RUSSIA DISAPPOINTED BY EUROPE

Perestrojka: an Exceptional Occasion Miserably Missed

Перестрoйка - чрезвычайный, презренно  не использованны, йшанс

La Perestrojka: un'occasione eccezionale persa miseramente.

Péréstroyka: un'occasion exceptionnelle perdue misérablement.

Perestrojka: eine aussergewoehnliche, miserabel verpasste , Chance

Recent polemic declaration of former USSR President Gorbatschev against the policies of Edinaja Rossija has brought back to the interest of the political world and of the general public for a retrospective discussion about the faults and the benefits of Perestrojka.

We try hereby to express a  balanced point of view
.

Within all  confusion of Perestrojka, all major European players were not, according to us, up to requirements of their roles: Gorbatschev, the dissidents, the Church, Eltzin, but, especially, Europe. Nobody, in the European Union, even considered the fact that, since all these things were happening in Europe, they fell within the primary responsibility of all Europeans.

On top of that, an unbelievable theory of European Law, which is not written in the Treaties, prescribed that, before being able to enter the European Union, any European State must undergo a huge amount of changes and examinations, for becoming “apt” to become a member of the Union.

This principle starts from the wrong idea that the  Union is an ideological organization, which selects the ones who are homogeneous to its ideology. On the contrary, the Treaties foresee just that any European State has the right to become a member with the sole conditions to have a democratic constitution and a market economy. Even if this should change the political balance within the Union.

This discrimination has hurted very much many East European States, like the Poles, who are very proud of their nation, and that, therefore, do not like anybody to teach them how they have to be. Therefore, they are now very critical of the Union and pursue their own interests without a lot of attention for the others.This hurts still yet very heavily especially Turkey. Keeping many States, for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, years outside the European Union, the EU  encouraged any type of nationalistic reactions, including separate dealings with America, a hostile attitude with neighbors, local wars, and so on.

If this attitude is hurting for Poles and for Turks, or even for smaller nations, it goes without saying that it is absolutely unacceptable for Russia. Nobody recalls any more that, when President Eltzin came to Strasburg for addressing the European Parliament with a proposal whereby Russia could have joined the European Union, he was even barred from speaking by the then President of the  European  Parliament.

Eltzin was the most “Pro-Western” President that Europeans could have expected. In reality, European politicians were not interested at all for an accession, but not even to an association,  of Russia, even under the very unbalanced conditions of that time. How could they expect that Russia would  not have been hurted by that attitude? We are keen to think that, at the end of the day, Russians have been interested to participate in the European Union since the beginning of Perestrojka. Primakov has confirmed that recently. But how could they dare to propose this again, if they risk to be treated like Eltzin?

In fact, Russia would likely be, as suggested by Hélène Carrière d' Encausse,  more interested in a partnership between Russia as a whole (or the Eurasiatic Economic Community) and the European Union. This could apply also to Turkey.