RESEARCH ARTICLES. Transformation of international system
The article is devoted to one of the key subjects of the detente period – the history of development and adoption of Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. The significance of the human rights problem in the USSR, in particular – the right to emigrate, for the development of American-Soviet relations at the peak of detente is shown. Special attention was paid to trilateral negotiations between the Soviet leadership, Nixon and Ford administrations and the legislators headed by Senator Henry Jackson. The Amendment, adopted in December 1974, created serious obstacles for the development of trade and economic relations between the superpowers, and it had a number of negative political consequences also. The Amendment constituted the issue of human rights in the USSR as one of the important components of the U.S. foreign policy, created a negative background for the American-Soviet dialogue, which significantly complicated the outlined convergence of superpowers and contributed to the curtailment of detente.
The political struggle around the Jackson-Vanik Amendment became the quintessence of detente. Each of the parties involved regarded the Amendment differently: Soviet leaders saw it as a rude interference in the internal affairs of the USSR; Kissinger saw it as an untimely and too radical in form and methods attempt to transform the Soviet system; Jackson saw it as a good way to increase his popularity by exploiting a popular in the post-Vietnam era theme that was naturally consistent with American national values and traditions. Both the Kremlin and Jackson had a fairly clear set of concessions that they could make. However, in the context of the systemic crisis of power caused by Watergate, the US administration did not have enough resources to bring them to a common denominator. The Soviet leadership soon also faced new economic and political challenges, and the problem of restoring trade relations with the United States ceased to be a priority.
The Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 became the watershed separating the “high détente” from its downward phase. Its real significance far exceeded its immediate meaning embedded in the arguments of its creators. It was not an accident that the Amendment was not canceled in 1987 after the USSR liberated its emigration policy. After the collapse of the USSR American leadership used it as a political leverage against Russian Federation. Boris Yeltsin appealed to Bill Clinton multiple times in 1993-1994 requesting removal of discrimination measures in trade and economic relations inherited from the soviet times. The Amendment was not cancelled it was only temporarily suspended. It was officially canceled only in 2012, but only in order to give way to a law that allows the United States, at its discre tion, to impose sanctions on individuals allegedly responsible for human rights violations in Russia (the so-called Magnitsky Act) and remains an obstacle to the development of equal Russian-American economic ties.
The Balkans in general and post-Yugoslav countries in particular have been under significant geopolitical pressure of the political West since the end of the bipolar global order. From the beginning of the Yugoslav Civil War in 1991, followed by Western recognition of secessionist republics in 1992 and NATO attacks on Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994-1995 and on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, the US, NATO and EU have been actively involved in the Balkan crisis. It was in concordance with the logic of unipolarity, or the New World Order, proclaimed by George W.H. Bush, in which there is “no substitute for American leadership”.
The year of 2008 marked the start of profound changes. The changes we are witnessing today are of the magnitude described by Paul Kennedy’s classic The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia crossed Russia’s red lines and exposed the latter’s ambitions to regain the superpower status; China symbolically showed the same ambition with the Olympics in Beijing; the crash of the US real-estate market triggered the global economic crisis; and the NATO-sponsored unilateral declaration of secession by Kosovo Albanians set a precedent and introduced uncertainty in international law and the entire system of United Nations. By the beginning of 2020, many problems had accumulated in the EU – against the background of the ongoing migration crisis, right-wing and nationalist movements became more active, and differences between members increased. Long before COVID-19, Brexit became a serious stress test for the economy and social structure of the European Union. Dramatic changes took place on the other side of the Atlantic too, resulting in the shocking victory of staunch anti-globalist Donald Trump. The rules established during the 1991-2008 unipolarity have thus been challenged. Subsequently, post-Cold War ideological consensus in the West has also been challenged even further by the growth of non-systemic political movements – many of them directed not only against the EU expansion, but also against the EU itself.
The significance of all these events for the Balkans is somewhat surprising and paradoxical, as the mainstream forces that have been weakened in the West forcefully push for a stronger Atlantic integration of the remaining Balkan countries. At the height of the pandemic, on 27 March 2020 Northern Macedonia became the 30th member of the Alliance, having previously undergone a humiliating procedure of changing its own name for this purpose. Three years earlier, Montenegro was admitted to NATO, but its population did not have the opportunity to vote on this in a referendum. The negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina on ‘normalisation of relations’, continued pressures on the prerogatives of Republic Srpska, Croatian initiative for a new Intermarium and many other similar efforts are stages in the process of NATOisation of former Yugoslavia. Based on the analysis of a large body of narrative sources and recent literature, the article presents the main trends and possible prospects for developments in the Balkans, depending on the outcome of the ongoing ideological and political struggle within the West.
The ongoing global systemic transition is transforming international relations from its erstwhile unipolarity to what experts agree is either multipolarity or, less popularly, bipolarity. However one chooses to describe the present world order, it's clear that the US and China are the main global players, which places Russia and India – decades-long strategic partners – in a junior position vis-a-vis both of them, especially their mutual Chinese neighbor with whom they share membership in BRICS and the SCO. The neorealist school of International Relations Theory preaches the need to pursue national interests, which sometimes align with others', and it is argued in the article that it is with this idea in mind that both countries have a motivation to jointly improve their strategic positions relative to the People's Republic, albeit in a non-hostile manner that avoids the risk of inadvertently triggering a security dilemma and reversing the recent gains made in Eurasian integration.
Two articles published by Russia's Valdai Club in 2019 indicated the possibility of creating a new Non-Aligned Movement, with the most recent one proposing that it be jointly led by Russia and India in order to advance the aforementioned neo-realist objective of balancing China. This suggestion is very intriguing and deserves some further elaboration, to which end the present research was conducted in order to place the new Non-Aligned Movement proposal in a strategic context relevant to the ongoing global systemic transition. Nearly a dozen articles and reports by Russian experts were analyzed, resulting in the conclusion that the proposal is a promising one but requires much more research into its challenges and opportunities in order to become more than just a proposed concept. In the event that any tangible progress is made on it, however, it must be done so extremely carefully in order for China not to misunderstand its intentions.
RESEARCH ARTICLES. The Middle East in the International System
BOOK REVIEWS
ISSN 2541-9099 (Online)