The Coming Age of New Unfreedom in Post-Communist States

By Peter Baofu, Ph.D.

As Estonia celebrates today (on August 20, 2010) the national holiday in commemoration of its successful fight for independence from the Soviet Union on August 20, 1991 -- something historic with global implications slowly and steadily emerges in many of the post-communist states, namely, the steady process of being increasingly dominated, albeit to a partial extent at the moment, by a new master (especially the E.U. and the U.S.), just when they succeeded in getting rid of their old master (viz., the Soviet Union under Russian domination).

In the euphoric moment of national celebration (which varies from country to country in regard to the official date of commemoration), there is a pervasive sense of innocence, or a widespread spirit of denial, in many of the post-communist states, because they have been all too busy getting rid of the social and cultural remnants of their old master (since their independence from the Soviet Union) but unwisely in a hurry to endorse the new master (without a thorough consideration of its long-term consequences).

This is all the more serious, especially among those who have never experienced what their forebears encountered before them, namely, the long history of being dominated and oppressed by one major empire after another in their own backyard.

Many of these post-communist states have fallen victim to the temptation of freedom, in the hope of creating a new society and culture, which are to be free and prosperous for them and their posterity. But this temptation of freedom has its dark side unsaid, because of the mistake that they currently make – that is, the historic rise of new unfreedom.

In my 2007 book titled BEYOND THE WORLD OF TITANS, AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER, I already went to great lengths to explain the essential dilemma confronting many of these post-communist states in this recent chapter of their long history of fighting for their own independence from one major empire after another in their own backyard. More specifically, I coined the term “the ambivalent regions” as one of the new battlegrounds in the coming age of what I originally called “the post-post-Cold War era” for the foreseeable future and beyond. This book also addressed other parts of the world (in relation to different dilemmas), not just the post-communist states, as it provides a new paradigm of understanding international relations for the entire planet Earth.

In the current context, the mistake that many of these post-communist states now commit is another extreme version of the same mistake which befell their ancestors before, that is, being dominated by Russia (in the older Soviet days) and now being increasingly dominated by the West (especially the E.U. and the U.S.), albeit to a partial extent at the moment.

There are different major processes which have contributed to this long-term prospect of unfreedom in many of these post-communist states. Consider three of them below, solely for illustration.

The first process has to do with the authoritarian legacy of the local traditions and is nothing new. But the other two processes have to do with their search for full integration with the E.U. and NATO. These two new processes are still ongoing (at their early stage) and have not yet reached the stage of full integration at least for many decades to come. But when the two new processes are completed one day in the future, the historic rise of new unfreedom for them will be most explicit and profound (and will be too late for them to completely undo), especially for those which are the smallest and weakest members.

Of course, this is not to suggest that there is no benefit for full integration with the E.U. and NATO -- but the important point to remember here is that, all so often in history, the costs are more than the benefits for small and weak states in integration with major powers with imperial ambitions.

In the case of the E.U., some of the post-communist states had already joined, and good examples include Bulgaria (2007), the Czech Republic (2004), Estonia (2004), Hungary (2004), Latvia (2004), Lithuania (2004), Poland (2004), Romania (2007), Slovakia (2004), and Slovenia (2004), for example. Others (e.g., Ukraine and Moldova) are tempted by possible membership, although they have not yet joined.

In the case of NATO, some of the post-communist states had already joined, and good examples include the Czech Republic (1999), Poland (1999), Bulgaria (2004), Estonia (2004), Hungary (1999), Latvia (2004), Lithuana (2004), Romania (2004), Slovakia (2004), Slovenia (2004), Albania (2009), and Croatia (2009). Other states are more cautious (or wiser, in a small way) and have only formed a “partnership for peace” with NATO, and good examples include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine.

While Russia also has a “partnership for peace” with NATO, she has the good fortune of being one of the major powers on Earth and does not run the risk of being dominated by NATO that many of these smaller post-communist states are inherently vulnerable to. In this case, Russia is an exception.

On the horizon of the future, the E.U. and the U.S. will constitute two of the empires in the coming “post-post-Cold War era” (that I already went to great lengths to explain in my 2007 book as cited above), or what I called “the meso-empires” of “the European Union” and “the North American Union.”