John O´Sullivan: ČR v Evropě a ve světě

Mr. Chairman,

Many thanks for inviting me to this important policy discussion. I am flattered to be part of it.

My presence here is an example of what EU and NATO bureaucrats these days call “double-hatting.” I have been invited both as a commentator on international affairs from a broadly conservative perspective but also as the Executive Editor of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty with a particular interest in the post-Soviet bloc of countries from Central Europe to Kazakhstan.

That being so, I should begin by saying two things clearly.

First, on behalf of RFERL, I want to express our enormous gratitude to the Czech people for having given the radios a very comfortable home here in Prague from which to continue broadcasting the messages of truth and freedom that we have been sending out for exactly 59 years. RFERL will celebrate its sixtieth birthday next February. We owe a great deal to the Czech people and to Czech governments of several parties for your generous hospitality.

Second, since I am speaking in a personal capacity—as a commentator sympathetic to the center-right—my remarks today are entirely my own. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty bears no responsibility for them. But I will say something later about the important role of international broadcasting in fostering civilized values of liberty and democracy.

THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD

My main topic today, however, is the End of the Post-Cold War World. That world began in 1991—with the final collapse of Soviet power—and it ended just the other today. While it lasted, it was a pretty good world marked by:

• A single dominant and largely beneficent superpower in the United States.
• A Western zone of prosperity and stability, represented by NATO and the European Union, that spread eastwards to include the new post-communist “market democracies.”
• The worldwide erosion of barriers to trade and capital movements so that 2–3 billion workers in Asia entered the world labor market and enjoyed much more prosperous lives.
• The growth in power of transnational actors—the United Nations, the EU, the Kyoto process, NGOs (non-governmental organizations)—that led many commentators to prophesy the end of the sovereign nation-state.
• A world “public doctrine” rooted in democracy, liberalism and free markets.
• And much else.

Of course, this world was challenged in various ways—by “Asian values” in the 1990s, for instance, and by radical Islamist jihadism in this decade. All hegemonies meet challenges. But it looked like mastering these challenges until recently. Consider, however, the following recent events—chosen almost at random:

The Russo-Georgian war

America’s decision not to proceed with installing anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic

The Greek crisis over the Euro

The collapse of the Copenhagen summit on climate change

Last week’s presidential election in Ukraine

The world financial crisis

The birth of the G20 replacing the G8

All of these are different signs that the post-Cold War world—a world that looked stable and permanent only a few years ago—is gradually breaking up and being replaced by some other international order. It is too early to describe this new order with any clarity. But certain trends can be discerned:

1. The resurgence of a Neo-Imperialist Russia that regards its neighbors as “younger brothers” and, where possible, seeks to restore the hegemony it used to enjoy over them in the Cold War.
2. Connected with this: the recovery of authoritarianism in the post-communist world east of Ukraine. Inspired by China and Putin’s Russia, the authoritarian countries of Central Asia and elsewhere feel less need to respect human rights or to offer some liberal and democratic reforms. Increasingly, authoritarian regimes such as Iran and China cooperate with each other.
3. The rise of new super-powers, notably China and India, fuelled by the economic effects of globalization, with their own interests and values.
4. A halt to the rise of trans-nationalism—and perhaps its retreat. By over-reaching (Copenhagen, the Greek Euro-crisis), transnational bodies have weakened themselves. And at the same time, newly important countries such as China and India have served notice that they will not subordinate their national sovereignty or national interests to the decisions of transnational bodies. China singlehandedly sank the Copenhagen conference. That means the sovereign nation-state, far from being dead, remains the most important actor in global politics.
5. The weakening of Western concepts of democracy and liberalism as the bedrock universal values underpinning global politics—in part because of the above trends, in part because Western elites are increasingly disenchanted with them. Their preference is for what American scholar John Fonte calls “post-democracy” or the gradual transfer of power from national parliaments to transnational bodies—or, in other words, from democratic institutions accountable to the electorate to bureaucratic ones under the sway under the sway of transnational elites.

These and other trends suggest a less stable, more threatening and less Euro-centric world. But we should not be swept away into thinking them inevitable. As Keynes said: “The unexpected always happens; the inevitable never.”

Some trends are real and permanent—the rise of non-Western powers such as China and India is one. But the resurgence of Putin’s Russia as a neo-imperialist state threatening its neighbors is built on very shaky economic foundations. Indeed Russia is more likely to feel itself threatened by neighbors such as China and Iran that are currently its allies. So we in the West should hold out to Moscow the promise that Russia can join the transatlantic institutions of security and prosperity as a full member when it has plainly abandoned its revanchist ambitions. For the moment, however, we need to strengthen and defend tranatlantic institutions—and that should be the principal task of center-right parties in coming years.

I stress “transatlantic” institutions. In the unstable multi-polar world that is coming, only a united West will be able to maintain the pre-eminence of Western influence—and Western values such as democracy—in global politics. The European Union may promote prosperity, but only a united West in NATO can provide us with security. That was clearly stated in the letter to President Obama sent last July by the leaders of Central and Eastern Europe—some here today. I believe that that letter will one day be seen as a vital warning to the West that Europe and America must remain committed to NATO and that NATO must remain the sole provider of security to Europe. Delusions of a separate European security provider will only undermine our security by weakening our unity. We don’t want the Greek-Euro crisis repeated in defense.

Almost uniquely among alliances, however, the West is united by values—by freedom and democracy—as much as by interests. And we need to revive those values in order to defend them. The letter from central European leaders was, inter alia, a call to revive democracy and the democratic spirit. That call is not really needed in America. Whatever we may think of the “Tea Party” movement and its policies, it is undoubtedly a proof that American democracy retains its vigor and spontaneity. Here in Europe, however, democracy is in danger of being eroded by post-democratic centralization in Brussels. The second task of center-right parties today is to revive democracy by returning powers from Brussels to the national parliaments of Europe where the voters can control their governments. It will be a hard battle because the political elites will fight to keep their ill-gotten power. But there are many more voters than elitists.

Outside Europe we will find democracy movements our natural allies in world politics. They want what we enjoy. No, we cannot impose democracy at the point of a bayonet; nor should we. But we can encourage and foster democracy—and help create the conditions for democracy to flourish—by providing the peoples living under authoritarian governments with information, news, and the full spectrum of opinion in political and religious debates. Such democracy promotion is very cheap. RFERL costs the American taxpayer about $90 million a year—the price of a couple of fighter jets. Authoritarian governments know that the uncensored truth is a serious threat to them. They spend large sums trying to jam it. And the crowds in Moldova and Iran demonstrating in the streets knew the importance of free radios in Prague telling them and the world that their democracy had been stolen. In Moldova it even helped to restore their democracy to them—twenty years after the Czech people had regained their own freedom.

So our vision on the center-right is of a united West built on the sound foundation of democratic nation-states that will one day include Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus—and Russia. Let those with a smaller vision go elsewhere.

« zpět na titulní stranu