Ideally, geopolitical concepts such
as “Eurasia” should consider the
divergence that exists between the interests of the state and the interests of the people.
Both
from the point of view of
Europe and Russia, “Eurasia”
represents a geopolitical
interest of
a higher
order.
As can be expected, the
people's interest
in the realisation
of “Eurasia,”
both for a Russian citizen
and for
a European citizen,
is therefore
doubtful at best. The
people has
an interest in the lower
order activities of the
state that concern the defence
and the security
of the nation. Abstract
geopolitical concepts like “Eurasia” mean almost nothing to the
common man.
Indeed,
it is difficult to understand how the
average Russian citizen might be
more secure if Russia
establishes
the Eurasian
Economic Union with other
nations. The
basic security of Russian citizens is still far from guaranteed
today; the Russian state therefore ought
to deal with
other more important
internal priorities - the
real interests of the Russian people.
It is also difficult to understand how the average European citizen might be safer and more secure if the EU somehow managed to integrate economically and politically with Russia. And it is highly dubious, to say the least, whether the peoples of Europe would have much to gain by bringing Ukraine into the European economic and political sphere. On the contrary, before potentially bearing fruits, any rapprochement with Ukraine would have substantial costs for Europe, which hitherto have been born by Russia.
It is also difficult to understand how the average European citizen might be safer and more secure if the EU somehow managed to integrate economically and politically with Russia. And it is highly dubious, to say the least, whether the peoples of Europe would have much to gain by bringing Ukraine into the European economic and political sphere. On the contrary, before potentially bearing fruits, any rapprochement with Ukraine would have substantial costs for Europe, which hitherto have been born by Russia.
The
publics of all nations
should
therefore make efforts to inform themselves
about their “nation's”
geopolitical plans, and ask themselves whether
the
realisation of the state's geopolitical
interests
can
be
advantageous to
them.
In
the case of “Eurasia,”
the
people
should
at least request
from
their
elected
representatives,
the
answer to the
following
questions:
Will
the
realisation
of
this geopolitical interest make the public safer?
If
yes, then in what way? If yes, then what
public
resources would
be
spent in order to do so?[1]
Unfortunately, both these questions and their answers are usually absent from public debate. Clearly, this would not be the case in any reasonably democratic political system, where the interests of the state are interests of the people.
Unfortunately, both these questions and their answers are usually absent from public debate. Clearly, this would not be the case in any reasonably democratic political system, where the interests of the state are interests of the people.
Notes:
[1]
For
instance, the cost of the Iraq war was
only
disclosed years later to the public and
the cost was estimated to be much higher than initially declared.
See, for instance, Stiglitz and Blimes, Vanity Fair, April 2008.
www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/stiglitz200804
No comments:
Post a Comment