European garden against the rest of the World's jungle

By Timofey Bordachev

Widely known and loved by us for his paradoxical statements, the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, gave his opiniion of the effectiveness of the economic war of the European Union against Russia. In the first lines of his message, he claims that “sanctions work,” and those who claim otherwise are simply telling lies. But something else is curious: for Borrell, the main indicator of the effectiveness of the “sanctions” is not even the dynamics of the Russian economy. The emphasis in the report is on the reduction of Russia's bilateral trade with the EU countries: this is what particularly pleases the chief European diplomat. And it doesn't matter at all that at the same time Russia's trade with the rest of the world, with the exception of the United States, has grown (even Japan and South Korea do not show noticeable rates of reduction in trade turnover).

The main European diplomat, as you know, lives in his own "Garden of Eden", and everything outside this garden has no meaning for him in the world. One could simply have fun over how the European perception of the surrounding reality, embodied by Borrell's remarks, has degraded. However, this approach is not a deviation from the norm, but a reflection of the whole philosophy of the EU's relations with other countries. It's just that we have just now seen the inadequacy of such a strategy in a world where there will never again be one center and a huge periphery serving its interests.

Now we are really opening our eyes to, let's say politely, the originality of our partners in Europe. That which, with the delicacy inherent in Russian foreign policy culture, they have tried not to talk about for the past 30 years, is becoming public property. The question is, what lessons can be drawn for the future, when the active military phase of relations with the West subsides somewhat? After all, this will happen sooner or later, unless the world really splits into closed camps opposing each other. And then it will be extremely dangerous for us to maintain illusions about the fundamental intentions of our Western neighbors in relation to the rest of humanity.

Josep Borrell is a somewhat caricatured but a still believable embodiment of the nature of the foreign policy of European states. This funny old man is certainly a product of his time - the "beautiful 80-90s" in Spanish and European history. At that time, either the most backward, who could not make a career in business, or those who could succeed without turning on their heads, went into politics. But to no lesser extent, he is a product of the European order, educating its elite in a spirit of exclusivity and contempt for others.

From the point of view of mass psychology, exclusivity is a very good means of control. The one who considers himself special, the best and unattainable in his superiority, never compares his own position with others. This means that he is ready to approve not only aggression against “strangers”, but also the restriction of his rights: they still remain the best in the world. You are already in paradise, comrades Europeans, what else do you need?

But it's not just about politics. The strategy of closeness and protectionism has always had a pragmatic basis in a united Europe. And all the talk about the EU's commitment to a free market economy is nothing more than a popular myth. Apparently, it is necessary to start with the fact that in the mid-1950s. association of 6 countries of Western Europe was created with several goals. Putting aside domestic politics, it is not particularly interesting to us now. If we are talking about relations with the outside world, then the main task was to create barriers to potential competitors of European companies. In itself, the idea of ​​the Common Market is great for its citizens - it allows you to buy goods produced in all EU countries. But at the same time it means the construction of large-scale restrictions on the products of the rest of the world.

This has always been quite frankly admitted at the level of internal documents: but who, outside the EU, has ever read them? Only narrow specialists, and their opinions of the general public have always been of little concern. I will say more: since the mid-1960s. The most important goal of the foreign economic policy of a united Europe was the fight against the USSR and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). Precisely the struggle, since sanctions were practiced in it, and the non-recognition of partners, and, finally, attempts to split their ranks. Periodically, Borrell's predecessors tried to talk, with Romania or Bulgaria, for example, about opening the EU market for their textiles and fruits. But they consistently rejected any dialogue with the USSR or the CMEA - for them, Brussels had only an ignore and sanctions.

The first systemic contacts between the European Communities and the CMEA began in the second half of the 1980s. At that time, it was already clear to everyone, in general terms, where the Soviet government was leading the USSR. Just unlike old Joseph, there was no need for EU officials in the 1960s and 1980s to replicate their thoughts and achievements on Twitter. Or maybe they simply did not have such an opportunity, and therefore we think that the Europeans of the "old school" were wiser and more professional than our contemporaries.

It can be argued that this is all, they say, normal competition. Especially in the context of the Cold War between West and East. At that time, the world did not know at all the general trade openness and the attitude towards it as a sign of progress. Therefore, let's try to attribute the protectionism of a united Europe before 1991 to the fact that globalization in its usual form did not exist at all.

However, the Cold War ended, and after that, the European Union began preparations for the largest expansion. Things were moving towards the absorption by the Common Market of seven countries of the former socialist camp and the three Baltic republics of the USSR at once. All of them, especially the Baltic states, due to historical circumstances, had a developed and extensive trade with Russia and other CIS countries. Economic relations in the East played a significant role in maintaining their social stability, the availability of jobs and the ability to have a relatively diversified economy. The preservation of these ties could create reliable economic bridges between Western Europe and vast Russia.
This article originally appeared in Russian at vz.ru