International Affairs No. 2, 2016 – Table of Contents

THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY of the Victory in World War II stands apart from all other anniversaries of historic events we marked in 2015 as a vivid reminder of what could be done to the world order by ambitious attempts to establish world domination, belief in the exclusiveness of one’s own nation and contempt to the norms of law and morals.

The Yalta and Potsdam conferences, the events of unsurpassed importance in contemporary history, laid the foundations of the collective security system in Europe and the world. It is the legacy of World War II bought at an exorbitant price of human lives. …

A YEAR AGO, Belgrade hosted an academic conference entitled “The Great War and the Birth of a New World: The Priority Agenda for Humankind.”

The majority of speakers at that conference made a point that was at variance with the widespread view that World War I was the result of a combination of circumstances, a disastrous product of a set of accidental factors, and that in fact no one had wanted it. They expressed the diametrically opposite conclusion that that war had been designed by forces that made money on armed conflicts. World War II was based on the same kind of plan. …

ON FEBRUARY 15, 2016, Russia’s BRICS presidency came to an end. Its results with regard to state and government agencies, business, the academic community, and civil institutions are yet to be analyzed. However, even now there is good reason to say that we have successfully accomplished the mission of helmsman at the Big Five ship, on the whole fulfilling, in the course of our work in conjunction with our partners, the directives and specific assignments that our countries’ leaders formulated at the Ufa summit on July 8-9, 2015. Our focused, dedicated efforts translated into wide-ranging practical results, which were praised by our colleagues. Perhaps it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Russian presidency has become a landmark in BRICS development, improving the countries’ collaboration within the framework of the association and enhancing its role in international affairs.

The ongoing consolidation of the BRICS ranks reaffirms its viability and is the graphic evidence of the objective global process of transition from multilateral structures, within the framework of which states are interconnected by strict discipline and build their relations on the principle of strict hierarchy, to associations of a new type that are characterized by democracy in the organization of their work and the striving to build relations with outside players on the basis on equality, mutual benefit and consideration for each other’s interests. …

THE ARCTIC REGION attracts the attention of a far larger number of states than those that are adjacent to it. The massive melting of Arctic ice provides broad opportunities for opening new maritime routes and for prospecting for natural resources, and the development of energy and trade; it is also fraught with a serious conflict in the Arctic. The international community has already appreciated the economic attractiveness of the Arctic, and states began to argue about the redrawing of Arctic boundaries. Arctic and non-Arctic states are becoming increasingly involved in the efforts to review them.

Following the invigoration of Russia’s policy in the Arctic, other states also began to show initiative in developing a legal framework for their policy with regard to this region.¹ The Arctic is becoming an object of territorial, resource and military-strategic interests. The global economy’s dependence on energy resources is another factor stimulating the military and political leadership in a number of countries to develop new strategies to uphold their national interests in the Arctic. These policies cover all key areas regulated by foreign policy – from scientific research and peaceful exploration of the Arctic waters to planning large-scale military activities in the Arctic Ocean. In recent years, Arctic sea expeditions were conducted by the United States, Norway, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, China and other countries. …

THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (TPP) agreement* was signed in October 2015 by 12 member countries of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. The TPP is a brainchild of the United States, which was concerned about its declining influence on the economies and politics of Asia-Pacific countries, about the growing economic and political power of China in the region [1], about the East Asian Economic Community agreement, which is part of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) accord, and about the collapse of the Free Trade Area for Americas (FTAA) initiative [2]. The United States sees the TPP as an instrument for achieving its long-term goal of bringing into being the proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), an agreement whose signatory countries would be fewer in number than

* The text of the agreement was published at the end of December 2015, and so far there has been no detailed analysis of it in Russian specialist literature. Studies of the TPP done in Russia include Transtikhookeanskoye partnerstvo: baryery i perspektivy razvitiya by a working group of the International Research and Educational Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Higher School of Economics [8]; Vyacheslav Kholodkov’s article “Transtikhookeanskoye partnerstvo: s kem, protiv kogo i dlya chego?” [9], and the article “ATES i Tikhookeanskoye partnerstvo” by Vasily Mikheyev and Vitaly Shvydko [6]. As regards studies done abroad, works by C. Fred Bergsten [12], Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Cathleen Cimino-Isaacs [13], and Alison Firth [14] deserve special mention. …

ALL GREATEST LITERARY CREATIONS of antiquity, be it the Mahabharata, the Bible, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Avesta, the Kalevala and others tell us about conflicts, confrontations, struggle, and wars as the most important events in the history of mankind. This creates an impression that at all times people knew no other occupations but wars or preparations for new wars once the previous war was over and that mankind appeared on Earth and lived on it to fight and to destroy itself. Progress was and is limited to consistent upgrade of the old and invention of new types of deadly weapons rather than develop personality, its abilities, talents, and spirituality.

In this way, the history of mankind looks like anti-history crowned with Revelation, an apocalyptic prophesy of the end of mankind and the world. No wonder, anti-history concentrates not at those who created the greatest values of material and spiritual culture but at those who destroyed them – pharaohs, kings, emperors, czars, presidents, military leaders, etc. – those who commanded armies, waged aggressive wars and captured territories of other peoples. History and its heroes are anti-history and anti-heroes, while true history and true heroes are pushed into the shade or are not mentioned at all. …

THERE IS A STORY, possibly apocryphal, that while briefing Richard Nixon for his 1972 visit to China, Henry Kissinger told the President that Zhou Enlai was an avid student of French history. During his trip, Nixon met Zhou in the Forbidden City. As they strolled together through the gardens, Nixon remembered Kissinger’s comment and asked Zhou what he thought had been the influence of the French Revolution on western civilization. Zhou paused for thought, then replied: “Too early to tell.” Similarly it could well be too early to tell what the end of the Cold War means for the international system. But at least the broad outlines of some of the main issues may now be glimpsed. This is my view. It is only one view.

In December last year, finding myself in Ukraine, I decided to visit Kiev’s Independence Square to observe the EuroMaidan demonstrations. It was a colorful spectacle with flags of all political stripes fluttering in the early winter breeze, including some that I had not expected to see and I wondered if the young people waving them really knew their historical meaning. On one occasion I listened to some European politician – I think it was a Member of the European Parliament – give a rousing speech. He spoke of freedom and democracy, the usual phrases tripping off his fluent tongue. He spoke in English and I do not know how much the crowd understood. But his tone was clear enough and they responded enthusiastically. Stirring music played in the background. There was a festive air. But the thought came to me: this could all end very badly. Images of Hungary in 1956 flashed across my mind. At that time, the West encouraged an anti-Soviet revolt, then folded its arms as Soviet tanks rumbled into Budapest. …

Question: Anatoly Vasilyevich, Russian-Japanese diplomatic relations are more than 200 years old. Yet, sometimes it seems that there have been more bad things than good in the relations between our two states. Since the start of the 20th century alone, Russia and Japan fought each other three separate times. Nevertheless, let’s recall some of the brightest and most positive events in bilateral history.

After the Russo-Japanese war, between 1906 and 1916, our countries were able to establish mutually beneficial cooperation in the political, economic and military areas. The countries’ leaders achieved mutual understanding and signed a neutrality pact in 1941 despite the extremely complicated situation shortly before the war. Finally, the signing of the 1956 Joint Declaration, which ended the state of war between the two countries and restored interstate diplomatic relations between the USSR and Japan, was a landmark event. …

THE UNITED NATIONS peacekeeping operations are a key means of settlement of armed conflicts and post-conflict political normalization. Due to the escalation of some conflicts, they are more important in the 21st century than ever before.

Principles underlying the UN peacekeeping system have changed seriously over the past several decades. After the emergence in 1948 of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), which was dubbed “Blue Berets” and had the mission of monitoring ceasefires in the Middle East, the United Nations set up armed units, the “Blue Helmets,” in 1956 for peacekeeping operations in the Middle East.¹ Later, police were included in peacekeeping forces. …

“For men, and not walls or ships in which are no men, constitute a state.”

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book VII, 77 …

International Affairs: Mr. Ambassador, you have been working in Italy since 2013. What is the level of our bilateral ties, in your opinion?

Indeed, a great deal of useful and valuable elements has accumulated in our bilateral relations. This refers, in particular, to our partnership in addressing international issues, our joint significant achievements in the economic sphere, high technology and space, a diversified and wide-ranging network of cultural, scientific, educational, humanitarian, and interregional ties and contacts between the civil societies of our two countries. In November 2013, the eighth expanded Russian-Italian top level interstate consultations took place in Trieste, which once again reaffirmed our course toward deepening our cooperation in all areas. In August 2013, the third meeting of foreign and defense ministers in the “two plus two” format took place in Rome. On the whole, the well-established interaction mechanisms have proven themselves, working successfully and productively and, without exaggeration, being among the most successful examples of Russia’s interstate cooperation with Western countries. …

INDIA IS RUSSIA’S TIME-TESTED PARTNER; throughout many years, the Soviet Union and India were almost allies and cooperated practically in all spheres of human activity.

How do things stand today? The changes of the last quarter of a century in our country, in India and on the international scene, for that matter, inevitably added new hues and new accents to their bilateral relations. …

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY is today understood as the communication of the governmental and nongovernmental players of a country with foreign public in order to indirectly influence public opinion and foreign policy decisions in a foreign state. Public diplomacy methods and techniques have been used by various countries for centuries, but only in the 20th century did they begin to evolve into systematic national policies with substantial theoretical, legal, and logistic resources put into them.

The growing role of public diplomacy in Russia has resulted in the emergence of institutions such as the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund,² set up in 2010, and nonprofit think tank Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).³ Simultaneously, there still exist public diplomacy organizations that were set up in the early 1990s on the basis of similar Soviet bodies. …

“It is fruitless to try to place the blame for this situation on one particular Nation or on another. It is the kind of development that is almost inevitable unless the major powers of the world continue without interruption to work together and to assume joint responsibility for the solution of problems that may arise to endanger the peace of the world.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt …

Sixth International Conference, Yalta, Republic of Crimea, October 19-23, 2015

Conference Opening Session …

THE GREAT NORTHERN WAR (1700-1721) created a new balance of power in the Baltics and made the Finnish file part of czarist Russia’s foreign policy agenda. Having defeated Sweden, the Russian Empire got access to the Baltics and control over the coastal stretch between Riga and Vyborg. Under the Treaty of Nystad (1721), the state border between Russia and Sweden crossed the territory of the Grand Duchy of Finland that belonged to the Kingdom of Sweden. It was from that time on that the Finnish Question became an inalienable and component part of czarist policies.

From the very beginning, Russia concentrated on the protection of its northwestern borders and was especially concerned with the safety of St. Petersburg. In 1712, Peter the Great had moved the capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg. Separated from the Finnish border by about 40 km, the new capital on the Neva was dangerously close to Finland and, therefore, was much more vulnerable to enemy attacks that Moscow, the first capital of Russia situated in the country’s center. From that time on, the defense of St. Petersburg against possible Swedish expansion or attacks of any other state for that matter became the headache of Russia’s military structures and the central point of their operational plans. …

SUCCESS multiplied by intuition is behind many discoveries. This fully applies to British historian Prof. Gabriel Gorodetsky* who has written numerous scholarly works including The Precarious Truce: Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1924-1927, Stafford Cripps’ Mission to Moscow, 1940-1942, etc.

Prof. Gorodetsky came across the diaries of Ivan Maisky,** Soviet Ambassador to London while preparing official Soviet-Israeli documents for publication and was immediately interested. Before him few historians had paid attention to this unique historical document. In fact, Stalin never encouraged officials to keep diaries; this explains why they are few and far between in Soviet archives. …

SUCCESS multiplied by intuition is behind many discoveries. This fully applies to British historian Prof. Gabriel Gorodetsky* who has written numerous scholarly works including The Precarious Truce: Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1924-1927, Stafford Cripps’ Mission to Moscow, 1940-1942, etc.

Prof. Gorodetsky came across the diaries of Ivan Maisky,** Soviet Ambassador to London while preparing official Soviet-Israeli documents for publication and was immediately interested. Before him few historians had paid attention to this unique historical document. In fact, Stalin never encouraged officials to keep diaries; this explains why they are few and far between in Soviet archives. …

IN HIS LATEST MONOGRAPH, “By Fire, Bayonet and Flattery,”* Vladimir Simindey investigated an important problem that has so far remained barely analyzed in Soviet/Russian historiography, viz. interpretations of history and impacts of World Wars One and Two on the Baltic republics and their development between the wars as presented by official analysts in the Baltic states. The author has pointed out that the works recently published with official support in the three Baltic states offer a nationalist interpretation readily accepted in the academic, educational and socio-political spheres.

His book based on the latest articles that appeared in historical journals, official multivolume publications and booklets issued by museums offers objective assessment of their content. …