Liberal Imperialism

One of the great joys of contemporary journalism is the ability to exchange views with readers. In this case, the concerns voiced by our reader, Oleksandr Striletsky, about the reversal of which way the oil should flow in the Odesa-Brody pipeline are not new but particularly apt and well put. Leading Western ambassadors also expressed concern over this several months ago. Obviously, the pipeline is important to Europe because it would take oil out of the Black Sea, where there is already too much oil blocked up at the Bosporus, and send it directly to the buyers. Running it the other way would simply mean putting more oil into the Black Sea and neutralize any interest in it the West might have had, thereby providing yet another reason why nobody is waiting for Ukraine in Europe.

Recently one leading Western commentator on Ukrainian affairs, Roman Kupchinsky of Radio Liberty, warned against the Finlandization of Ukraine. Mr. Kupchinsky has in mind not only energy politics but also added his voice to the concerns expressed even by some members of the current government over the ill-conceived Single Economic Space, an organization in which the votes will be determined by “economic potential,” meaning that Russia will always have the majority of votes. This is actually much more than Finlandization. In the 1950s-80s Finland was certainly prevented from doing anything the Soviet Union opposed, but this liberal empire idea sounds a bit more like the Warsaw Pact or Comecon, where the members were committed to doing things that the USSR wanted. The picture further clarified a few days ago when Russia’s former Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais stated that Russia’s strategy was to construct what he called a “liberal empire” consisting of Russian hegemony over Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, where the lesser peoples would presumably be happy under the wise and enlightened tutelage of their elder brother. This strategy has, of course, been evident for some time, but now at least it has been enunciated by one of its architects.

You can, of course, have a liberal empire in the metropolitan state, as was, for example, Great Britain in the nineteenth century. When, however, the dependencies try to do something the dominant participant in this arrangement does not like, the empire is forced to take decidedly illiberal steps to keep the empire from falling apart. In this sense, Mr. Chubais’ proposal of a liberal empire is quite feasible, but only for Russia or, at most, for the Russians. Ukrainians, especially those who suffered for being alleged “bourgeois nationalists” of a nation that had no bourgeoisie, know all about this. They have been there before.

With all due respect to President Kuchma, this writer feels that our reader is quite right in warning that the way the oil flows in not simply a business decision but affects something far larger and more lasting. Many things we have seen over the years — insider privatization in favor of Russian interests; the rise of oligarchs dependent on Russian energy resources; ever new and repeatedly (thank God) failed projects to integrate the CIS that give the West the impression that Ukraine is not worth waiting for because it lives according to the Soviet dictum of say one thing, think another, and do yet a third, and will simply not do what is necessary to become part of Europe in more than a geographical sense — all these things add up to a step by step loss of sovereignty and the shadow integration of Ukraine with Russia, a process that is now stepping out of the shadows for all to see. Of course, the West is tired of hearing about Ukraine’s European choice, when its actions indicate something entirely different. Of course, nobody is waiting for a neighbor that says one thing, does another, and God only knows what those behind the actions are thinking. Not Ukraine’s national interest.