National interests and foreign policy

National interests and foreign policy Foreign policy - one of the most important and at the same time, a very specific task of any state. The complexity of this problem lies in the fact that in international relations has its own rules, which change is not given to anyone. The first of these rules is that every state in the international arena to protect the interests of the people in front of others. No nation is not ready, and has no right to bring a sacrifice of national interests in any higher ideas. Sometimes a tyrannical government could afford to sacrifice the national interests of some "higher" purpose. It ended very sadly for their peoples, who had to pay for the adventure of the rulers. Democracies have ever done ever. Sometimes the "best interests" cover only a betrayal of national interests, their actions were justified, clearly going to harm his country. This happened when the interests of the government and the people dispersed so that the government preferred to serve as a foreign power than to his people. A typical example of bringing a sacrifice of national interests, "the highest idea of" can serve as a foreign policy practice of the Bolsheviks. Russia has been brought by them to sacrifice the idea of ​​"world communism" was the only resource base for the "world revolution". Such a foreign policy in the first decades of Soviet power, not only was the result of foreign political isolation of Russia and the huge trading losses, but also led to unproductive waste of national resources on various adventures. In the postwar period, this anti-national policy expressed in the "help" underdeveloped countries "socialist orientation", which includes all the dictatorial regimes whose leaders were willing to pay a Marxist-sounding phrase for real resource supply. The volume of these shipments totaled $ 120 billion, which are now hanging on our finances sunk to a huge debt. Another example is the same - the unexpected discovery of the last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee "universal values" in international relations. The invention of the "universal values" allowed him without much resistance within the country to hand over all key strategic position of Russia in the world and put it in the fairway of American foreign policy. Naturally, neither before nor after Gorbachev's "common values" in international relations did not exist. There are national interests and their balance sheets. The task of each state - the protection of national interests. The most successfully defend its national interests in the world today and even in the twentieth century the United States. We must pay tribute to their enormous energy and talent of brilliant diplomacy and intelligence, they were able to achieve in the world the situation is much more than they can afford their national resources. U.S. has never concealed the fact that it protects national interests rather than universal. Only in 1918-19 of President Woodrow Wilson resorted to this demagogic figure, because it was very beneficial for the establishment of diplomatic economic domination of the United States in the devastated postwar Europe. Based on this demagoguery, "Dawes Plan" defended U.S. interests to the greatest extent. However, the essence of this demagogy had already been clear, and as distasteful, even to the people of the United States, that the government still decided to more honestly determine their foreign policy goals. Today, the U.S. does not hide the fact that protect in every corner of the globe its national interests. Well, this right they can not refuse. The interests of other nations must defend their government. If a politician or political party whose aim is not to betray his people and defend its interests, they do not need to hide their foreign policy goals of its citizens. There is no need to invent sophisticated combination of the interests of world revolution, "human interest", "world opinion" and other nonsense. You just have to be honest, is not shying away to answer the question: are you ready to defend national interests? We answer this question without wagging and general reasoning. We aim in foreign policy, particularly the protection of national interests of Russia. Of course, there are people who will immediately start to read about the morality of national self-interest. "Someone's got to take care of the human interest" - they say. The answer is simple. If each government will effectively protect the interests of his country, only if all of them together will protect the interests of all mankind. National interests can not be sacrificed for "universal." They can be sacrificed only the national interests of other countries. Nothing else exists in international relations. So the world works. Therefore there is no need for pronouncing common words. The purpose of foreign policy is determined for us initially. It remains only to specify the goal and define the contours of its foreign policy. The importance of foreign policy issues Deep integral crisis caused by the failure of the proposed team of Yeltsin-Gaidar's reforms, and the concept gave rise to political turmoil in recent years pushed to the background questions of foreign policy, the position of Russia in the global community. We are so focused on their experience of domestic disasters, that in foreign policy, content with illusions. The latter circumstance at hand, especially the extremists of various stripes. Some extremists develop the country's foreign policy, others criticize it on the contrary, not going beyond the concepts imposed by the other party, but only holding it with the opposite sign. Constructive force is now virtually excluded from the development of foreign policy, focused on trying to find some way out of a domestic crisis, leaving foreign policy to the left to right and left wing extremism. At the same time, the solution of our domestic problems, the output of the acute economic and political crisis is impossible without a balanced and effective foreign policy. Ignoring this fact would require precisely the constructive forces of the development of its foreign policy. One-sided foreign policy of the Yeltsin Unfortunately, under Yeltsin and Kozyrev, Russian foreign policy became one-sided pro-American in nature. Guide the Russian Foreign Ministry has risen strongly in the wake of U.S. policy. In this course the Foreign Ministry has its reasons. First of all, a group of Kozyrev's views the U.S. as the leader of the Western world as a major superpower, which now dictates the strategic situation in the world. To this day it is in general true. But this view of things and causes of the inevitability of this situation dictates obey. Russia was in a relationship with the United States in the position of junior partner from the very first day of its independent existence. U.S. promised to help Russia - invited. U.S. offered the conditions of disarmament and trade relations Russia - took. U.S. have made unexpected moves at different points of the Earth, Russia - supported. Walking is actually in the wake of geopolitical lines of the U.S., Russia has become a tool to protect their national interests, the pressure on other countries. This leads to the appearance of deep conflict with the countries of Europe, Asia and Latin America. Needless to say, that such a course of short-sighted and does not consider future changes in the balance of power in the world. However, it corresponds to the mental abilities of Yeltsin and the group that seized the leadership of the Foreign Ministry under Yeltsin. Waiting for mandatory support any steps the United States from the Russian Foreign Ministry makes the countries of Europe, and Asia to take the dictates of the U.S. to focus on their position. Support for Russia's position makes it a much more weighty than the position of a superpower. De facto alliance between the two superpowers in the subordinate position of one of them, naturally favorable to the leader. But he is seriously prejudicial to the interests of its competitors. And above all, depending on the position of the United States are countries in Europe. If the postwar dominance of the United States in Europe, provided the "Soviet military threat", but today it provides a direct Russian support. Russia in European politics determining factor, and this is how the United States gives it such importance. In recent years, the U.S. managed to make maximum use of the "Russian factor" in order to consolidate their positions. At the same time the Russian government of adequate dividends from this collaboration could not remove. Russia's position in the world not only strengthened, but weakened. Her voice in the affairs of the world community increasingly weaker. And the international community, whose interests are adversely affected pro-American course of the Russian leadership increasingly loses interest in Russia. However, even the miserable retreat from the pro-American stance, even simple attempts to take a slightly different position, taken in 1994, called the approval and support of the European countries. The West in general are interested in an independent foreign policy of Russia and is not shy to show it. Minimize the traditional foreign economic relations is unacceptable Especially strongly manifested itself in recent years, pro-American orientation in foreign policy of Russia. U.S. firms, until recently occupied a modest place in Russia's foreign trade and investment, suddenly getting unprecedented privileges and preferences. Interestingly, these benefits and these preferences were very often the individual. Specific American companies suddenly get incredibly lucrative contracts and unprecedented benefits. At the same time our traditional European and Asian partners "otvazhivayustya" on the Russian market. On the road of European capital and European trade put artificial obstacles, the activities of European firms more difficult to please their American competitors. Tear the threads were created by decades of sotrudnchestva. All this has led today to an unprecedented reduction in trade with European countries, the shortfall in the country many billions of ECU investment. Simultaneously, the sharp folding of the traditional Russian cooperation with Asian countries, the loss of Russia's position in the Asian region. First of all, it's rude and unmotivated break established ties with such a traditionally friendly country like India. Sensational in the 1993 rejection of the arrangements already supplies high-tech products and technologies in this country, and failure to direct, formal, declared to the world the direction of the U.S. State Department, broke a contract beneficial to both parties. Both Russia and India have suffered huge losses arising from these actions. India also has a hard, for decades a memorable lesson to buy such products can only be the United States. And you can only stay at the level of technological development, which she defined the United States. And any hopes of another, independent of the United States, a source of high technology can not be. Russia - not a competitor to the United States. Russia will do everything she ordered. It is clear that this lesson is embraced all Asian countries, even those who have not suffered such huge losses as India. And it is clear that the interest of Russia in Asia after that can not be reduced to zero. After all, it was of interest to the country that it can be a provider of technology, it is employee development. If Russia is not ready to deliver nothing but the raw materials it needs no one. It just gets in the category of countries - suppliers of raw materials and second-rate goods. But already in this country it is far spared Asia. In a similar situation were our relations with Vietnam. Here, the gap of traditional ties led to a sharp reduction in trade. U.S. and this could benefit: oil and gas offshore South Vietnamese tradition, a Russian specialist, today goes into the hands of American companies in collusion with the Russian Foreign Ministry. The point here is not in the examples, which can result in tens. The point here is rolling down Russia in complete isolation in a hostile attitude of the international community and therefore completely dependent on the United States. Economic discrimination Russia Despite all the preferences provided by the United States, its economic policy toward Russia is not different in return. Until now applies to Russia the so-called Jackson-Vennika, which sets a very serious restrictions on trade with Russia. Russian trade is not granted the status of favored nation in foreign trade, which have almost all countries except those where the U.S. government does not recognize or consider them dictatorships, or are in a state of war. It was not abolished com - the instrument through which the U.S. is putting pressure on companies around the world, preventing the importation into Russia of modern technology. Moreover, U.S. law still regards Russia as a hostile state. Virtually all measures of pressure, all restrictions against the Soviet Union formed during the years of "cold war", went to Russia today. Adopted by the Russian government line on unilateral concessions to the U.S. led him to the target. Despite the fact that Russia today is in the wake of U.S. foreign policy is in fact their main ally in the competition and protect their geopolitical interests, U.S. policy remains essentially anti-Russian. Justified if Yeltsin's foreign policy? But maybe after all the current foreign policy of the national interests of Russia? Maybe it makes sense to go to all these sacrifices and concessions for the sake of some future benefit? Let's try to sort out this issue. Today, Russia has to enter into the world community as an equal member of a decent, available on acceptable terms to assist in building a modern high-tech production. Russia needs to exit from the crisis and the success of the reform investment and modern management, high-tech. Can I get it all on the road that fell into the Russian Foreign Ministry leadership? Are the U.S. today provide us with loans, investments in promising sectors, technology cooperation? And a half years, we expect the results of the foreign policy of the Yeltsin-Kozyrev. During this time, we were promised $ 24 billion in the spring of 1992, $ 17 billion - the fall of 1992, $ 3 billion in the spring of 1993, $ 15 billion in the summer of 1993, $ 3 billion for the execution of the Supreme Council, 12 billion for the adoption of MVFskogo draft budget for in 1995. If all of these amounts were actually provided, then our economic situation would have been much better today. Experience shows that the promised loan never provided. By themselves, the promises are purely demagogic character and aim to achieve short-term concessions for future benefits. Although the volume of these concessions have significantly exceeded the promised benefits, promises magic continues to operate on the Russian leadership. If the U.S. lifted restrictions on trade with Russia and would agree to eliminate KonKoma, the economic situation in Russia also have much improved. However, the U.S. government, promising all these measures are, in fact, does not go to them. At the same time the existence of these restrictions and anti-Russian tools today is motivated by nothing. If they were created to deal with the strategic enemy of the United States - the communist Soviet Union, what have the Democratic Russia? The question, we immediately find the answer. If the cold war continues with the same intensity, if everything is done for a maximum attenuation of the Russian position in the world, everything is really a strategic adversary the United States was not communism, the world, namely Russia. It would be naive to assume that the geo-strategic calculations can indeed be based on ideological considerations. It would be naive to believe and what to change in ideology or regime in one of the warring powers will change the global geo-strategic interests of all participants in the confrontation. In fact, the main essence of the policy of confrontation - the struggle for resources, markets, strategic advantage. In this sense, the U.S. has not changed and continue on their part to the hard anti-Russian course, covered hypocritical demagogy, it is quite reasonable and logical. Nothing has changed and Russia. That is why the United States today are vitally interested in the maximum attenuation and the ruin of Russia. If a crisis of ideology opens up new opportunities for this - they should be used. It is ridiculous to expect in these circumstances, the U.S. investment, technology and assistance. On the contrary, the U.S. and its companies are willing to spend on any bribes to officials, if only they were given the opportunity to take out as much as possible from Russia at bargain prices, yet it is possible.