that of technocratic governance. As technocrats they are in the business of managing—rather than leading—public opinion. Instead of arguing and convincing the electorate they prefer to “nudge” and manipulate them. They justify their existence through assuming that they possess knowledge, values and insights that are in short supply among the electorate. Hence they are continually in the business of “raising awareness,” of “changing attitudes” and of social engineering. The pursuit of this social engineering project is expressed through scorn for a way of life best forgotten and for identities not wanted. The sentiments are most systematically expressed by the EU technocracy which believes that it is entitled to displace traditional cultural attitudes with its own “enlightened” sentiments. From this perspective the traditional family values and the old-fashioned sentiments appear as a prejudice that people need to be educated out of. They continually contrast their enlightened and healthy lifestyles to the bigoted outlook of those who refuse to adapt to the new Europe. What is significant about this conflict of values is that its protagonists inhabit two very different worlds. The urbanized, university-educated and highly mobile political establishment has virtually no point of contact with those whose lives they scorn. In turn from the perspective of those who inhabit a traditional way of life, the world of their elites looks alien and culturally distant. From the A S P E N R E V I E W / P standpoint of a UKIP or Danish People’s Party voters, these are not just people who “don’t talk to us” they are also not “not like us.” Sometimes cultural conflicts can appear petty and even bizarre. Take the issue of pork. After reports that in some nurseries in Copenhagen, children were no longer served pork products, the Danish People’s Party decided to campaign against what it interpreted as a blow against the nation’s cultural identity. After its vociferous campaign provoked widespread indignation and concern, the Social Democratic Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt was forced to acquiesce to the mood of the people and publicly affirm that the eating of pork is integral to Danish identity. “We have to stick with the way we eat and what we do in Denmark” she stated before adding “there should be room for frikadeller [meatballs].” At first sight the politicization of meatballs appears absurd. But on closer inspection this is an instance of an “enough-is-enough” reaction. At least a significant minority of Danes perceive that what they could previously take for granted is now regarded as negotiable by their political masters. That so many people reacted so strongly about the non-availability of pork in their children’s nurseries indicates that what’s at issue is their identity as Danes, which they believe is challenged and redefined by forces beyond their control. Some commentators have classified this response as a simply xenophobic reaction to Muslims. No doubt, in some cases it is. However, this manifestation of cultural insecurity represents a demand for the affirmation of a way of life that is no longer deemed as special by the ruling elites. The Politics of Bad Faith Until fairly recently the European political establishment felt relatively confident about its authority. It could easily dismiss the occasional challenge from populist movements as simply a temporary manifestation of a backlash and protest. However, in recent years the European political elites have become increasingly O L I T I C S 59 anxious and defensive. Despite their influence over the media and EU institutions they have not succeeded in neutralizing the appeal of populist movements. Media campaigns waged against right wing populist movements have proved singularly ineffective. Despite the fact that virtually all British media have mobilized their resources against UKIP, the party continues to retain its political support. What the failure of this propaganda campaign against UKIP indicates is that the political influence of the British media has become seriously compromised. Frequently the success of UKIP or the Danish People’s Party is attributed to the charisma or the political trickery of their leaders. Populist parties are often accused of manipulating people or scaring people or lying to them. The constant attempts to expose their real agenda is inspired by the naïve conviction that it is their trickery rather than their political outlook that attracts support. The main reason for this patronizing response is because the European political establishment finds it difficult to acknowledge that its populist opponents actually speak for a section of the electorate. To acknowledge this reality would require that the mainstream parties face up to the fact that it is they who are out of touch with a significant section of public opinion. The main reason why the old mainstream parties have failed to contain the rise of populist movements is because they stand discredited in the eyes of sections of the electorate. They not only lack the political arguments to reverse this state of affairs but also the political language to communicate across the cultural divide. Instead of engaging in democratic dialogue they outsource their authority to media-trained consultants and experts. In some cases mainstream parties have almost given up on attempting to influence groups such as elderly working class pensioners. They are written off as irredeemably prejudiced bigots whose outlook on the world can be safely ignored. Take the example of one video commissioned by the EU Information Centre, and released recently in Denmark. The video, featuring an oral sex loving superhero Voterman, sought to mobilize young people to vote in the EU election presumably to offset the votes of their prejudiced elders. Public outcry led to humiliating withdrawal of the video. This incident demonstrated just who is really out of touch with public opinion. What the current EU elections expose is the unraveling of the world-view and authority of the political establishment that manages the destiny of most European societies. That a variety of populist movements are the beneficiaries of this state of affairs is not surprising. Their success was not so much of their own making as the result of the moral disorientation of the mainstream parties. What we see is not the triumph of the populist right but the implosion of the traditional governmental parties in many parts of Europe. Whether these populist movements have the capacity to transcend their minority status is an open question. However, the (irreversible?) decline of the old mainstream EU oriented parties is not in dispute. FRANK FUREDI is the author of Authority: A Sociological Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2013. Photo: Matthias Haslauer 1 http://magyarnarancs.hu/kismagyarorszag/a-baloldal-csak-a-szavazatvasarlasban-erdekelt-videken-ezert-akarjak-a-jobbikot-89596. 60 A S P E N R E V I E W / P O L I T I C S LEONIDAS DONSKIS A Heavy Hangover after the 2014 EP Elections W e are coming,” says Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), and Co-Chair of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament. As if to say that this is just his time, Farage comes up with the punch line directed straight to Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament: “Please don’t pretend that nothing has happened. You know perfectly well that it has. And the day is nigh when all your EU institutions will be plain dead. We are coming.” I am paraphrasing his phrase, yet I can vouch for its credibility and content. So the message is clear—if we are to believe the most theatrical and eloquent political clown I have seen over the past five years that I spent as his fellow Member of the European Parliament (2009–2014)—that’s the beginning of the end for the EU. Needless to say, the news about the oncoming death of the EU is slightly exaggerated. Christian Democrats, Socialists, Liberals, and Greens will outweigh an increasingly visible minority of far right led by Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage. When the time comes, conventional and pro-European groups will easily achieve a decisive and crucial majority over pivotal issues of the EU. Yet on one point we—willing or not—have to agree with Nigel Farage. The 2014 elections to the European Parliament did make a difference. We cannot pretend any longer that far right voices and Euro-skeptics are still a tiny minority that is easily to relegate to the margins of EU politics. The shocking victory of UKIP in the UK (27% of votes) coupled with the triumph of Le Front National (FN) in France (one fourth of all votes) and with A S P E N R E V I E W / C LEONIDAS DONSKIS was a Member of the European Parliament (2009–2014). He has written and edited over thirty books, fifteen of them in English. Among other books, he is co-author (together with Zygmunt Bauman) of Moral Blindness: The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity (2013). Photo: Jolanta Donskiene genuine fascist parties, such as the Golden Dawn of Greece, and Jobbik of Hungary, the far right and anti-immigration parties, such as UKIP, FN, and Geert Wilders’ Party of Freedom in the Netherlands, will make up quite a noisy minority of around 140 voices in the newly elected European Parliament. First and foremost, these forces are not only strongly anti-EU oriented—they are essentially anti-European and overtly pro-Kremlin. One only has to recall how they praised Vladimir Putin up to the skies as a supposed defender of the conservative, family, traditional values, as it allowed Farage and Marine Le Pen to close ranks with Jobbik—a miserable and disgraceful alliance, to say the least. Even worse was the moment of O M M E N T 61 self-exposure when Farage in one of his recent interviews went so far as to suggest that the two grave mistakes made by the EU were the adoption of Euro and the accession of Eastern European countries to the EU with all the social mobility and dignity they got (not being embarrassed anymore by Western European immigration officers with their intrusive questions and poorly concealed disdain for Eastern Europe, I would add). Well, what can you say after this? First and foremost, not only do Poland or the Baltic States appear as the stronghold of Europe-oriented values as opposed to the pro-Kremlin and Putinesque farce of UKIP and FN; in this context, Ukraine and its anti-criminal revolution with the EU on the lips of Maidan protesters come as a powerful antidote against the political grotesque of populism in EU countries. At the same time, it becomes increasingly obvious that the times when the Kremlin had its useful idiots in the West primarily among leftist intellectuals with all their misguided politics and self-imposed moral and political blindness are gone; instead, the new useful idiots of the Kremlin come straight from far right—these are people who choose to believe that Vladimir Putin is the hope of European neo-conservatism. I have already described elsewhere this phenomenon in terms of the new Fascist International with its headquarters in Moscow. However tempting, we cannot reduce the entire analysis of the 2014 elections to the EP to a moral shock. True, it is something like a heavy hangover and a wake-up call for the EU, yet this is the right time to find the answer to the question: What happened? What happened was easy to expect, especially in the light of a difficult rivalry between JeanClaude Juncker and Martin Schulz over the post of President of the European Commission where Juncker’s high profile of a confessed Federalist made it impossible for the UK to back him. Add to these domestic nuances the fight between British conservatives and UKIP (as the latter tries to fish 62 A S P E N in the same waters of British Euro-skepticism and exceptionalism), and you will have if not a cul-de-sac, then at least a difficult predicament of British politics. Juncker may be blocked or strongly rejected by the UK, much in the same way once his rival Guy Verhofstadt, leader of ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), was blocked for the same sin: his overt federalism, which tells us something disturbing about the moral and political void of the EU, rather than the sheer triumph of Euroskeptics. Yes, the articulate, eloquent, ambitious, and dynamic Verhofstadt has many chances to become President of the European Parliament (I would bet on it), yet the maneuvering between the EU Council, as an intergovernmental club, and the EP, as the only democratically elected political institution of the EU, exposes the principal weakness of the Union: lack of vision, and the resulting reliance on technocratic, instead of democratic, recipes. The 2014 elections should serve as a wake-up call and a reminder that Euroskepticism is far from being a force majeur or natural disaster: instead, it is a collective sentiment of European citizens that got skillfully exploited by populist parties and translated into a battle cry, a quasi-program, and a pseudo-vision for the future. It is now enough to beat the drums of doom and portray the EU as a specter of velvet totalitarianism or else demonize Brussels, and behold the mandate—you can win the elections to the despised European Parliament, an institution which Mr. Farage hates and holds in contempt, even refusing to attend the meetings of his committee, yet this does not prevent him from being well paid by it. No program or vision is needed—just an imagined monster onto which you project all your dissatisfaction and worries caused by modern politics and life. The EU is at crossroads, and the time is up. We have to act. Otherwise, we will fail, leaving Europe in tragedy. If we needed a clear signal, we got it in these elections. R E V I E W / C O M M E N T Czech Foreign Trade in Healthy Condition Jan Bureš The current orientation of Czech foreign trade has proved relatively effective in crisis. The question is whether a stronger orientation of the country’s economy towards countries outside Europe would be desirable or indeed, whether it should be actively encouraged. The onset of the US financial crisis and the Eurozone crisis that followed once again brought to the table the recurrent question: is Czech foreign trade too focused on developed markets, particularly the Eurozone ones? Is it not too dependent on the crisis-prone automotive industry? At that point the answer was obvious. Yes, we do need to expand our exports to the fastgrowing new markets of China, Russia, India and Brasil. Yes, we do need to diversify our exports. Five years after the fall of Lehman Brothers, however, quite a different analysis seems to be in order. Czech foreign trade, with its orientation towards European countries and the auto industry, has coped really well. Foreign trade proved to be one of the main assets of the Czech economy, making a positive contribution to the growth of GDP almost throughout this period. This is partly because the focus on Western Europe is not, in fact, as significant as the gross foreign trade figures suggest, since a growing proportion of Czech goods exported to Western Europe ends up in developing markets. The question is whether this process could be speeded up 64 A S P E N by government policies and if so, whether that would really be beneficial. The fact is that the emerging markets seem to be past their peak, their role changing from the workhorse of the global economy into its Achilles heel by 2014. The Russia-Ukraine crisis is another reminder that investors can often underestimate political and security risks in economies that appear to portend, at first sight, substantial and rapid revenues… Czech Industry and Its Changing Orientation over Time Over the past ten to fifteen years Czech foreign trade has come a long way. While in 2000 the Czech Republic’s trade in commodities recorded a 100 billion crown deficit, by 2013 this turned into a surplus of nearly 400 billion crowns. This was largely due to the accession to the European Union and continuous integration into the common European market. The country has enjoyed a huge influx of direct foreign investment, particularly from Germany. German multinational corporations used their R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y investments in the Czech Republic and in Poland (as well as these countries’ more liberal labor legislation) to expose the German workforce to more competition than that faced by employees in France or other West European countries. Central European economies have helped Germany to keep a tight rein on real wages and thus to maintain its share of global exports over the past ten years. By contrast, France’s share of global exports, and Italy’s, has declined considerably. equipment. By comparison, the Czech Republic’s long-term dependence on imports of oil and gas from Russia and Azerbaijan remains unchanged. A Distorted Picture of Dependence on Germany and China However, the picture presented above is distorted, as it artificially inflates both the dependence of Czech exporters on the German consumer market as well as that of Czech households on Chinese products. This is because a number of goods that feature in the gross import and export statistics are only semi-finished products destined for final consumption on other markets. For example, many Czech companies in the automobile industry supply components to German car manufacturers who, in turn, use them in manufacturing aimed at further exports. Czech factory production is thus less dependent on German demand than on the demand in a number of other countries with whom the Czech Republic—at least at first sight—has no substantial trade relations. Import figures are similarly distorted. The marked increase in the imports of office technology and electronics from China and Korea is not simply a function of Czech demand. Rather, it reflects the fact that the Czech Republic has become a factory or assembly shop, which companies such as Foxconn use to assemble imported Asian components, turning them into machines for the rest of Europe. An OECD project provides a useful key for decoding these relations. The project aims to map the global streams of added value that builds up as a product travels from one country to another before ending up in a consumer’s shopping basket. The reason is quite simple: gross statistics reflect value added to imports and exports of multiple countries. The OECD aims to discover the country where the value added really originates and the country in whose shopping basket it ends up. In other words, it aims to disclose real economic relations and dependencies between individual economies. While in 2000 the Czech Republic’s trade in commodities recorded a 100 billion crown deficit, by 2013 this turned into a surplus of nearly 400 billion crowns. Germany’s export successes have been, to a large extent, propped up by Central European economies. As a result, the Czech Republic’s trade surplus with Germany grew significantly between 2000 and 2013—from 54 billion to nearly 300 billion Czech crowns. The trade surplus with Germany currently contributes over 70 percent of the country’s overall balance of trade (compared to roughly 50 percent in 2000). The exporters’ growing reliance on Germany has gone hand in hand with growing dependence of the importers on China and some Asian countries: South Korea and Thailand in particular. In 2013 the trade deficit with China was approximately the same as the country’s trade surplus with Germany. The trade surplus with Germany consists, to a large extent, of net exports of machinery and vehicles—the backbone of Czech industry. On the other hand, imports from China and Korea mostly comprise electronics, telecommunication devices and office A S P E N R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y 65 What the OECD analysis shows for the Czech Republic in 2009 is that the gross export and import figures tend to inflate the significance of foreign trade. While the gross share of exports and imports in GDP amounts to roughly 80 and roughly 70 per cent respectively, once you strip these figures of the added value of re-exports the results are considerably more modest. The value added produced in the Czech Republic that ends up in foreign shopping baskets contributes some 35% of the Czech GDP. At the same time, the value added produced abroad which ends up in the shopping baskets of Czech households, companies and government, amounts to around 30% of the GDP. The current orientation of Czech foreign trade has proved relatively effective in crisis. The question is whether a stronger orientation of the country’s economy towards countries outside Europe would be desirable or indeed, whether it should be actively encouraged. The answer is most likely: No. from China to be three times bigger than that from the US. However, when only those imports that actually end up in Czech shopping baskets are considered, the share of imports from China and the US is almost equal. Gross statistics thus inflate the significance of Germany as the main market for Czech producers. While gross figures indicate that German exports amount to some 30% of all Czech exports, in the stripped off version they only amount to around 20%. Slovakia is another similarly overrated export destination for Czech companies. The US and China, on the other hand, are underrated. Gross statistics rank the US and China respectively as the tenth and thirteenth most important destination for Czech products. Yet the picture is quite different in terms of demand at the point of sale: the US ranks in joint fourth place, while China ranks tenth. This is because many Czech products reach the US and China by a detour, for example, via Germany. Furthermore, China and Russia are among the destinations whose significance for Czech exporters has grown considerably over the past decade: OECD statistics show that the importance of these two countries has almost doubled since 2000 (albeit from a relatively low base). Concurrently, the importance of the French and Italian markets has also grown, approximately by a quarter. Relative to this, the importance of the German market has decreased, also roughly by a quarter. This would confirm the hypothesis that Germany is increasingly significant as an interchange for Czech products that end up primarily in Eurozone countries and subsequently in Asia’s big emerging markets—Russia and China. Another interesting revelation is that the gross figures overestimate our import dependency on Germany and China. Many imports from these countries are merely processed in the Czech Republic before being exported elsewhere in the world. Gross figures show the volume of imports Czech Foreign Trade Has Weathered the Crisis Although the dependence on exports to Germany remains high, the trend is decreasing and the actual figures are lower than those reflected in the gross figures for foreign trade. Meanwhile, the relative importance of Germany 66 A S P E N R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y as a stopover for Czech products on their way to other Eurozone countries and to Asia has risen. During the crisis the Czech Republic did rather well with this territorial export structure. From mid-2009 to 2013 the balance of trade in the foreign commodities market has made an almost continually positive contribution to the GDP. In 2011 and 2012 it basically amounted to the only component of the GDP that was growing and helped to prop up the entire economy as far as was possible under the circumstances. Czech exports to Europe have been significantly boosted by an increased share in key markets, particularly in the auto industry. The entire automobile market has declined significantly since 2007, with registrations of new cars remaining over 20% below the pre-crisis level. However, over the same period the Czech producers have increased their share in both Škoda Auto and Hyundai markets. The Czech economy has received a timely boost from its increasing orientation towards the Asian market, which—especially in the immediate wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse—grew at a much brisker pace than many Western European markets. This, however, wouldn’t have been much use by itself without a marked downturn in domestic consumption and with investments reining in imports. Without lower imports the foreign trade results wouldn’t have been quite so impressive. China, there are indications that the domestic economy, particularly the financial sector, is not ready for any further growth of domestic demand. Moreover, the Russia-Ukraine crisis and the growing political tensions in Turkey are a reminder that during the US-European financial crisis investors were apparently quite oblivious of the security and political risks inherent in doing business with emerging economies. On the one hand, the growing orientation of European exporters towards Asian markets is, to a large extent, a natural process that cannot be prevented. On the other, trying to actively speed up this process at this point would not make much sense either. What is far more important now is for Czech exporters to strengthen their position in multinational chains of supply, i.e. they must demonstrate that they are capable of providing greater value added and that they are not easily replaceable. The best way to achieve this is by means of a highly qualified labor force. This is the only key to a long-term prosperity of the Czech economy, regardless of whether most of our products are exported to Western Europe or to Asia. JAN BUREŠ is the Chief Economist at Poštovní Spořitelna (Postal Savings Bank). Photo: Archive Jan Bureš Should We Push for Structural Change? As we have seen, the current orientation of Czech foreign trade has proved relatively effective in crisis. The question is whether a stronger orientation of the country’s economy towards countries outside Europe—particularly the emerging markets in Asia—would be desirable or indeed, whether it should be actively encouraged. The answer is most likely: no. Since the early 2014, the heyday of the emerging markets has been slowly but surely coming to an end. In some countries, including A S P E N R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y 67 Eurasian Integration: Putin’s Futureless Project Vladislav L. Inozemtsev & Anton Barbashin Since the October of 2011, when Vladimir Putin has announced his plans for the creation of the Eurasian Union, Russia has walked the path from a doubtable integrator to a status of a state that values submission rather than cooperation. The proposition to unite Eurasia’s economies today is viewed as a stillborn revanchist idea that was never meant to succeed. Tracing back the routes of the latest Eurasian integration attempt proposed by Russia, we find economic synergy and growth promise as the cornerstone of Putin’s vision for the region. Indeed, any integration, whether in Europe, Asia or in this case Eurasia in theory holds economic dividends as the first and most undeniable argument for closer ties and unification of economic capabilities. Thus, when calling for Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) members to come forward and join Russia, Moscow drew a picture of a prosperous new fellowship of nations that would aggregate wealth faster and more abundant that any state could hope for individually. The frontrunner of the Eurasian economic integration—the Customs Union, functioning since July 1st 2011 was supposed to be a fine example of how Eurasian economic synergy works. Its success was supposed to trigger the rest of the doubting nations like Ukraine to join in. From the very beginning Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan had a limited capacity for synergic effect. First of all, Russia’s GDP 68 A S P E N of $2,015 billion constitutes for 88.5% of cumulative Customs Union GDP and thus the addition of Belarus and Kazakhstan did not allow for creating a sizeable entity that could challenge or even be compared to world’s leading economies. Locked between EU (GDP $17 trillion) and China ($13.4 trillion), Customs Union could not have been a center of economic power by definition. Even when you consider the addition of Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Russia’s GDP receives no more than 17% increase and is a few hundred billion short of a German economy. And in the case of creating an economic center of attraction, size does matter. Secondly, the structure of the economies, especially when comparing Russia and Kazakhstan, are quite similar and both export oriented. Russia’s exports are 77% resource focused and in the case of Kazakhstan the numbers are even higher—91%. The customs regime liberalization that the Union implied did not affect countries export orientation and left only minor parts of the economy to be boosted by the new regulation rules. Obviously, it would have R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y been unwise to predict a great gain in trade, when most of the economic capacities were focused on trade with third countries. That is why by the end of the Customs Union pilot year, Russian trade with Union members increased comparably to its gain in trade with the rest of the world: the overall gain of 31.2%, Kazakhstan—30.6% and Belarus— 37.7%. In 2012, Customs Union members represented only 7.7% of Russian trade, and in 2013 the numbers slightly dropped to 7.5%. In 2013, out of all CIS members Ukraine was still Russia’s primary trade partner accounting for 33% of CIS Russia’s trade, when Belarus represented 29%, Kazakhstan—25%; candidates to Customs Union inclusion Kyrgyzstan—2%, Armenia and Tajikistan both accounted for 1%. Despite the fact that Ukraine refused to join Customs Union, trade structure and orientation remained more or less the same as before the integration circa 2011. As for now, the sole winner of the Customs Union trade liberalization is Belarus; its trade with Russia and Kazakhstan grew more than 10%, when Russia’s trade increased only by 0.5%. Kazakhstan on the other hand received additional taxes, when several thousand Russian businesses reregistered in Kazakhstan, due to better legal and tax conditions. Thirdly, the levels of economic development of the Eurasian nations vary quite drastically. Russia’s GDP per capita is $14,037 which is almost equal to Kazakhstan’s, but more than twice the amount of Belarus, 4 times greater than in Armenia and more than 13 and 17 times greater in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan respectively. Such inequality does not pan out well for the inclusion of the latter two, which would undeniably call for considerable economic support, donations and subsidies. Considering that the positive economic effects of the inclusion of the Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan may be evaluated as vain, there is no economic sense for Customs Union to expand southward. Fourthly, the uneven size of the economies constitutes for a highly misbalanced regula- A S P E N R E V I E W / E tion system, in which Russia’s dominance and aggressive stance would only progress in time, as Russia’s economy loses firm stance and becomes depleted of financial resources that could be used to subside smaller partners. As of May 2014, Russia faces certain economic turbulence due to Western sanctions and exhaustion of the current economic paradigm. Despite the fact that the prices of oil and gas—main source of Russia’s financial growth in 2000s have been consistently high for the last 7 years, the economy had significantly slowed its growth to 0,5% (0,2% GDP growth according to IMF). Capital flow in the first quarter of 2014 exceeded $50 billion, and may reach $100 billion by the end of the year according to official prognosis by the Ministry of Finance. Russian private companies and corporations are facing complications of credit extension from western financial institutions. And the consumer demand—one of the last remaining sources of economic growth may plummet as the result of national currency devaluation, tax increases and negative economic expectations by the population. Russia’s economic troubles are already affecting Customs Union trade. In the first quarter of 2014 it shrinked by 13%. In fact, Belarus and Kazakhstan mutual trade flow has increased by 12.8%, but as it accounts for only 1.5% of the overall Customs Union trade volume, it does not affect general tendency. Russia’s trade with Kazakhstan shows 13% decrease, with Belarus—7.3%. The Social Limitation Eurasian integration, whether Customs Union or proposed Eurasian Union face certain social limitation dictated by the Russian society. Growing xenophobia and religious and cultural differences that only expand in time are causing many complications for potential integration. The only problem-free state in this regard is Belarus, being the most culturally close, ethnically similar and historically being part of the Russian state longer than others. Originally part of the Kievan state, territo- C O N O M Y 69 ries of the contemporary Belarus were included in the Russian Empire in XVII-XVIII centuries. Kazakhstan, although predominately a Muslim state, has a unique status of the most culturally close non-Slavic state to Russian Federation among CIS members. Territories of the contemporary Kazakhstan were integrated into the Russian Empire in 1868, and were populated by ethnic Slavs more than any other colonial territory of the Russian Empire or Soviet Union states. By the end of 1989, ethnic Russians accounted for 44.4% of the population of Kazakhstan SSR, today that number dropped to 26.2%, being by far the most Slavic populated state in the Central Asia. But the key to Russia’s positive reception of Kazakhstan and its integration with Russia is low work migration volume. Due to the comparable living standards, Kazakhs are the least likely export work force to the Russian Federation, which could not be said for Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan that account for more than 1.7 million legal work migrants and at least the same amount of the illegals. Considering that Russia scores 3rd most xenophobic nation according to World Economic Forum in 2013, possibility of open borders and increase in numbers of foreign migrants cause nation-wide negative feedback and is a factor with which integration plans have to be reckoned with. During the last mayoral elections in Moscow, the question of limitation of migration from Central Asia and Caucuses was one of the most controversial and yet key questions discussed by all of the candidates. According to Levada Poll agency more than 65% of Russians support the idea of “Russia for Russians” and up to 84% favor visa regime with Central Asia and Caucasus republics. of the political nature of the Eurasian integration are derived from Putin’s personal belief that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20st century” and that Russia is the Soviet Union, just with a different name. Such explicitly stated nostalgia for imperial past converted into decisive actions directed to re-establishment of the former political dominance in the Eurasia. But, up to annexation of Crimea, Putin only stressed Russia’s role as a state in the process of integration, rather than cultural or ethnic superiority of Russian people. Indeed, the rhetoric behind the annexation of Crimea changed the proposition that Russia offered to the nations of Eurasia. Instead of the common home of many nations, like the Soviet Union used to be, Putin and his assets stressed the crucial role of Russian civilization and its cause as a key motivation for outward expansion. The annexation of Crimea clearly proved that for Vladimir Putin economic reasoning has lesser importance than restoring what he considers historical justice, reunification of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers throughout the near abroad and advancement of conservative values as the opposition to the liberalism of the West. One of the key roles in Putin’s rhetoric plays Orthodox Church that supports traditionalism shift and reunification of historically orthodox territories. Obviously, other nations of Eurasia, especially Muslim Central Asia must be confused and feel out of touch with Putin’s new vision for the Eurasian integration. Practically speaking, all non-Slavic nations are expected to assume secondary roles and follow Moscow’s lead. Indeed, such a new turn must cause certain discomfort among Russia’s own Muslim region of Northern Caucasus, Tatarstan and Bashkiria that are seemingly labeled less Russian that the rest of the country. Russo-centric Eurasian Integration Despite the fact the Putin stressed in 2011 that Russia will build upon European experience of ethnically and culturally blind integration, that promotes equal participation of all nations, Russia’s Eurasian integration has drastically shifted towards Russo-oriented integration. The routes 70 A S P E N Ukraine and the Eurasian Integration Russia-Ukraine conflict has a crucial importance for the demise of the Russia’s Eurasian integration plans. R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y First of all, Russia’s inner policies of the past few years, especially with regards to political and civil freedoms is a reconstruction of a quasi-soviet system that is past focused and intolerable to progressive ideas and practices. The Maidan revolution of February 2014 was an anti-Soviet act, focused on bringing of a new governmental and societal paradigm based on European values and practices. The majority of Ukrainians moved forward into a new political reality, leaving soviet traditions behind and thus shifting even further away from the majority of Russians, still tied up with their soviet past. This new Ukrainian reality is a decisive “no” to Russia’s political paradigm and the possibility of a joint future under Russia’s lead. Second, historically the importance of Ukraine for Russia could not be underestimated. Contemporary Ukraine is a birthplace of Russian statehood and cultural roots. Throughout the last 400 years Russia was constantly fighting for the inclusion of Ukraine and Ukrainians in Russia’s state, fulfilling Pan-Slavic idea of unity and brotherhood. Russia was able to deal with Serbia’s aspirations to join the EU, but Ukraine’s historical shift away from Russia is the last single most important blow to face of Russia’s Pan-Slavic vision. Without Ukraine, any Russian imperial project would be half-baked and dysfunctional. Third, Russian political elite has been pressing the idea of the unique Russian civilization (and Ukraine as an integral part of it) that is unreceptive of European values, political practices and civil traditions. If Ukraine is able to achieve a certain level of success and transform into a capable European state with vital economy it would destroy Russian conservative postulates and open up clear possibility for a successful Russian transformation into a true European state in the long run. Ukrainian success as a state is the greatest threat to Russian imperial aspirations. Fourth, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its actions in the eastern Ukraine calls for a wide spread concern and anxiety among potential Eurasian Union members, as well as the Russia’s A S P E N R E V I E W / E closest allies—Belarus and Kazakhstan. In fact, both Minsk and Astana had voiced their concerns about the future of Eurasian integration even before the Ukrainian crisis, but now their worries grew stronger. Ukrainian crisis gave great cause against Eurasian integration among all Eurasian nations, where opposition to the project now only gains support. No matter how Ukrainian crisis will resolve, the point of no return for the Eurasian integration was crossed, marking a new reality for the region where there is currently no place for EU-type integration and cooperation. Fifth, the Ukrainian crisis has alerted the West over Russia’s true intention for Eurasia, its nature and goals, making a limited contagion a new policy of necessity. It would be just to assume that both the EU and the US will be alerted to withstand any attempt by the Russian Federation to integrate its neighbors into a new empire-like structure. V L A D I S L AV L. INOZEMTSEV is Professor of Economics, Chair of the Department of International Economy at Moscow State University’s School of Public Governance Photo: Archive Vladislav Inozemtsev ANTON BARBASHIN is a fellow at the Center for PostIndustrial Studies (Moscow) and Deputy Director of “Modernizatsya” expert center (Novosibirsk) Photo: Archive Anton Barbashin For future reading, see: Wladislaw Inosemzew und Ekaterina Kusnezowa. “Putins unnütziges Spielzeug” in: Internationale Politik, 2012, № 1 (Januar-Februar), SS. 78–87 and Anton Barbashin and Hannah Thoburn. “Putin’s Brain” in Foreign Affairs, March 31st, 2014 [http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ 141080/anton-barbashinand-hannah-thoburn/putins-brain C O N O M Y 71 The Social Role of Business in Central Europe Katharina Bluhm The ongoing moralization of business has led to a broader understanding of corporate responsibility since the privatization in East Central Europe For the last fifteen years, business in Europe has been the subject of increasing moralization—often seen either as part of the ongoing weakening of collective regulation and welfare state provisions, or as a means of correcting this development. In 2001, the European Union (EU) launched a Green Paper to promote European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as part of its strategy of “soft regulation.” Since then, CSR initiatives have flourished in the “old” and “new” EU member states, with the “old” member states just a couple of years in front. Yet the institutional and cultural settings in which the CSR movement took seed vary from country to country. In Germany, for example, it meets a relatively strong corporatist and welfare tradition which shapes the understanding of companies’ responsibilities to the society. Companies of post-transition member states, in contrast, abandoned most of the social function that they had to fulfill under state socialism, and now they have relatively weak corporatist arrangements and welfare provisions. In the ever-increasing literature on CSR in Europe, the focus is mainly on the diffusion of 72 A S P E N CSR practices. How business leaders perceive their social role in society and how this fits with their actual behavior is under-researched, in the West as well as in the East, and comparing the two led to a research project on “Business Elites in Enlarged Europe” conducted by an international research group1 among business leaders in Poland, Hungary, and East and West Germany. We asked whether the different business environments and legacies are reflected in executives’ perceptions. Since a hegemonic neoliberal discourse holds sway not only in East Central Europe but also in Germany—or at least did until the financial crisis—the answer to this question is far from obvious. The data was gathered during 2009/10. We differentiate between medium-sized companies (45 to 249 employees); large companies (250 to 999 employees); very large companies (1,000 employees and more); banks and insurance companies. In total, 165 companies in Poland, 169 in Hungary and 523 in East and West Germany were considered. The target persons for data collection were members of the top company hierarchical level. R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y Cognitive Concepts of Responsibility In the new moral discourse on corporate responsibility, the positions range from “narrow” to “broad” understanding. A narrow position is that of Milton Friedman’s famous dictum, “the responsibility of business is to increase its business.” The broad position is reflected in the definition of CSR as voluntary activities beyond what is required by law. This understanding can be practiced in two ways: 1) companies claim individual “authorship” and reject collective binding, which is associated with liberal institutional settings; 2) companies bind themselves to collective regulation typical for more corporatist environments. Based on these considerations we operationalized the three cognitive concepts of responsibility: a minimalist concept; a neocorporatist concept that combines the acceptance of a need to do more than just business with social partnership and collective bargaining; and a liberal concept that prefers an individualist, firm-specific approach and refutes collective binding. We also operationalized a set of ideas as etatist, assuming that Friedmanites but also adherents of our “liberal” concept of responsibility reject the idea of strong state intervention.2 We expected to find more “neocorporatists” in the German sample (especially in large West Germany companies) and more “minimalists” in Poland and Hungary. Keeping the neoliberal discourse in mind, we also expected widespread skepticism about state-based market regulation and redistribution in all three countries. 126 respondents belonging to this group. Neocorporatists are in general more widespread in larger companies and even banks, indicating that across countries the acceptance of social partnership and unions grows with company size (least so in Poland), while managing owners and family firms also in West Germany disagree more with this. Etatists, too, are more often to be found in Polish and Hungarian companies than in German firms. Although they represent only 11 percent of the entire sample, it is more than twice as likely that they are from Hungary or Poland than from West Germany. Apart from size and ownership effects, clear country variations were detected. While a neocorporatist approach to CSR is clearly underrepresented in Poland and Hungary, we find significantly more minimalists in the two countries. Being from Poland doubles the likelihood of belonging to the group of minimalists. Interestingly, size effects are not significant here, indicating that a minimalist position is not simply related to market positions. Yet, our minimalists cannot easily be equated with Friedmanites. While 112 business leaders agree with profit maximization as a company’s only goal, only 53 respondents clearly reject the statement “companies have to do more for the community than what is required by the law.” Findings The four theoretically distinct concepts— minimalist, liberal, neocorporatist and etatist— cover slightly more than one half of the respondents (386 out of 749). The other half of the sample disagrees with the minimalist concept of companies’ responsibility, but did not fit in any of the other categories. As expected, neocorporatism is significantly more frequent among West Germans, who represent 25 percent of all A S P E N R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y 73 Moreover, 23 of these 112 respondents even support a strong role for the state in regulation and redistribution. Hence, we conclude that true adherents of Friedman’s perception of the state-company division of responsibilities are rare in all three countries. Etatists, too, are more often to be found in Polish and Hungarian companies than in German firms. Although they represent only 11 percent of the entire sample, it is more than twice as likely that they are from Hungary or Poland than from West Germany. East Germans take a middle position. Like Poles and Hungarians they have a little more minimalists and less corporatists in their ranks compared to West Germans; at the same time, they reject etatist ideas almost as strongly as West Germans do. The liberal concept of responsibility produced the weakest results. Just 66 respondents agreed with this position; this set of ideas is even less coherent and none of the countries or company categories are significantly more likely to belong in this group. In terms of CSR activities, companies run by adherents of a liberal concept do not perform better than the average of the sample. Neocorporatists, in contrast, are more than twice as likely to perform better. What is even more striking is the neocorporatists’ optimism regarding the social outcome of the market economy, which distinguishes them from the other groups. Respondents who agree to the statement “free entrepreneurship and social justice are mutually exclusive” are less likely to be neocorporatists and more likely to be minimalists and etatists. Business leaders who consider competition and social justice mutually exclusive are also more often found in the two latter groups. Here we detect strong country effects for Poland and Hungary. In simple percentages, almost 26 percent of the Polish respondents show concerns about the social outcome of the market economy, 18.4 percent of the Hungarians, 10.7 of the East Germans, and only 1.3 percent of the West Germans.3 This finding indicates that 74 A S P E N a vast majority of West German business leaders still assume that the “social market economy” actually works. Studying attitudes, we expected that in addition to objective variables (such as country, size and ownership), respondents’ subjective features would show an effect. Especially age, social origin and the international experience are plausible independent variables. Regarding age, we differentiated between those who started already under the old regimes and those who made their entire managerial career under market conditions, i.e. who were 45 and younger. In 2009/10 the percentage of the “pre-socialist generation” was still high in Hungary and East Germany, while in Poland more than 60 percent belonged to the “new generation.” Contrary to our expectation, however, the dichotomized variable does not explain the significant variation in concepts of responsibility. Business leaders who consider competition and social justice mutually exclusive are also more often found in the two latter groups. Here we detect strong country effects for Poland and Hungary. The same holds true for the social origin of the respondents. We classified social origin according to Goldthorpe categories for fathers and mothers, revealing other interesting variations. While more than 50 percent of all three countries’ business leaders stem from the highest social ranks (of the fathers), the percentage in Poland and West Germany is the highest. Yet, also 54.3 percent R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y of the mothers in Poland climbed to the higher social ranks on their own (44.4. percent of the Hungarian mothers but only 13.4 percent of the West Germans). Comparing the older and younger “generation” the percentage of upper-class fathers increases for the latter (the highest increase is in East Germany, which lags behind the others in this respect, followed by Poland and Hungary). The upper classes across all three countries apparently have better chances of getting top positions in companies, and faster.4 The only subjective feature that exerts some explanatory power on the attitudes in question is the internationalization of careers, but in an unexpected way. Business leaders who studied abroad are twice as likely to be minimalists than those who did not, while only Polish respondents who have studied abroad are more likely to be in the liberal group than Germans and Hungarians. International experience is therefore a weak predictor for ideas that are usually associated with CSR. superficial.” For it to be a part of business culture, it needs cognitive underpinning. In spite of the limits of a quantitative survey, our findings reveal that many respondents in all three countries lack a clear concept of corporate responsibility, especially in smaller companies. At the same time, we detect national differences that speak against a simple convergence of ideas into one model, due to different experiences and institutional settings. The social reproduction of executives and managing owners from the upper social classes is high in all three countries and social closure is increasing. Differences in this respect can be explained mainly by legacies and ownership structures, and they contribute less to explaining the variation than country and organizational effects do. K AT H A R I N A B L U H M Professor of Sociology at the Institute for East-European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin Photo: Osteuropa-Institut FU Berlin Conclusion The ongoing moralization of business has led to a broader understanding of corporate responsibility since privatization in East Central Europe. This change comes from a mainly western-induced CSR movement, which observers often consider a new “fashion.” One of our Polish interviewees states: “Later it will become an integral part of our entrepreneurial culture, (…) but at first, our handling of CSR is going to be rather 1 The survey in Hungary was conducted by György Lengyel, the Polish survey by Krzysztof Jasiecki; and the German survey by the author together with Bernd Martens and Vera Trappmann. Funding of the empirical research by the German Research Foundation (DFG) is gratefully acknowledged. 2 For details see Bluhm, K. and V. Trappmann 2014, “Varying Concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility: Beliefs and Practices in Central Europe” in Bluhm, K.; B. Martens and V. Trappmann (eds) Business Leaders and New Varieties of Capitalism in Post-Communist Europe. London: Routledge, 148–175. 3 Bluhm, K.; M. Bernd and V. Trappmann 2011, “Business Elites and the Role of Companies in Society” Europe-Asia Studies 63 (6), 1027. 4 Cf. Bluhm K. and B. Martens 2014, “From ‘Deputy Revolution’ to Markets for Executives? Social Origin, Careers and Generational Change of Business Leaders Twenty Years after Regime Change” in Bluhm et al., 109–133. A S P E N R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y 75 Africa Wrapped in —Genetically Modified— Cotton Tomáš Nídr Having welcomed genetically modified cotton with much enthusiasm, many farmers in the West African country of Burkina Faso now regret that decision as the revenues haven’t met their expectations. Doh Yezouma walks past a fluffy mound. From afar it looks a pile of snow. Is this a mirage at high noon under the scorching tropical sun? No, it’s just the past few days’ cotton crop. The fortyyear-old waves a greeting to two men further down the field, the plant just above their waist. He walks down a narrow path between cotton plants with pristine fluffy balls of white poking out of their pods. Mr. Yezouma, a spokesman for a group of growers near the town of Houndé in the West African state of Burkina Faso plucks a fruit from each plot. At first sight, the “cotton wool” growing on either side seems exactly the same. However, the plants growing on the right are ordinary, while those on the left have been genetically modified. The farmer shows me clusters of round seeds the size of peppercorns concealed among the tangled threads. “The Genetically modified cotton has more light threads but the seeds are also considerably lighter. This is to our disadvantage because we sell by weight,” says Mr. Yezouma. His neighbours nod their approval. They regret 76 A S P E N that they have let the government talk them into growing the modified crop. Another farmer, Loudon Yaya, tells me that in 2013 he sowed a quarter of his eight hectare plot with genetically modified cotton and the rest with the conventional variety so that he could compare the yield. “There’s no difference. Except that sowing is a lot more expensive,” he says, pointing out that the cost of seeds and crop spraying of the modified variety costs a quarter more per year. “That’s despite the fact that they promised us much greater profits. I’m switching back to ordinary cotton next year,” grumbles the unhappy farmer. “There Have Been No Complaints.” However, a spokesman for SOFITEX, the government-owned company that has a monopoly on purchasing the soft commodity in the west of the country, tells a rather different story. Gilbert Kaboré, who insisted on responding in writing, claims in a lengthy e-mail: “Not a single farmer in Burkina has complained about gene- R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y tically modified cotton. Quite the contrary, farmers’ demand for modified seeds has been growing.” To support this he attaches a rather confusing table which shows that since his country embraced the genetically modified plants in 2007, overall production has increased from 355,000 to 417,000 tons. Most of the exports go to Asian markets. Speaking on the phone, the former head of the Czech Academy of Science’s Centre for Biology backs Kaboré’s view, albeit with the proviso that he is not familiar with the details of the situation in Burkina Faso. “There might be three reasons that could prevent it from thriving in sub-Saharan conditions. Firstly, there may be different types of parasites or, secondly, some cheating may be going on with the seeds. And thirdly, the farmers may not follow the instructions to the letter, which is the most likely explanation. Do you think they would keep growing it in the US if the results were not convincing?” asks the scientist who makes no secret of being a fan of enhancing farming by genetic modification. The government of Burkina Faso believed that since cotton is not ingested it is an ideal candidate for the role of a “pioneer” that could diminish African suspicions of genetic modification. Filling the Empty Stomachs in Frankenstein Fashion The question of whether genetic modification should be embraced is rife with controversy. For its opponents it represents Frankenstein-like experiments that can get out of mankind’s control and may be detrimental to human health. Its supporters regard it as a chance to ensure that the stomachs of a constantly swelling global population can be filled once the limits of expanding farmable land have been reached. Europeans have been most vocal in their concern about genetically modified products. For example, the Czech Republic has so far approved only one type of lab-enhanced corn. European concerns have had a major impact on Africa, whose agricultural exports are aimed primarily at the old continent. That is why they can’t afford to grow plants that might not be wanted in Europe. On the other hand, the Western hemisphere, under US leadership, is enthusiastic about genetically modified agriculture, particularly soy and corn. The only country that has banned it is Peru. Mr. Kaboré lists a number of advantages of genetically modified cotton. It is more resistant to worms and other pests and this, in turn, results in bigger crop yields. As opposed to conventional cotton it has to be sprayed with pesticides only twice a year rather than six times a year as in the past. This means less work for the farmers and reduced health risk. Although Mr. Kaboré claims there is no difference between growing the genetically modified plant and the traditional variety, a few answers later he mentions that a smaller crop can occur but only if a farmer doesn’t follow the instructions to the letter: “Some farmers have such confidence in the productivity of genetically modified cotton that they don’t spray their crops at all. A fragile boll casing might be another problem, which can occur if the farmers cheat on fertilizers. Genetically modified cotton needs more fertilizers because it produces more fruit.” A S P E N R E V I E W / E The government of Burkina Faso believed that since cotton is not ingested it is an ideal candidate for the role of a “pioneer” that could C O N O M Y 77 diminish African suspicions of genetic modification. Genetically modified cotton is engineered to contain the bacterium known as Bacillus thuringiensis, which eliminates harmful worms although it does not offer protection against other, less common parasites. Approved in the US as early as 1996, it is now grown on three-fifths of American cotton fields. Thirteen further countries followed the US’s lead, including Argentina, Australia, China, India and South Africa. The governments of Thailand and Indonesia, on the other hand, had to revoke their original approval following fierce protests. The global image of modified cotton has been blemished by the fact that it was developed in the labs of Monsanto, the biotechnology firm that is regarded as a major villain by non-profit organizations fighting hunger and working for improved methods of food production. Its bad reputation dates back to the days of the Vietnam war, when Monsanto was the key producer of Agent Orange, the destructive defoliant that the US army used widely to spray the jungles of Southeast Asia, where handicapped children are still being born today as a result. While it is difficult to dismiss concerns about the excessive power of large corporations who, their critics maintain, are interested only in lining the pockets of affluent shareholders at the expense of the poor, what really matters is whether the genetically modified plant has improved its growers’ lot in the developing world as much as its promoters have promised. growing genetically modified cotton increased their production by 24 percent and their profits grew by 50 percent. The British daily The Guardian, on the other hand, cites a study carried out by the scientists Abdul Quaum and Kiran Sakhari in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The article says that the income of farmers growing genetically modified cotton was 60 percent lower than that of farmers who had stuck with the traditional variety. This was because the cost of pesticides had actually gone up rather than dropped. The negative scenario has been further confirmed by press reports on hundreds of villagers who have fallen disastrously into debt as a result of buying expensive genetically modified seeds and ended up committing suicide. As a result of these recurrent tragedies the government of the central Indian state of Maharashtra banned genetically modified cotton in 2012. A similar report from Burkina Faso by Radio France Internationale has proved to be a canard. The genetically modified material enjoys support in the highest places. SOFITEX spokesman Gilbert Kaboré told us that there wasn’t a single cooperative (all cotton farmers in Burkina Faso belong to cooperatives) in his country that didn’t grow genetically modified plants. While I cannot vouch for other parts of the country, this claim certainly doesn’t go down well in Houndé, where I talked to some dozen farmers under a palm leaf shelter by a main road. They are afraid they will never be able to throw off the genetically modified shackles. “At first those who agreed to grow genetically modified cotton got fertilizers for free. This attracted a lot of people,” says Doh Yezouma, the most fluent French speaker among the group. “Anyone who wants to go back to conventional cotton now faces the threat of being cut off from fertilizer supplies,” the cooperative’s secretary adds. In this region SOFITEX provides farmers with fertilizers on loan before the growing season starts and they are expected to pay the state company back Suicide as a Form of Protest Against Genetically Modified Cotton The majority of international media reports on the subject come from India where over 90 percent of plantations at its peak were sowed with genetically modified cotton. Unfortunately, the reports contradict one another. For example, the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) has calculated that between 2002 and 2008 the farmers who pioneered 78 A S P E N R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y with their crop. They don’t have the money to buy fertilizers from another supplier. Why don’t they rise up in protest against this kind of pressure? “Troublemakers could be punished by having their crop labeled as inferior in quality and being paid less. SOFITEX has the purchasing monopoly in this region,” says Yezouma dramatically. However, he admits that none of his colleagues have experienced this in person. Kaboré dismisses this kind of accusations: “Nobody in Burkina is obliged to grow genetically modified cotton. Anyone can switch back to ordinary cotton if they wish, and vice versa.” “And meanwhile, we’re being pushed into poverty. In 2012 we got 245 West African francs per kilogram of top quality cotton. Last year the price went down to 235 francs. How are we supposed to feed our families?” Yezouma moans about what Kaboré describes as an adjustment to the declining price of the commodity on global markets. Even if he is right, he’ll have a hard time convincing the farmers who, unlike him, definitely do not believe in a genetically modified future. TOMÁŠ NÍDR is a freelance journalist focusing on Africa and Latin America. Photo: Archive Tomáš Nídr The President’s Support for Genetics This picture would be incomplete without mentioning that the country has been under the rule of the dictator Blaise Compaoré since 1987. And although he is not known for committing any atrocities, it is common knowledge that he hasn’t been particularly kind to his opponents. Suffice it to say that, in order to take over this country of 16 million inhabitants, he had his great friend Thomas Sankara killed. Nowadays he enjoys a reputation as promoter-in-chief of kickstarting backward African agriculture by playing with genes. It is not advisable to cross him. The President says that what has motivated him to take the controversial measure was a desire to secure food self-sufficiency in the parched territory that borders an even drier Sahel zone in the north. Nevertheless, the Houndé farmers explain away their country leader’s predilection for genetically modified plants in general and cotton in particular by various conspiracy theories that don’t always make sense. They believe that Compaoré has conspired with the world powers to destroy local agriculture in order to force Africans to buy food from abroad. Another theory claims that he has a share in Monsanto’s seed sales profits. Yet another theory maintains that he is trying to drive the government-run SOFITEX into bankruptcy so that his cronies could buy it for peanuts in a planned privatization. A S P E N R E V I E W / E C O N O M Y 79 AVIEZER TUCKER A Question of Trust: Why Europe Misses a Shale Energy Revolution T he current crisis in Ukraine focused attention on Europe’s 25–30% dependence on Russian natural gas. Europeans pay three to seven times more for their natural gas than Americans. Prices vary according to level of dependency on Russia and the discounts it grants for political loyalty or denies for disobedience. The recent agreement between China and Russia will not release Russia from dependence on exporting to the European market. The Putin regime will continue to depend on exporting energy to Europe for paying for the Russian state and the patronage “vertical of power” that sustains it, since the Chinese would not have agreed to pay Russia anything approaching the European price, and Russia will have to make massive investment in infrastructure (to which it is necessary to add the costs of the inevitable embezzlements and corruption) in the short term before reaping any profits. Europe wants a free trade agreement with the United States to allow exports of unconventionally produced American liquefied natural gas and crude oil from shale to substitute for Russian imports. But Europe has another route to energy security: follow the United States in developing domestic shale gas and tight oil resources. The shale unconventional energy revolution in the United States made it natural gas independent and is quickly moving the economy in 80 A S P E N AV I E Z E R T U C K E R is Assistant Director of the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin. Photo: Veronika Tuckerová the direction of oil independence by the end of the decade. It reduced the price of natural gas by about 80% and allowed a revival of chemical industries that use gas as feedstock. The United States is now selling the coal it does not need anymore for power production to Europe because it is much cheaper for power production than Russian gas. Yet, coal is three times as polluting as natural gas. Europe subsidizes renewable technologies while burning more of the most polluting fuel. R E V I E W / C O M M E N T Policies, laws, and public attitudes towards unconventional technologies and resources in Europe vary from total ban on hydraulic fracturing in France and the Netherlands, through moratoria in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, German government neutrality and different licensing policies in each Lands, to tax incentives in the UK and enthusiastic support in Poland. The European debate appears to be about the safety of hydraulic fracturing, the technology that releases shale gas and tight oil by fracturing the rock formations that trap them using high volumes of high pressured water, sand and chemicals. Regulations should mitigate risks. Yet, concerned Europeans do not trust regulations, the regulators, the experts who explain how the technologies can be used safely, and the politicians who tout the benefits of the shale revolution for job creation, economic growth, the balance of trade, the public budget, and for lowering the cost of energy for consumers. In the United States, trust arrives regularly in the bank accounts of landowners and coffers of local authorities as mineral royalties and local taxes. In Europe, the state owns subsoil mineral rights. In most European countries, this is legacy of the nationalizations of the thirties and the Second World War. The Nazis appropriated natural resources, especially strategic energy. After the war, new governments, whether democratic or Communist, did not return mineral rights to private owners. The state gets all the royalties. Land owners and local government must assume all the risks. With no reward, any risk seems excessive, unless there is trust in government. Communist governments were indifferent to industrial environmental destruction. Citizens of post-Communist countries may suspect that corrupt politicians would do the same to enrich themselves. Yet, fear of a greater external enemy, Russia, may trump distrust of politicians. Almost all the post-Communist countries allow the development of unconventional energy; A S P E N R E V I E W / C in Western Ukraine and urban Poland, it is popular. The two post-Communist countries that banned hydraulic-fracturing do not fear Russia: Bulgaria has been friendly with Russia since the 19th century. Though Russia invaded the Czech lands in 1968, Slovakia and Ukraine separate now Russia from the Czech lands. Many Czechs, Bulgarians, and other Europeans are not aware of the price elasticity of Russian natural gas, the extent to which they pay more than other countries and how the price can decline with reduced dependence. In France and the United Kingdom, policy decisions about science and technology were traditionally taken by apolitical technocrats. During the nineties, they lost their citizens’ trust following a series of bad decisions about the Mad Cow Disease, HIV contaminated blood, nuclear waste and so on. Technocratic elites did not assume responsibility for their mistakes, resisted democratic scrutiny, and closed ranks. This created a rift between technocratic elites that believe in progress, science, state, and technology and populations that distrust them and consider their Faustian zeal dangerous. The legal expression of this populist distrust is the Precautionary Principle that considers all new technologies to be dangerous unless proven otherwise. It is now French law. French elites have given up attempting to reason with their citizens. Instead they have been trying to take crucial decisions behind their backs. The granting of licenses for shale gas exploration a few years ago resembled in that respect the admission of genetically modified foods a decade earlier; elites make decisions about technological policies without public discussion, expecting nobody to notice. Somebody does notice. A populist protest movement emerges. The politicians are scared and order the technocratic elites to back off. They make a tactical retreat. Instead of attempting to communicate and explain policies to citizens who distrust them, they wait for an opportune moment when they O M M E N T 81 are distracted, like the world cup football championship, to reintroduce the same policies under a different name perhaps. Recently, the British government offered “communities” that allow exploration of unconventional gas and oil £100,000 per well-site and 1% of revenues if exploration leads to exploitation. I doubt this offer is sufficiently well targeted and generous to build trust with local stakeholders, especially individuals. Obviously, attempting to introduce hydraulic fracturing by stealth backfired. Better for the energy companies and allied politicians and 82 A S P E N civil servants to initiate the discussion before their opponents do. Returning at least some mineral rights to landowners and communities can be a quick and cheap way to build trust in the long term. Government transparency in the process of granting concessions and distribution of mineral income is essential. The citizens must understand how much money is coming to the state and where it is spent. Democracy is the solution and not the problem for building trust in new technologies and achieving European energy security. R E V I E W / C O M M E N T Leszek Engelking Another Code of Nabokov Andrea Pitzer, The Secret History of Vladimir Nabokov, Pegasus Books 2013 When many years ago my first translation of a novel by Vladimir Nabokov was published in Poland and I mentioned the subject of totalitarianism in the introduction, a Polish critic objected, arguing that when I wrote about Nabokov’s criticism of oppressive regimes, I was succumbing to fashion (it happened shortly after the political transformation in Poland), that the book was definitely about something else. The book under discussion was Invitation to a Beheading (1938), widely known as one of the most overtly anti-totalitarian novels of the Russian-American writer; you can even call it a dystopia—albeit a unique dystopia, unlike any other, extremely artistically sophisticated and concealing many different meanings, intricate patterns, as well as false clues and traps set for the reader to fall into. In the “Foreword” to the English version of the work, which I translated from the Russian and therefore the “Foreword” was not there, the author wrote: “I composed the Russian original in Berlin… some fifteen years after escaping from the Bolshevist régime, and just before the Nazi régime reached its full volume of welcome. The question whether or not we are seeing both in terms of one dull beastly farce had any effect on this book should concern the good reader as little as it does me.” The good reader therefore should not be interested in that matter, but then the author obviously mentions these two totalitarianisms for some reason. He wrote about them even more directly in the “Introduction” to a slightly later novel, written in English and already in the United States, named Bend Sinister (1947). Here the author also declares that the effect of the totalitarian era on the book is “negligible” yet he adds: “There can be distinguished, no doubt, certain reflections in the glass directly caused by the idiotic and despicable regimes that we all know and that have brushed against me in the course of my life: the worlds of tyranny and torture, of Fascists and Bolshevists, of Philistine thinkers and jackbooted baboons. No doubt, too, without those infamous models before me I could not have interlarded this fantasy with bits of Lenin’s speeches, and a chunk of the Soviet constitution, and gobs of Nazi pseudo-efficiency.” Let us note that the emblem of the new rulers of the country governed by the tyrant Paduk, where the main protagonist had to live, resembles the swastika (it shows “a remarkable resemblance to a crushed, dislocated but still writhing spider”), and its “red and black flag” resembles the flag of Nazi Germany. Nazism, with its fascination with shallow occultism, is also alluded to in the 84 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E passage on the father of the dictator, which begat “a minor inventor, a vegetarian, a theosophist, a great expert in cheap Hindu lore.” And the words about the machine invented by the bullying father, called padograph, as proving that “Quality is merely the distribution aspect of Quantity,” seem to refer to the law formulated by dialectical materialism and saying that quantitative changes turn into qualitative ones. The name Padukgrad refers to Leningrad, and the mention of “poems printed en escalier (incidentally tripling the per line honorarium) dedicated to Paduk” refers to the “steps” of Vladimir Mayakovsky and his followers. The fact that in an imaginary country a language combining elements of Slavic and Germanic is spoken and that “colloquial Russian and German is also used by representatives of all groups” (“Introduction”), may also direct the reader’s associations towards the two most murderous totalitarianisms of the twentieth century. Knowing Nabokov’s works, as well as his meta-literary statements, it is impossible to deny the importance of the theme of totalitarianism in his work. The matter of historical and political references in Nabokov’s writings is dealt with in a recent first book by an American author Andrea Pitzer entitled The Secret History of Vladimir Nabokov (Pegasus Books 2013). Although it seems exaggerated that, as the author says, each of his books was “meant to fight tyranny,” it is an absolutely central theme of Nabokov’s work. The discovery of a multitude of political and historical allusions is an unmistakable achievement of Pitzer, whose investigations significantly enrich the interpretation of many texts by one of the greatest writers of the twentieth century. Some of these references are obvious, for example exposing political tyranny in the two novels mentioned above, as well as the short stories “Leonardo” (1933), “Cloud, Castle, Lake” (1937) and “Tyrants Destroyed” (1938). Elsewhere, however, as we learn from Pitzer’s book, allusions to specific facts are hidden, we may even say A S P E N R E V I E W / C that information is encrypted. You may ask why Nabokov, an immigrant who left his native Russia in 1919 and Europe in 1940, an American citizen since 1945, an artist not subjected to censorship, enjoying full freedom of speech, is using a code when talking about historical and political issues. The answer is simple. Nabokov thought that the title of authentic art, art of the highest measure, is deserved only by difficult art, not offering obvious solutions, shirking stereotypes, seeking novelty and thus strongly acting on the imagination and aesthetic sense, capable of giving the recipient a true aesthetic delight. It should be remembered that Nabokov’s aestheticism—a fact overlooked, for example, by his closest friend from the first American years, Edmund Wilson (Pitzer quotes numerous excerpts from their correspondence, which has been published) and by contemporary criticism—was by no means a repetition of the slogan l’art pour l’art. In his (most important, in my view) meta-literary speech Nabokov said: “For me a work of fiction exits only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm” (On a Book Entitled Lolita). So the reality behind the aesthetic experience is a different, higher and better reality, legitimizing the importance of this experience. In this reality tenderness and kindness are the norm, which obviously combines Nabokov’s aesthetics with ethics. In his texts Nabokov, of course, did not hide and encrypt only political or historical allusions. It is enough to mention that references to another world, to the possibility of existence after death, remained virtually unnoticed by the critics until the end of the writer’s life, despite certain hints from him. Only when his widow, in the preface to the volume of Russian poems (published posthumously in 1979) which the poet considered worth preserving for posterity, said that his most important theme, the theme U L T U R E 85 permeating the whole work of the author of Lolita, was potustoronnost’, which can be translated as the hereafter or the afterlife, only then what had been encoded became obvious and after a while people even began to wonder how they could have overlooked what the “draughtsman” had hidden among the tangled lines of the drawing. The Secret History… is a biography of Vladimir Nabokov set against the background of twentieth -century history, the background particularly including political violence, dictatorship, ethnic and racial persecution, human rights violations, concentration camps, genocide, the two most important and bloodiest totalitarian regimes, the Soviet and Nazi ones. Pitzer interweaves biographical information about Nabokov with mentions about the life of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The author claims that Solzhenitsyn was a man “with whom Vladimir Nabokov has more in common than has ever been imagined.” But she does not prove the truth of this claim. On the contrary, the picture emerging from what she writes shows clearly that these two writers and people in fact had very little in common, just that they were both Russians and they lived more or less in the same period (Solzhenitsyn was 18 years younger). Yes, they both responded to their era as people and artists, and their judgments were similar, but as artists they expressed these assessments quite differently. Nabokov admired Solzhenitsyn’s courage and appreciated his role in raising Western awareness of the enormity of the Soviet crimes. When the chronicler of the Gulag was exiled from the Soviet Union, Nabokov even wrote a note welcoming him in the free world, but he did not have the best opinion about his writings, as indeed Pitzer loyally recalls: “Nabokov… disparaged Solzhenitsyn’s literary abilities, calling him an inferior writer in an interview for The New York Times and labeling his work ‘juicy journalese’ in personal notes.” We do not know if he sensed in him a note of Russian chauvinism. “Westerners who saw Solzhenitsyn as committed to freedom—writes the author—were dismayed to watch him embrace Vladimir Putin, a former KGB official who has held onto nostalgia for aspects of the Soviet past.” It is hard to say how much surprised would Nabokov be. The hierarchy of values professed by Nabokov was unwavering and quite conservative; it was of course reflected in his work. Although the statement from one of the interviews: “I believe that one day a reappraiser will come and declare that, far from having been a frivolous firebird, I was a rigid moralist kicking sin, cuffing stupidity, ridiculing the vulgar and cruel—and assigning sovereign power to tenderness, talent, and pride,”—is a little bit of a provocation, but only a little bit, because Nabokov indeed acknowledged the supreme authority of tenderness, talent and pride. Ethical hierarchies, of course, also found their reflection in the writer’s attitude to politics. He stated that he wanted to be called an “old- fashioned liberal” (Strong Opinions), because a prime example of an old-fashioned liberal was his beloved father, a lawyer and an essayist, a leading activist of the pre-revolutionary and later émigré Russian Cadet party (Constitutional Democrats), Member of the State Duma, and after the February Revolution a minister in the interim government. In an interview with Playboy Vladimir Vladimirovich said: “Since my youth… my political creed has remained as bleak and changeless as an old gray rock. It is classical to the point of triteness. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of art. The social or economic structure of the ideal state is of little concern to me. My desires are modest. Portraits of the head of the government should not exceed a postage stamp in size. No torture, no executions.” So no dictatorship, no tyranny. Clearly the writer was a strong supporter of Western democracy, which his father wanted to introduce in Russia. The most valuable element of Pitzer’s work is pointing to the many still unnoticed allusions to specific events and political and historical phenomena in specific works by Nabokov. Her 86 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E hypotheses are not always convincing, but some findings seem to be indisputably correct. Pitzer reconstructs the fate of Hermann, the narrator and also the hero of Despair, and then she says: “Knowing that civilians were interned in starvation conditions for years by the Tsar and then liberated by the Bolsheviks amid mass murder lends a different frame to Hermann’s faith in Communism and his willingness to kill. Nabokov’s first truly loathsome narrator, a murderer without even the recklessness of passion, on examination turns out to have spent nearly five years in a concentration camp. He is undeniably a villain, but to condemn him without acknowledging the epic real-world events that he lived through is to miss half the story.” I think not. Although the war experience of Hermann enriches him as a character, it certainly does not change the moral assessment of him; in Nabokov’s writings the responsibility of an individual cannot be erased by any circumstances. For his transgressions the writer condemns Hermann to nothing less than eternal damnation. Comparing him in the “Foreword” to the English version of Despair (1966) with Humbert Humbert from Lolita, he says: “Both are neurotic scoundrels, yet there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann.” More important is an interpretation of the past of two figures from the excellent short story “Signs and Symbols.” Indeed, the plot contains some hints at another, hidden plot, which can be reconstructed at least in general terms (a literary ploy also used by Nabokov elsewhere). The topic of the Jewish fate is clearly signaled in the short story. Nowhere is it mentioned explicitly that the protagonists are Jews, but it is unmistakably suggested, most apparently when the heroine sees a photo of her relation: “Aunt Rosa, a fussy, angular, wild-eyed old lady, who had lived in a tremulous world of bad news, bankruptcies, train accidents, cancerous growths—until the Germans put her to death, together with all the A S P E N R E V I E W / C people she had worried about.” As Pitzer does not mention it, we should add that the family name of the protagonists—although we can figure that out only on the basis of some allusions— is Soloveichik, which according to dictionaries of surnames points to Ashkenazi Jews. The protagonists are double immigrants, as they first emigrated from Belarus to Germany, and then from Germany to the United States, which allows us to guess that they had bad experiences with both the bloodiest totalitarianisms of the twentieth century. The fate of the protagonists is a streak of sorrows and pains. And now they fear that their mentally ill son will commit suicide. His condition had been defined by a man named Herman Brink, a psychiatrist, as “referential mania.” As we read, “the patient imagines that everything happening around him is a veiled reference to his personality and existence… Everything is a cipher and of everything he is the theme. All around him, there are spies… He must be always on his guard and devote every minute and module of life to the decoding of the undulation of things.” In support of Pitzer’s claims it can also be added that Brink can be a Jewish (Ashkenazi) surname, but essentially it is a German name. The first name Herman (Hermann)—already the narrator and protagonist of Despair was called that—is composed of Old-High-German elements heri (“troops”, “the military”) and man (“a male”, “a man”, “a human”). So this name means “warrior”, “soldier”, and this meaning, as well as the sound association with Germania (the Russian form of Herman is Gierman, and the characters use Russian in private), may be not insignificant from the point of view of twentieth-century Jewish fate. The son of the protagonists—as Pitzer writes, reconstructing the hidden plot—“was a child when his family escaped Germany, where he had learned to fear even the wallpaper (perhaps not without reason). Soon after, his terrors grew and closed him off from humanity entirely.” This seems very likely, but it is not U L T U R E 87 the most important element of the story still. In the finale of the story there are three late-night phone calls. The first two alarm the characters, but it turns out that the callers dialed a wrong number, and the reader never learns what the third was about, because the story ends. The reader is willing to consider the third call (the magic number three appears here) as the announcement of the news that the mentally ill young man died, because the whole story is filled with bad omens, signs of sadness, grief, misery and death. Of course, if we decide that the third call must be the news of the suicide of the protagonists’ son—as noted by Brian Boyd—we accept “what from within the story’s world has to be defined as madness” (Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years), seeing a message about his destiny in everything that surrounds the boy. Our attitude is dictated by our reception of, among other things, literature, it is in literature that events are arranged in patterns. But, in the opinion of Nabokov, not only in literature. As one of the tasks of an author of an autobiography he regarded finding patterns in your life and in his autobiographies he did find such patterns. The presence of intricate, artistic designs in the real world is the hidden evidence of its maker’s intention. So if the eponymous signs and symbols actually are signs and symbols, the reality depicted in the story has a transcendent dimension. We can say with certainty that it indeed has such a dimension, because it is after all created by the author, who is its god. And the signs and symbols in our (the author’s and the readers’) reality would actually serve as a premise allowing us to guess that it also possesses a transcendent dimension. So a tragic ending of the short story would in fact be an optimistic ending, as you would be allowed to see in it a guarantee—albeit uncertain and ambiguous—of the existence of other worlds and immortality. Pitzer’s comments on the novel Pale Fire are extremely interesting. What she writes about the first king of Zembla is devoid of political references. Trapped by Arctic winter in the New Land (the Russian geographical name of the territory is Novaya Zemla, traditionally it is listed on the Anglo-Saxon maps as Nova Zembla), members of the expedition of the Dutch sailor William Barents consoled themselves with going back to their native customs from the New Year period. Pitzer writes: “So it happened that on January 5, 1597, for the hours up until the stroke of midnight—a span remembered for four hundred years even as his name was lost to history—the gunner on William Barents’ third expedition drew the winning lot and reigned as the first king of Nova Zembla, an imaginary monarch in a land of ice and death, and ruler over hope and despair, and the king of nothing.” Since the name of this king is unknown, the numeral “two” next to the name of the protagonist might refer to the first ruler of the land, although Charles II was to be the title of the ruler of Zembla, not Nova Zembla (other researchers have already written on his associations with authentic European Charleses IIs.). Amazingly, the critics have forgotten about the fact that when Pale Fire was being written, Nova Zembla was present in the headlines, as the Soviet Union was conducting its nuclear tests there. Pitzer recalls these tests and concludes that “it is hardly surprising to find Nabokov seeding nuclear signs and symbols through the pages of his novel.” She also interestingly reminds us that in the perceptions of prisoners of the Gulag Nova Zembla was the seat of the harshest concentration camp, from which virtually no one could escape. But the hypothesis that the imaginary Zembla denizen Charles II Beloved aka Charles Kinbote, and in fact, a Russian Vseslav Botkin, is an escapee from this camp, seems difficult to prove. More convincing is the reconstruction of the history of this character made by Brian Boyd in his book Nabokov’s Pale Fire: The Magic of Artistic Discovery. Pitzer also writes about the most famous work by Nabokov, asking at the beginning of her work: “What if Lolita is the story of global 88 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E anti-Semitism as much as it is Humbert Humbert’s molestation of a twelve-year-old girl?” Well, it is not, although it is true that anti-Semitism is an important theme in this novel, which, as Pitzer loyally acknowledges, was already established by Alfred Appel, Jr. in his commentary on the novel. Also other comments about Lolita are not always convincing. Pitzer believes that Humbert Humbert is lying about his participation in a secret Arctic expedition, and that in fact he was deported to northern Canada and placed in a camp for foreign suspects, using the infrastructure of a camp from World War I, where A S P E N R E V I E W / C they already had sent uncertain people. Such camps did exist, and Humbert is an unreliable narrator, but it is completely unclear what reason he would have to lie about that period of his life. Many of the claims in Pitzer’s book go way too far, but her work is an obligatory reading for all experts, researchers and enthusiasts of the Russian-American writer. LESZEK ENGELKING translator of Russian, American and Czech literature, a prominent expert on the works of Vladimir Nabokov U L T U R E 89 Václav Burian Two Recapitulations and One Stocktaking A. J. Liehm: Názory tak řečeného Dalimila / The Opinions of Dalimil, Dokořán, Praha 2014, 680 pp.; Milan Uhde: Co na sebe vím / What I Have on Myself, Torst/Host, Praha/Brno 2013, 648 pp.; Petr Uhl (a Zdenko Pavelka): Dělal jsem, co jsem považoval za správné / I did What I Thought was Right Torst, Praha 2013, 600 pp. One early evening this April, a writer, former dissident and politician Milan Uhde (1936) gave a talk in the auditorium of Olomouc University’s Arts Department. It was a charming performance laced with characteristic self-irony. What had he achieved during his two years as the Minister of Culture in the Czech government (before Czechoslovakia split up)? There was apparently only one achievement he could boast about: helping to secure the survival of a fine military orchestra, which had been under the threat of closure after the fall of the previous regime. His intervention had given the orchestra a chance to adapt to the new conditions of free arts and a free market. The talk offered a fresh perspective even on issues he had discussed many times before. A fantastic performance, not only for someone who is 88 years old… Yet you could have fitted all of the audience in the great auditorium around four café tables. Later that evening I stopped in a student pub for a beer. The students were singing a song from the musical Balada pro banditu /A Ballad for a Bandit with Uhde’s lyrics, repeating the chorus over and over again. This is the third generation for whom this faux folk song is a staple of their pub and campfire repertoire: Zabili, zabili / chlapa z Koločavy. / Řekněte, hrobaři, / kde je pochovaný… (They killed, they killed / a man from Kolchava / Gravedigger, tell me / Where he’s buried…). Nearly 90 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E written for Listy, the exile newspaper, from Czechoslovakia’s early “normalisation“ in 1971 to the heady days of “perestroika“ in 1988 and 1989, when people went out into the streets for the first time after many years, and Alexander Dubček made a public comeback. This was also the time when the issue resurfaced of the legacy of Prague Spring and the future role for its representatives, i.e. not only Dubček’s but also Liehm’s. Antonín Jaroslav Liehm—whom his readers recognized for decades just by the initials AJL— was a journalistic star of the highest order. Destined for a stellar future after the war, he was prevented from climbing up the ladder by his extraordinary intellect and stubborn character; he was perhaps the most influential critical guide to the “new wave“ of Czechoslovakian cinema in the 1960s, the best period in his country’s film history so far. But he also “enjoyed“ a popularity of a different kind. The pamphlet entitled On the events in Czechoslovakia, known at the time as the “White Book“—distributed by the occupying army after the August 1968 invasion and authored by an unspecified “Soviet journalist press group“—cites Liehm several times as one of the men who had planned to take power over Czechoslovakia after a counter-revolution. The canonic interpretation of the Prague Spring, Lessons Drawn from the Crisis Development in the Party and Society following the XIII Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (1970) mentions him, alongside František Kriegel, Jiří Pelikán, Eduard Goldstücker and others as a representative of the “forces championing Zionism in politics, a key tool of international imperialism and anti-communism“—apparently being endowed with a defiant intellect and a German-sounding name was evidence enough, even without the requisite “origins.“ Present-day Czech culture and politics would be missing a great deal without AJL. Even though his return from Paris exile to his native Prague shortly before his 90th birthday was noted all Czechs and almost every Slovak knows it by heart. An Internet search engine brings up multiple hits for the song lyrics but only the seventh gives the author’s name. The song has become folklore: almost everyone knows it but hardly anyone knows who wrote it. The Hollywood-style musical was shot at a Hollywood pace and achieved, in Czechoslovakia’s 1970s terms, Hollywood-level success. Milan Uhde claims—and there’s no reason to doubt the veracity of his memoir—that it took him two weeks to write the play [based on Ivan Olbracht’s 1933 novel Nikola Šuhaj loupežník] for a Brno theatre The Goose on a String. The film version of A Ballad for a Bandit followed in 1978. By 1975 Uhde, a prohibited author, could no longer be acknowledged as the author and could most definitely not be credited in the 1978 film: after all, he had signed Charter 77 a year earlier. It would never have occurred to the students singing Zabili, zabili… that just around the corner from the pub they could come by an autograph of the author of their beloved song. Surely the tall, burly man, a politician, chairman of Czech Television’s Board of Directors, with his charming, lively, slightly histrionic as well as schoolmasterly delivery, couldn’t possibly, in another day and age, have written the ballad of the slain bandit? But maybe this is what all three Czech authors (more accurately: two authors and one interviewee) of seminal memoirs published in Prague over the past six months have in common. The famous yet unknown playwright. The ninety-year-old journalist revered by the nation and hated by Brezhnev’s Kremlin. The leading Charter 77 figure who has shocked every reviewer: how could someone who had spent nine years in jail “under the Communists“ be so vehemently opposed to anti-communism, of all things? It took some guts for A. J. Liehm (1924) to publish in book form his almost entire output A S P E N R E V I E W / C U L T U R E 91 warmly by the media, in the still prevalent “postVelvet“ atmosphere, epitomized primarily by Václav Klaus, it is considered right and proper to say that someone is a “man of 1968, but otherwise an interesting (decent, bright, experienced) person“… In the post-1989 public discourse being called a “man of 1968” is definitely not a compliment. AJL defends the Prague Spring but he is far from being nostalgic about it. In one of his articles written in exile he said: “In 1968 there were plenty people in the world, in Europe in particular, who believed in democratizing and humanizing what Moscow referred to as socialism, and the Prague Spring appeared to offer an interesting option. (…) Nowadays, twenty years later, the situation is fundamentally different, in that nobody believes in such an option anymore. And that includes the Czechs and Slovaks, who have, of course, always favored, and always will, any improvement of the stupid system they live in, but would send packing those who try to preach socialism with a human face or any other face, for that matter.“ (1988, p. 411). This wasn’t his only hunch. In 1984, writing about the prominent representatives of Husák’s real-existing consumer socialism, he pointed out something the Czech world is still characterized by: “First and foremost, these people are anti-socialist and fiercely anti-communist, as befits members of the bourgeois class. They have understood the essence of our system and quickly adapted to it.“ They join the Communist party and other official institutions “because membership is a condition of social advancement“, “they join […] without any inhibitions, in fact they would often do anything to become members, without giving up any of their anti-socialism or anti-communism“ (pp. 335–336). Indeed, it was this kind of “anti-socialism or anti-communism“ that had a significant effect on the generalized condemnation of the “men of 1968,“ whereas you rarely hear any objections to the “pragmatic“ former members of the Communist party. What has stood the test of time in the 18 years’ worth of essays, opinion pieces, reviews and interviews? In a few samples, necessarily chosen at random, what strikes one after all these years more than it did at the time (when the readers were probably most interested in a critical view of the situation in Czechoslovakia ) is the fact that in those days Listy in general—it bore the subtitle “A Journal of Czechoslovakia’s Socialist Opposition”—and its commentator AJL in particular were much freer (or simply, more relaxed) when writing about the US than many other important exile magazines and, quite understandably, than Radio Free Europe. No committed Czech intellectual, from 1956 onwards at the latest, could have failed to be fascinated by Poland; and AJL obliged with several opinion pieces focusing on John Paul II, Martial Law, an interview with the writer Tadeusz Konwicki, as well as an especially noteworthy interview with the noted critic Jan Kott. Although a political animal par excellence, AJL does not expect works of art to reinforce his own views. He is quite brilliant at capturing the high aesthetic and intellectual standard of Josef Škvorecký, who was born in the same year, yet whose depiction of Prague Spring must have clashed with that of Liehm the citizen. His obituary of Ferdinand Peroutka (1978, p. 650)— the legendary Czech journalist of the interwar period who had to flee his the country at the time AJL embarked on his journalistic career— is a wonderful tribute across generations and human stories. Few people are as vulnerable in the eyes of future generations as those who comment on public affairs in print, while other people’s expressions of loyalty to dictatorship, or simple mistakes or errors of judgment, are soon forgotten. Readers’ complacency, however, is cheap and easy: they have the advantage of knowing “how things turned out.“ AJL frequently knew “how things would turn out.“ It was quite a daring thing to do—to publish in book form 92 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E nearly all of his writings for one of the two or three significant exile papers of the second of the four decades of Communist rule. But he could afford to do it. Here is his assessment of Václav Havel: “Havel voiced the feelings of his generation (…) with great accuracy, across political and other affiliations. Right up to the generations that will follow. Whoever fails to comprehend this will lose in this country once and for all.“ AJL made this observation in 1968. The promising playwright was only 32 years old. often applied to uncompromising writers among Havel’s intellectual peers. Not that some of them, at least, had not been socialists, or that they always rejected the socialist regime’s potential human face. However, they had kept their distance from the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, to say the least. Breaking with “real existing socialism” was for them a financial (albeit severe) drama rather than an existential, fundamental one as it was for the likes of Šabata or Liehm. Uhde’s existential drama took place after 1968. While he felt no desire to conform and recant publicly after the August invasion of Czechoslovakia, nevertheless, as he describes with great candor, he had initially hoped to remain at least a tolerated author. The turning point came when he resolved to publish his work in the West and especially after he signed Charter 77. He subsequently became one of its most distinctive and influential personalities outside Prague. It is this that is so valuable about Uhde’s memoirs, maybe more so for Czech than foreign readers in this instance. Fate has given the Czech Lands only one metropolis with everything that this entails: before the War the theatres outside of Prague used to be referred to—not pejoratively—as “country“ theatres (these days the correct term is “regional“). Brno is the only city that defies these categories, and not only in terms of official institutions. It is the only city that also boasted something that might be called a “Charter 77 scene,“ compared with all the other towns and cities that basically had only one or two courageous individuals. A depiction of postwar Brno, a city left with just one “regional“ publishing house and a single literary journal, Host do domu (whose quality improved continuously in the 1960s) is quite rare in memoir literature. However, Uhde’s depiction of a “normalised“ Brno is far from being just black-and-white or grey, the color often used to describe the two decades under Gustav Husák. In those years it was solidarity shown by a few individuals that helped Uhde become one of the Milan Uhde’s memoirs begin with a drama he would have been unable to grasp at the time: the German occupation interfered with the childhood of a boy from a “mixed marriage,“ leading to incomprehensible events: “My parents were inventive in their resistance. For example, they managed to prevent me from noticing the disappearance of my maternal grandfather and grandmother from my life.“ (p. 16). These are chilling sentences showing that religious or “racial” issues played no role in the boy’s life up to that point. That was what things had been like in his middle-class family of lawyers in Brno, a city that was by then predominantly Czech but which was still significantly influenced by German language and culture. The young boy took words seriously, sometimes including those of Nazi propaganda. Initially he also made much of the postwar promises about building a new order. In this respect he fits a simplified, yet generally accepted cliché that Czech intellectuals born in the 1920s were more prone to become fanatical believers in communism. This included Uhde’s professor of Marxism at university, Jaroslav Šabata, who spent many years in prison after 1968 and whose portrait in Uhde’s memoirs is as respectful as several previous depictions of the man. Milan Uhde, by comparison, is a “1936 man“, a label A S P E N R E V I E W / C U L T U R E 93 most successful Czech playwrights—albeit not under his own name. While Milan Uhde is in many ways a typical “1936 man“, he is rather isolated in terms of his post-1989 civic stance, even though he served as a Cabinet Minister and a Speaker of the Parliament. Being that rare case—a member of the older generation of the erstwhile democratic opposition (“the dissenters“) to embrace the Right and promote a market that was as free could be—he found himself at loggerheads with friends of many years’ standing when he supported the privatization of Prague’s Barrandov Film Studios. He championed a democratic system with a (conservative) emphasis on the role of political parties, whereas Václav Havel was rather sceptical of party affiliations. While this has estranged Uhde from many of his Charter 77 friends, as a suspect humanist intellectual he has never gained the full confidence of the newly-constituted Right led by Václav Klaus either. It its only seemingly paradoxical that Petr Uhl—journalist, self-taught legal expert defender of political prisoners (he is an engineer by training) and himself a long-term political prisoner (having served nine years in total)—the most Left-leaning of our heroes, should be most distant in spirit from the previous regime. Born in 1941, he grew up at a time when Moscow was actually less influential than the independent, non-Moscow based French, German or Polish Left of the 1960s: “One of the things I brought back to Prague from Paris was Jacek Kuroń and Karol Modzelewski’s open letter to the Polish United People’s Party“ (p. 74). His book provides a further reminder that at least from the 1970s onwards, the non-conformist circles in Poland followed Czech affairs much more avidly than the other way around, yet the Polish influence is far from negligible, as can be seen in, for example, Květen, the first post1948 Czech literary journal that was not wholly conformist, or the impact the Polish Orange Alternative had on the (much less witty) young dissident grouping, The Society for a Funnier Present. In 1968 Petr Uhl was one of those young people who drew their inspiration from the Western European Left, as well as the Polish student and the nascent dissident movements. While that entailed standing up for at least parts of the Prague Spring legacy, Uhl was not a “dissident“ in the narrow sense of the word; since his heart had never been in what he and his friends criticized not as a Communist regime but rather as a Bureaucratic Dictatorship, he could not possibly have become an “apostate.“ That was one of the reasons why he was skeptical about Alexander Dubček’s political comeback at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s. And it was also a reason why his opposition to the Lustration law brought him closer to Dubček: “He had a good heart and came from a political culture that was different from mine, yet not a hostile one. I had many reservations about him but I came to recognize that while some moments in his life might be described as failures, they were not the result of his being afraid. It wasn’t out of cowardice that he signed the Moscow Protocol after the August 1968 invasion or the package of extraordinary measures adopted by the Presidium of the Federal Assembly in August 1969 but rather out of a realization that it was, unfortunately, inevitable.“ (p. 106). This is characteristic of Uhl’s approach to politics and people: he doesn’t approve of a “bureaucratic“ notion of politics yet at the same time he is not dismissive of human decency and is prepared to enter into a political alliance where there is common ground. This happened in Charter 77 as well as in the Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Persecuted in relation to Václav Benda, a conservative Catholic and a Pinochet admirer: a reliable ally in a good cause, a sensible and brave man. When he speaks of people whose guilt he regards as proven and not atoned for, Uhl can 94 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E be blunt and harsh, however, not just in blanket terms, applying collective guilt: he rejects the notion of the Sudeten Germans’ collective guilt while being severely critical of the postwar role played by President Edvard Beneš and repudiating the notion of the collective guilt of all the members of Czechoslovakia’s Communist Party. Uhl can sound schoolmasterly; you have to read him very carefully to find humor and detachment, but it is worth the effort. This is how he describes his first encounter with his newlyminted father-in-law and his son’s grandfather Jaroslav Šabata in 1976, after the latter’s release from a five-year prison term: “We both felt we had to analyze the course and implications of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International as well as other issues, for example, whether the decision to establish People’s Fronts had been the right one. (…) My father-in-law spent about an hour at our place before travelling to Brno. I walked him to the Museum subway station but somehow we couldn’t bear to break off this fundamental debate on the Communist International.“ A S P E N R E V I E W / C Less than a month later came the publication of Charter 77, in which the two men came to play a major role. The temptation to tell the author of a memoir what he should have done better or what he should have thought is as great as it is pointless. More to the point is the question of what kind of witness an author bears to his own life. Uhde’s and Uhl’s life summaries are among the best and most comprehensive Czech memoirs of recent years. AJL’s memoir, The Past in the Present (Host, Brno), appeared twelve years ago, well before his current stock-taking. It is good that after publishing his memoir he has been granted time for more work. Let us hope that these stocktakings of Milan Uhde and Petr Uhl too are far from definitive. VÁC L AV B U R I A N is a journalist, an editor of the bimonthly Listy, and a translator of Polish literature. U L T U R E 95 Wojciech Stanislawski A Broken Trail Angelika Kuźniak, Papusza, Wydawnictwo Czarne, 2013 Joanna Kos-Krauze, Krzysztof Krauze, Papusza, Next Movie, 2013 The memory of the poet Papusza, revived by the book and the film about her, allows us to understand that the Gypsy culture was a really important part of the colorful, multinational Central Europe. The incompatibility of two worlds—the settled, European group centered around farming, and the migratory caravans which appeared on the trails leading from the Balkans to Lithuania, Poland and the Netherlands—probably resulted from their very nature. The newcomers, separated by a cocoon of different language, customs and faith, were not able to fit into either the feudal or the bourgeois order of modern Europe. Royal and aristocratic courts, officials and bishops tried to force them to settle down: in vain. Roma communities were at best threatened with marginalization, finding a niche for themselves in the world of “loose people,” defying the rigors of state governance, and in the worst case—with criminalization, since every now and then appetites appeared to force the “vagrants” into the role of farmers or apprentices. Across the centuries attempts of this kind were doomed to failure, while the efforts of untimely modernizers, trying to squeeze the Roma into the mold of the existing social order, put the very idea of modernization into ridicule. The people of the highway, shunning high culture and literacy, the charms of the city, schools and medicine, survived for the longest in the weakly urbanized expanses of Central and Eastern Europe. They maintained their status of marginalized “people of the highway,” almost invisible to the modern state and functioning—with their coppersmithing, horse trading, music making, divination and petty theft—on the outskirts of the modern economy, until the arrival of the two totalitarianisms. During the Second World War they barely avoided annihilation; that part of their community survived is owed to the fact that they were scattered across the countryside, and that the Nazis did not regard them as their prime target. The postwar Communist regimes, in which modern bureaucracy could count on the support of the apparatus of repression, in a period of two decades managed to “assign the eternal wanderers to the soil”: the wooden wagons were burnt as firewood, their inhabitants were deposited in dilapidated buildings, work orders were issued and armies of hygienists and social workers were recruited. A success? Not necessarily: rather a further stage of bringing the idea of “forced modernization” into ridicule and providing a proof that cultures are even harder to transplant than old trees. The half-century which passed from settling the Roma in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary brought huge changes 96 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E with it: a batch of such gloriously named processes as Urbanization, Schooling and Uprooting Illiteracy worked wonders. The statistics, however, are ruthless: the unemployment rate (extremely high) or university degrees (very low) among the citizens of Roma origin show the durability of invisible barriers. Perhaps, as it is often the case, an ideal solution did not exist. After the defeat of the two utopian projects, the Enlightenment and the Socialist one, it is difficult to imagine how communities guided by a coherent, but un-codified system of rules, precepts and taboos, extremely patriarchal, living beyond time and calendar, could painlessly plunge into the world of “modernity” without forsaking their lifestyle. Such things happen: various customs or indeed worlds, do not cross the border defined by the twilight of childhood, as Carlo Gozzi would have it. Remaining forever in their forests, not entering into “modernity” or “adulthood, are both Winnie the Pooh, and the elves from Tolkien’s trilogy, while cuddly toys of childhood are relegated to the attic at the threshold of the primary school, and in a few years they are joined by the skipping rope and skateboard. Perhaps it would be easiest to say that in the mid-twentieth century, even in Central Europe, where time passed more slowly, Roma communities experienced a particularly tragic dilemma: the old way of life was impossible to maintain and the new one offered few really attractive things—and if it did, it was the attraction of the “hot water at the tap” kind, which the various beneficiaries of modernity strangely fail to appreciate. The tension resulting from the split into two worlds—the caravans and IDs, the violin and scrawls in a notebook, spells cast on chicken and penicillin-prescribing clinics—would be difficult to bear for everyone, let alone a person endowed with special sensitivity. Bronisława Wajs, Papusza or Lalka (Doll) experienced all this to the full, standing on the border between the forest and the basement, Holocaust and A S P E N R E V I E W / C Stalinism, the Borderlands and the “Recovered Territories” in western Poland, and finally, as a cultural anthropologist would put it, between the world of “orality” and “literacy”. And we are only now becoming ready to confront this split which she was forced to experience—and try to give justice to her. A strange thing: Papusza is not an unknown figure. The first translations of her poems by Jerzy Ficowski were published in the early 1950s, and later—against the will of the poet (or ignoring it)—reprinted many times. She appeared on postage stamps and in anthologies, her name was mentioned in textbooks. Also the dramatic story of her life was recounted many times in radio and press documentaries still in the Communist Poland. Both meetings with her which we could enjoy this year thanks to the book by Angelica Kuźniak and the film by the Krauzes, do not disclose any unknown or embarrassing facts: they simply take her from under the magnifying glass of the humiliating paternalism (“Oh yes, the Gypsies, you know, singing and violin…”) and usher her into the group of “great spirits”: poets struggling with themselves and the world. This was all the more difficult that, admittedly, Roma culture has recently been conventionalized and commercialized in a dramatic way. Great educators, particularly those associated with the “anti-pedagogics” tendency, often despair over the child’s imagination, curtailed or even crushed in the first years of school: but what should we say about various concerts of “Gypsy bands” playing at weddings and festivals of folklore? Sequins, galligaskins, artificial eyelashes and mascara appear there in an abundance which would probably delight only camp enthusiasts, admirers of Dolly Parton and Johnny Liberace. With texts it is not any better: it seems that to create “Gypsy songs,” nowadays apparently written mainly by non-Gypsies, it is enough to rattle a matrix containing just a dozen words {colorful wagons, fate, violin, love, black eyes, U L T U R E 97 cuckoo, soothsayer, silver, tears, tambourine, moon, horses, tents}, and then take them out at random, like a bored Dadaist. And then we read: How much of Papusza is there in these poems and how much of Jerzy Ficowski, who first persuaded the Doll to write down her recitations to music, then took the effort of translation, and finally of releasing them in print? I guess it will remain indefinite, as will the relationship between them, remarkable through the fact that it was so ambiguous and non-erotic. Ficowski— twenty something, during the war a member of the Home Army, fighting in the ranks of the “Tower” regiment in the Warsaw Uprising, in the first years of the brutal consolidation of power by the Communist regime pursued by the secret police, and also a budding poet—found himself in a wandering caravan in 1948 and spent nearly two years hiding there. What a stroke of luck to stumble upon Papusza—a young woman, wife of a much older husband, from her earliest years so eager to discover the world that she taught herself to read and write, while remaining almost entirely outside the “literary culture” not only as a “creator,” but also as a recipient (among a dozen books which she was able to name there was Leśmian, the Ballads of Mickiewicz, but also a stack of cheap romances and the second part of The Count of Monte Cristo). The years in the camp, the literal and metaphorical inserting of a pen in Papusza’s hand by the poet—such was the introduction to the drama of her life. The climax would occur in the next few years. Ficowski, having obtained the support of Julian Tuwim, a poet championed by the regime, and making an excellent use of the boon for Socialist Realism, which encouraged people to find and support “folk” artists, hitherto absent in official circulation, begins to publish her poems in his own translation (in a compact form they were to appear as Songs of Papusza in 1956). At the same time the first version of his book Polish Gypsies appeared in the bookstores (1953): a historical and ethnographic compendium, containing, among other things, a description of customs and daily practices as well as a set of basic phrases in a number of Romani dialects, that could—stretching things a little bit—be considered a “dictionary.” The original edition of the poems brought Papusza momentary fame, the echoes of which reached the Roma community too. But this made it easier for the Gypsy elders—a few months later, after the publication of Polish Gypsies— to accuse Papusza of being an accomplice in “revealing secrets”—for in the eyes of the leaders of a community which derives its cohesion and identity from a kind of withdrawal from the world at large, a printed description of phrases and behaviors that henceforth became transparent to any stranger constituted such a crime. The outrage of the Polish Roma was all the greater because at the same time they became a target of a hostile campaign of the Communist authorities, whose firmness was matched only by their misunderstanding of the foundations of the Roma culture. Instant “orders to settle down” were issued, the Gypsies were forced to accept identity cards and encouraged to “productivization” through the creation of “Gypsy cooperatives” and “Roma work brigades,” taking part in the crude and forced industrialization of the country. These unwise initiatives were shortlived: all that remains of the “work brigades” are some photos of Nowa Huta, after the first wave of the settlement campaign, and devastated tenement houses in the formerly German Western Poland. The majority of the Polish Roma offered a passive resistance to the endeavors of the 98 R Oh, forest, my father, black father, you brought me up, you abandoned me —and we fall silent. A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E regime until the end of the 1960s. In the period of the publication of the Gypsies on Polish roads the fear of imposed changes was particularly strong. The threat of a curse and exclusion hung over Papusza: she paid for it with mental illness, recurring nervous breakdowns and ultimately with the decision to stop writing. In all accounts and evaluations Bronisława Wajs appears as a tragic character: marked out from the beginning, but separated from her peers by her curiosity about the world, not fitting into the patriarchal society (although attempting to adapt to it), standing between the world of writing and the world of songs, in subsequent years she became a witness of the war, the Holocaust, the destructive modernity, and finally a victim of ostracism. Unfulfilled to the end either in love and motherhood or in her work, she was gradually fading (she died in May 1987) in an apartment amongst the dreary communist countryside, bereft after the death of her husband and left by her foster son: how much closer to the figure of Job, or a Mater Dolorosa than a vociferous “accursed poet” mired in games of self-creation. And Ficowski, an insurgent and poet, in the film a young man and faun, at his ripe age remembered rather as a self-styled Faust, with a Spanish beard, fancy beret and a melancholy look? The first unjust thought charges him with forgetting that when you domesticate someone you are responsible for that person. We think about a frivolous poet who knew, after all, about the power of the Roma taboos, but ignored their consequences; having listened to Papusza, having gifted her not only with a pen, but a hope for a different fate, he returned to his non-Gypsy life, like thousands of reporters who are willing to listen to the stories of others as long as they can serve as material for a moneyearning text. Fortunately, both works dealing with Papusza, the film and the book, are far from unequivocal, showing a young man who indeed A S P E N R E V I E W / C was not loyal to his “sister” when he saw the world standing wide open before him, but seeing her hurt, he awkwardly tried to come back, help her, support her. In vain: Papusza got stuck in a Gorzów tenement house as a witness, as a treasury guard robbed of the jewels—he, the eternal youth, travelled around the world, translating Garcia Lorca and poems of the Ashkenazi Jews, tirelessly searching for the remains of the legacy of Bruno Schulz and commenting on it in his other opus magnum—a collection of essays entitled Regions of the Great Heresy. It must be said for him that until the end of his life he remained faithful to the abused—by translating songs of caravans and shtetl, and as a citizen, by signing memoranda of protest to the authorities of the Polish People’s Republic, by engaging in the activities Workers’ Defence Committee (KOR), accepting with dignity the recurring publication bans. But Papusza, what use was Schulz and KOR to her? In the words of another poet, “outstretched hands glow in the dark like an old town.” We are left with a few volumes—in which, if you sift out diminutives, cuckoos and the sound of tambourines, the most powerful voice turns out to be the stoic acceptance of transience, of oblivion. “My white, red and green forests / my black evenings / midnight hours / already do not remember anything / and do not know at all.” And lest we forget too soon—the film also remains: with moving roles of Papusza (Jowita Budnik) and her husband Dionizy (Zbigniew Waleryś) and even more moving images: poignant, majestic, black-and-white shots. If the producers want to capitalize on the successes already accomplished at festivals in Thessaloniki and Karlovy Vary, it will be enough to publish an album consisting of still-frames: particular scenes, well-composed and well-photographed, generate as powerful emotions as daguerreotypes or collections of the masters of photography from a century ago. Background music—songs composed by Jan Kanty Pawluśkiewicz. U L T U R E 99 Maybe it just had to be that way, and the Central European Gypsies were some distant analogy to the heroes of our childhood, which are the free Native Americans? In fact, did they not share the same fate? In real life—a degradation or, at best an acculturation. In mass culture— sugary falsehood, whether in the Disney version or a dancing club one. To the vast majority of people this is enough: the rest, perceiving these old tribes as a figure of irresponsibility, freedom, vagrancy, is left with a vague mixture of guilt and regret, and watching for the now defunct caravan, which—in the last scenes of the film— arrives on black meadows under the high, white sky. 100 R A S P E N W O J C I E C H S TA N I S Ł AW S K I historian of Russia and the Balkans, commentator of the Rzeczpospolita daily E V I E W / C U L T U R E Hašek in Galicia Aleksander Kaczorowski In 1901, when Jaroslav Hašek wandered into Galicia, this remote province of the Habsburg monarchy was synonymous with poverty and backwardness for his countrymen, and also the embodiment of all Polish vices. Czech officials, who settled there from the first decades of the nineteenth century, regarded any work assignment in this region almost as a banishment. Not allowed to enter the houses of the nobility, they knew the country only from the perspective of a primitive rural serfdom and poor Jewish towns sinking in the mud. “Miserable highways, terrible inns, trouble with finding a decent horse team and the coachmen as if freshly imported from a barbarous country—such were mostly their first impressions—,” says an expert on the “Galician triangle1.” “For visitors from Bohemia, the technical condition of roads and inns, land drainage systems (or rather the lack of them), cultivation techniques, standard of living— and not just of the privileged class—served as measures of advancement. Galicia assessed from this angle had to seem like an open-air museum of backwardness.”2 Not only of material backwardness, let us add. The Czechs were outraged by the inhuman attitude of the nobility to the peasants, and denying the Ukrainians the right to national identity. Moreover, they themselves were treated with contempt, both by virtue of their plebeian origin and by serving the Austrian invaders. Even when they stressed (although they rarely did) that they A S P E N R E V I E W / C regard themselves as Czechs and Slavs, they met with disregard for their national aspirations, or worse, with accusations of Russophilia. In general, however, they did not have a developed sense of national identity and even at home they spoke German (“because speaking Czech does not bring you bread”). Jan Matejko, Jan Styka, Leopold Staff and Karol Szajnocha descended from these families. Schoolmates and priests called them “Little Schwabs.” It does not seem that Hašek knew anything about it. Despite the presence in Galicia of nine thousand Czech bureaucrats (and several times more colonists, mainly in Volhynia), the image of the province in the eyes of a visitor from Bohemia practically did not change for almost one hundred years. The protagonists of his sketches are peasants, the action generally takes place in the cottages, fields, meadows, inns. When traveling to Galicia, Hašek, like his countrymen, ignores the houses of the nobility, because he is not invited inside. “The noble world, for the Poles the world of the only true civilization in this region, by most Czech travelers could only be observed from a distance. Parks, gardens, stately mansions, and even the ‘modest but tidy’ manors constituted an inaccessible space.“3 The space available for the Czech vagrant was formed by such distinctive public buildings as railway stations, jails and brothels. So we should not wax indignance at Hašek that when the Good Soldier Schweik revisits a brothel in Sanok after many years, its U L T U R E 101 owners prove to be—tsk, tsk—“a Polish nobleman and noblewoman.” The author of The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik for most of his adult life made his living from writing fees. He wrote for the best and most widely read newspapers, not needing to bother about their political orientation. His Galician essays came out in the daily Národní listy, a conservative-nationalist organ of the Czech bourgeoisie. And Tribuna, where in the spring of 1921 he published a sham journal of Marshal Józef Pilsudski, was not, as the title suggests, an organ of the Czech people, but a liberal and progressive newspaper, issued by the Prague Jewish Community. Its head was Ferdinand Peroutka, the most prominent Czech journalist and commentator of the twentieth century, close to the associates of presidents Masaryk and Beneš, and after the war, director of the Czechoslovakian section of Radio Free Europe. Peroutka was a political animal, but he also had an excellent literary sense. Tribuna published, for example, one of the first translations of Franz Kafka’s short stories into Czech, translated by Milena Jesenská. Hašek’s lampooning of Piłsudski and the Poles was in line with the views of the Czech public. Our southern neighbors really wanted to “make politics in Central and Eastern Europe,” as we read in the alleged diary of the Marshal. “It would not hurt the Poles if they were slapped in the face—wrote Masaryk to Beneš on 20th December 1918—on the contrary, it would be beneficial, it would cool down the heads of the dangerous chauvinists.”4 The founder and four times the President of the Czechoslovakian Republic was convinced that the reborn Republic was an anachronistic relic, that it would be a classic seasonal country, torn apart by ethnic conflicts and having no chance of survival squeezed between Germany and Russia. “The reconstruction of historical Poland is a repeat of the errors of old Poland and an embryo of its collapse,”5 he wrote to Beneš in June 1919. “The Poles: their tactics will not save them,” he added in a letter to the leader of the National Demo- crats, Karel Kramář. “They are confronted with great internal problems: landed estates—the Jews—fragmentation of the parties and orientations… Only an ethnically homogenous Poland can be strong.”6 Such an opinion was widespread among the Czechs, as was the belief in a specific historical mission that Providence had bestowed upon their nation: “It is the truest truth—the Czechoslovakian President wrote to his most trusted associate and successor—that only we are prepared and we can bring and maintain order (…) Our Poles prefer us, they are afraid to be in Poland, they are afraid that there will be no order there. The Germans from Bielsko, from Cieszyn, etc. ask us not give these cities to the Poles. They are afraid of the Polish mess.”7 Much has been written about the reasons for the Polish-Czech animosity. There is something symbolic in the fact that in the same week when Jaroslav Hašek was born, on Monday, April 30, 1883, the Warsaw daily Word (Słowo) published the first episode of With Fire and Sword (Wednesday May 2, 1883). And that at the same time when in Prague, the dynamically evolving capital of the most industrialized province of the Habsburg monarchy, the future author of The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik was growing up, in Warsaw Henryk Sienkiewicz was writing subsequent episodes of his apology of the seventeenth-century nobility in order to “uplift hearts.” Thanks to the “Trilogy,” this patriotic nonsense fed to the masses for generations, modern Poles identify more with Michał Wołodyjowski than with his nameless serfs, never mentioned in any volume of this work. And yet it is among these peasants, who in the times Sir Michał and his ilk were at best slapped in the face by the nobility, that a vast majority of us would find our ancestors. This is the power of myth; such was the hypnotic charm of the nineteenth-century Polish culture, to which not only Jews, Germans, Galician Czechs clung, but also the children of the Małopolska or Mazovia peasants who 102 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E 150 years ago still regarded only the noblemen as Poles and they were addressing each other in the plural form (like the French vous), as Czechs do to this day. For the Czechs managed to get through the nineteenth century without nobility, which somehow did not prevent them from building the national identity in their plebeian classes and assimilating the majority of Jews and tens of thousands of the Galician, “Polish” peasants who in the late nineteenth century migrated to Zaolzie for work, and their descendants in general think of themselves as Czechs through and through. and culture—though not politics—survived at least until 1918. Czech nobility was Germanized at the same time and for similar reasons that the Lithuanian or Ruthenian nobility was Polonized—all those Radziwiłłs, Sapiehas, Czartoryskis, Giedroycs and Miloszs, who permanently fixated the thinking of the Poles around the “East,” the “Borderlands,” in short, around the insane and impossible mission aimed at colonization of the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands, the last episode of which was the genocide of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia in 1943–44. Of course there is no reason to blame the Ruthenian and Lithuanian nobility that centuries ago it chose the Polish identity, as this allowed them to draw extensively on the achievements of the civilization of the Polish Republic and multiply their wealth, creating oligarchic states in the lands of the so-called Borderlands. But you cannot also, without being ridiculous, be surprised that representatives of the Ukrainian, Lithuanian—or Czech for that matter—political elites, generally stemming from plebeian and petty-bourgeois classes, and representing the vast majority of the local populations, said to the nobles: “Be gone!” This gesture of rejection of the exploiting classes, cutting themselves off from the parasitic nobility, was a milestone on the road to empowerment of the “rustics” and “louts”, “nouveau riche” and “shopkeepers”—on the road to their transformation into a modern nation. And by the way, are we aware of the origins of the numerous epithets derogatory to the dignity of working people in the Polish language? Greengrocer, prole, lout—they are all relics of our backwater nobility, with its apology of idleness and a grange-based attitude to reality. Grange-based, i.e. resulting from an instinctively adopted perspective of the owner of a grange (although there is no grange and perhaps never has been). Perhaps it is not surprising that this galaxy of class-based invective has its counterpart in Czech (and probably also in the Ukrainian and Lithuanian) in numerous offensive descriptions of the nobility. Hašek’s lampooning of Piłsudski and the Poles was in line with the views of the Czech public. Our southern neighbors really wanted to “make politics in Central and Eastern Europe,” as we read in the alleged diary of the Marshal. Contrary to the wide-spread myths, the Czech lands still in the eighteenth century resembled in terms of social structure the lands which are the undisputed cradle of Polish culture, that is Wielkopolska, Mazovia and Małopolska. An overwhelming majority of the population were peasants, and in Bohemia and Moravia the native language of one third of them was German. Until the mid-nineteenth century the Germans dominated numerically in the majority of cities (just like the Jews in the Polish lands). This dominance in terms of wealth, capital, civilization A S P E N R E V I E W / C U L T U R E 103 Now we are closer to understanding why a little less than a hundred years ago, no Polish writer could possibly write such an iconoclastic, anti-heroic, anti-political, egalitarian and thoroughly democratic book as The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik. We are heirs of an anachronistic culture of the nobility and romanticism, which prevents us from understanding the simplest things. Such as the fact that war—every war—is pure slaughter with someone making money off it. We are always trying to find some sense in war, we harness theology and martyrdom to it, getting what Schweik called “idiocy to the power of two.” In Poland, after all, it is impossible to die stupidly. The Pole is killed on the field of glory, even if he died in a plane crash. Of course, the Czechs have also been fed various foolish things. As a child Jaroslav Hašek listened to stories about the Hussites, the fifteenth-century “God’s warriors” allegedly striking fear into the hearts of half of Europe— and heard them from the lips of no other than Alois Jirásek, who was his teacher. It is largely due to this eminent novelist, called “the Czech Sienkiewicz” by his contemporaries, and to the national ideology promoted in his novels, that the Czechs rejected Catholicism, which in the times of Hašek was still professed by more than 90 (ninety!) percent of them. They believed that Jan Hus invented Protestantism a whole century before Martin Luther, though in fact this famous preacher was a better Catholic, and certainly a better Christian, than the Pope then (or rather the three popes exercising the papal ministry at the same time)—and this is why in 1415 he was burned at the stake in Constance. Jirásek also persuaded his countrymen that Germany was their eternal enemy, although in reality the Czechs owe their relatively privileged position of the most advanced civilization among the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to their very durable, centuries-old ties with Germany. The price for the development was the loss of the inefficient feudal state in the first half of the seventeenth century, after the Battle of White Mountain, and the subsequent national apostasy of the native nobility, who chose the “German option.” “None of them is to be regretted,” as Schweik would put it; upon hearing of the death of the heir to the throne, Prince Ferdinand, in a terrorist attack in Sarajevo, he asked which Ferdinand was killed, because he knew two: One was a helper at the druggist, and another collected dog turds. In Hašek’s youth, at the end of the nineteenth century, the Czechs were an ambitious nation of townspeople, petty bourgeoisie and wealthy peasants, generally professing beliefs held at the time in the Polish lands by supporters of national democracy. As a child Hašek was a witness and victim of a drunken downfall of his father, a teacher of mathematics; hence, among other things, his aversion to the petty bourgeoisie and its ideology—integral nationalism, hostile to Germans and Jews. At the age of twenty he became the editor of an anarchist newspaper— anarchism was popular among many of his peers, not having family ties with the metropolitan working class, at that time already supporting the dynamic social democratic party. He supported himself by writing humorous sketches and short stories, enjoyed himself with friends in pubs, for five years wandered around Bohemia, Slovakia, Hungary and Galicia in search of adventure. He wrote the first story about the adventures of Schweik in the Austrian barracks in 1911. A few years later he saw them (the barracks) personally. In the summer of 1915 he found himself on the Eastern Front, and in the autumn of the same year he was captured by the Russians. Contrary to the myths disseminated at the beginning of the war by the German propaganda—and after the war sustained, for other reasons, by the Czechoslovakian propaganda— it is not true that Czech soldiers voluntarily, in whole units, went to the Russian side. In general, they ended in captivity as a result of errors in command, made by Austrian officers. This was 104 R A S P E N E V I E W / C U L T U R E the case of Hašek, who remembered the year in Russian captivity as the worst experience of his entire life. Infectious diseases and famine decimated the POWs regardless of their nationality; the author of Schweik caught tuberculosis in the camp, which over time, along with alcoholism, most contributed to his premature death. The Russians changed their attitude to the Slavs in the Austrian uniforms only in the autumn of 1916. Because of war failures they allowed the creation of Czechoslovakian Legions, which soon reached 60,000 soldiers. Hašek was editor of a Legions’ newspaper in Kiev, he wrote patriotic agitprop and humorous sketches. At the news of the abolition of religious holidays by the “Government of People’s Commissaries in St. Petersburg” he replied with a mocking essay entitled “How the Bolsheviks liquidated Christmas.” He noted there quite soberly that among the many things that the Bolsheviks revoked “you could find only one thing they did not revoke, namely the promise made by Lenin to Emperor William that Russia would mess things up in a big way.” So he was not a naïve virgin, as you can see. Despite that, a few months later he defected from the Legion and having reached—not without hiccups—Moscow he volunteered for the Red Army. Soon, appointed political commissar of the Bolshevik Fifth Army, he found himself in Samara on the Volga, one of the key cities along the Trans-Siberian railway line. There, in June of 1918, fate brought him back in touch with his compatriots. For the Czechoslovakian Legion stuck in Russia for good. It would seem that after the Treaty of Brest the Czechs and Slovaks did not have anything more to do there. Initially, the Allies intended to transfer them on the Western front as quickly as possible, in part through Arkhangelsk, in part through Vladivostok. And so it would have been if not for the idiotic orders of Trotsky, who ordered them to disarm. The Czechs had behind them soldiering in the Austrian army and rotting in Russian captivity; they were tough and they wanted to return to their home country A S P E N R E V I E W / C at any price. At that time they were the strongest and best-equipped armed force between the Volga River and the Pacific Ocean. They easily drove out the innumerous and poorly armed Red Army, at the end of May took Penza and Omsk, and in early June, virtually without a fight, they captured Samara. Hašek then fled from the city disguised as a woman, narrowly avoiding death, as the sentence for desertion was still hanging over him. Following the “Battle of Samara” the legionaries were embroiled in the civil war in Russia against their will. Most returned to their home country only in 1920. And what was Hašek doing then? As always he wrote about his exploits with gusto: “At that time I edited (…) near Yamburg a magazine in the Tatar-Bashkirian dialect for two savage divisions of Bashkirs and other thugs who fought with the White Troops of the Estonian Republic.”8 We will not track his sins here, or attempt to trace determinable facts. We will just add for the record that after escaping from Samara he came to Irkutsk, where he became a member of the local Party Committee, remarried, and probably wanted to settle on the Baikal. Fortunately he was reclaimed by History, impatient that her Chosen One, instead of finally writing the greatest Czech novel of all time, was wasting his time among the Buryats and Yakuts (the knowledge of whom he probably drew from the classic Russian-language works by Wacław Sieroszewski). In August 1920, the Bolsheviks stood on the outskirts of Warsaw. Their cavalry ravaged the Galician small towns, where less than twenty years before Hašek wandered in search of adventure. It seemed that in a few months, if not weeks, the Cossacks of Budyonny would water their horses in the Vltava River and remind the Prague waiters how the word bistro had found its way to gastronomy. So our hero, with his wife and a commission from the Party in his pocket, struck out for his homeland in order to inflame the revolutionary instincts of the local working U L T U R E 105 class, which allegedly groaned under the yoke of Masaryk and no longer had anything to lose, except for dumplings. However, when after several months of travel he reached Prague, he quickly lost his enthusiasm for underground work. He was suspected of the worst offenses, even crimes, allegedly perpetrated during the civil war in Russia. He reacted to defamatory articles with a “sincere confession before the Czech society,”9 in which he admitted that he was “not only such a wretch and villain” as described, but a “much worse swine.” Here is a (short) list of his transgressions: “Even through my coming into the world I brought a great displeasure to my mother, who did not sleep for a few days and nights.” “When I was six months old, I ate my elder brother and stole the holy images from his coffin.” “When I was a one-year-old, there was in Prague not a single cat whom I would not have picked an eye out or cut the tail off.” “When I went for a walk with a nursemaid, all dogs gave me a wide berth. The nursemaid did not walk for long with me, however, because when I was eighteen months old, I took her to the barracks at the Charles Square, where for two packs of tobacco I left her at the mercy of the soldiers.” When a comrade from the legions, the writer Rudolf Medek, met him in an inn and accused him that, as a Bolshevik commissar, he was executing legionnaires, and therefore was a murderer and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 106 a bandit, Hašek exclaimed proudly: “Sure I am. And I’m not ashamed of it! I ordered them to be shot by the dozen. I took particular delight in ripping their guts out and hanging them on the city gates to scare off those who allowed themselves to be stupefied by your patriotic doggerel. I committed worse atrocities than the famous Asian Genghis Khan.”10 In the end, however, he moved from Prague to the countryside. In the spring of 1921 he settled in Lipnice nad Sázavou and there he wrote the first volume of The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik. He died on 3 January 1923. The inn where he dictated his masterpiece almost to the end of his life is still functioning. ALEKSANDER KACZOROWSKI Editor in Chief of Aspen Review Photo: Jacek Herok Danuta Sosnowska, “Inna Galicja”. Warszawa 2008, p. 102 Danuta Sosnowska, “Inna Galicja”. Warszawa 2008, p. 104 Danuta Sosnowska, “Inna Galicja”. Warszawa 2008, p. 106 Eva Hahn, “Cień Masaryka”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 26.09.1997 Janusz Gruchała, “Tomasz G. Masaryk”. Wrocław 1996, p. 217 Janusz Gruchała, “Tomasz G. Masaryk”. Wrocław 1996, p. 216 Eva Hahn, “Cień Masaryka”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 26.09.1997 Jaroslav Hašek, “Zniknięcie posła i inne opowiadania”. Kraków 2004, s. 429 Jaroslav Hašek, “Zniknięcie posła i inne opowiadania”. Kraków 2004, p. 432–433 Radko Pytlik, “Nasz przyjaciel Hašek”. Warszawa 1984, p. 223 A S P E N R E V I E W / C U L T U R E No 2 | 2014 2 | 2014 Index: 287210 CENTRAL EUROPE Aspen Institute Prague is supported by: CENTRAL EUROPE REENTERS HISTORY Marek Cichocki, Robert Cooper, Tomáš Klvaňa, Luuk van Middelaar, Peter Pomeranstsev, Emmanuel Todd Ukraine Can Be a Neutral State An interview with Roman Szporluk Right in Ascendance or Mainstream in Decline? Frank Furedi W W W . A S P E N I N S T I T U T E . C Z POLITICS Exit Politics I. Krastev | Russian Minority in Estonia after Crimea M. Ehala Czech Export J. Bureš | Eurasian Commonwealth V. Inozemtsev, A. Barbashin Another Code of Nabokov L. Engelking | Hašek in Galicia A. Kaczorowski ECONOMY CULTURE