Bound to Interpret: Russia, NATO, and the Military-Political Crises in the Post-Cold War Order
https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-3-35-60
Abstract
The study of Russia’s foreign policy poses something of a paradox. On the one hand, Russia’s actions are viewed as aimed at revising the existing rules-based order built by the end of the Cold War. On the other hand, on numerous occasions, one pinpoints that Russia has devised a language similar to the Western nations to justify its foreign policy. I call the phenomenon that explains this paradox the game of interpretation. The article illustrates how Russia is engaged in the game of interpretation with the West in the post-Cold War order by Russia’s appliance to the norm of humanitarian interventions. By analyzing the Russian discourse during the Russo-Georgian War (2008), I demonstrate how the Russian foreign policy leadership reproduces similar narrative patterns used by the West during the Kosovo War (1999). Exemplifying the game of interpretation by humanitarian interventionism is not accidental. Humanitarian interventionism is studied in the literature as being characteristic of the Western ‘ethical foreign policy’ originated by the end of the Cold War, with Russia being depicted as either skeptical or as an unequivocal opponent of such an approach in world politics. Methodologically, the work builds on quantitative and qualitative analysis of selected texts compiled from the archives of NATO and the US State Department, as well as the website “Kremlin.ru” and the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Keywords
Supporting agencies: The research was supported by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 20-78-10159)
About the Author
N. Ya. Neklyudov
Institute for International Studies, MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikita N. Neklyudov, PhD student, expert
76 Vernadsky Ave., Moscow, 119454
References
1. Acharya, Amitav. “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism.” International Organization 58, no. 02 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024.
2. Acharya, Amitav. “The R2P and Norm Diffusion: Towards A Framework of Norm Circulation.” Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 4 (2013): 466–79. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-00504006.
3. Adler, Emmanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. International Practices. International Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511862373.
4. Allan, Bentley B., Srdjan Vucetic, and Ted Hopf. “The Distribution of Identity and the Future of International Order: China’s Hegemonic Prospects.” International Organization 72, no. 4 (2018): 839–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000267.
5. Allison, Roy. “The Russian Case for Military Intervention in Georgia: International Law, Norms and Political Calculation.” European Security 18, no. 2 (2009): 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830903468734.
6. Allison, Roy. “Russian ‘Deniable’ Intervention in Ukraine: How and Why Russia Broke the Rules.” International Affairs 90, no. 6 (2014): 1255–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12170.
7. Allison, Roy. “Russia and the Post-2014 International Legal Order: Revisionism and Realpolitik.” International Affairs 93, no. 3 (2017): 519–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix061.
8. Badescu, Cristina G., and Linnea Bergholm. “The Responsibility To Protect and the Conflict in Darfur: The Big Let-Down.” Security Dialogue 40, no. 3 (2009): 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010609336198.
9. Bannon, Alicia. “The Responsibility to Protect: The U.N. World Summit and the Question of Unilateralism.” Yale Law Journal 115, no. 5 (2006): 1157–65.
10. Bellamy, Alex J. “The Responsibility to Protect and the Problem of Military Intervention.” International Affairs 84, no. 4 (2008): 615–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00729.x.
11. Bellamy, Alex J. “The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On.” Ethics & International Affairs 24, no. 2 (2010): 143–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00254.x.
12. Bellamy, Alex J., and Paul D. Williams. “The New Politics of Protection? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and the Responsibility to Protect.” International Affairs 87, no. 4 (2011): 825–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01006.x.
13. Bilder, Richard B., John Dugard, and Audie Klotz. “Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid.” The American Journal of International Law 91, no. 1 (1997): 198–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/2954165.
14. Black, Michael L. “The World Wide Web as Complex Data Set: Expanding the Digital Humanities into the Twentieth Century and Beyond through Internet Research.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 10, no. 1 (2016): 95–109. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2016.0162.
15. Booth, Ken, Tim Dunne, and Michael Cox, eds. How Might We Live? Global Ethics in the New Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
16. Borgen, Christopher J. “The Language of Law and the Practice of Politics: Great Powers and the Rhetoric of Self-Determination in the Cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia.” Chicago Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009): 1–33.
17. Bowker, Mike. “The War in Georgia and the Western Response.” Central Asian Survey 30, no. 2 (2011): 197– 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2011.570121.
18. Brooks, Stephen G. “Dueling Realisms.” International Organization 51, no. 3 (August 18, 1997): 445–77. doi:10.1162/002081897550429.
19. Braun, Aurel. “Tougher Sanctions Now: Putin? Delusional Quest for Empire.” World Aff airs 177, no. 2 (2014): 34–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43556200%0A.
20. Bulley, Dan. “The Politics of Ethical Foreign Policy: A Responsibility to Protect Whom?” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 3 (2010): 441–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109350051.
21. Burgerman, Susan D. “Mobilizing Principles: The Role of Transnational Activists in Promoting Human Rights Principles.” Human Rights Quarterly 20, no. 4 (1998): 905–23.
22. Chandler, David. “Rhetoric without Responsibility: The Attraction of ‘Ethical’ Foreign Policy.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5, no. 3 (2003): 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00108.23.
23. Chandler, David. “R2P or Not R2P? More Statebuilding, Less Responsibility.” Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 1 (2010): 161–66. https://doi.org/10.1163/187598410X12602515137617.
24. Corell, Hans. “The United Nations and the Legal Community in Promotion of Human Rights.” Fordham International Law Journal 21, no. 2 (1997): 519–30.
25. Cunliff e, Philip. “The Doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ as a Practice of Political Exceptionalism.” European Journal of International Relations 23, no. 2 (2017): 466–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116654956.
26. Doty, Roxanne Lynn. “Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3 (September 24, 1997): 365–92. doi:10.1177/1354066197003003004.
27. Dijk, Teun A. van. “Discourse Communication: A New Journal to Bridge Two Fields.” Discourse & Communication 1, no. 1 (2007): 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481306072182.
28. Dunne, Tim, and Jess Gifkins. “Libya and the State of Intervention.” Australian Journal of International Aff airs 65, no. 5 (2011): 515–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2011.613148.
29. Etzioni, Amitai. “Sovereignty as Responsibility.” Orbis 50, no. 1 (2006): 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2005.10.006.
30. Fairclough, Norman. Critical Discourse Analysis. Critical Discourse Analysis The Critical Study of Language, Second Edition. London: Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368.
31. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789.
32. Finnemore, Martha. The Purpose of Intervention. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.
33. Finnemore, Martha. “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention.” In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Peter Katzenstein, 153–85. Columbia University Press, 1996. http://users.metu.edu.tr/utuba/Finnemore.pdf.
34. Gee, James. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809068.
35. Glanville, Luke. “The Antecedents of ‘Sovereignty as Responsibility.’” European Journal of International Relations 17, no. 2 (2011): 233–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109346889.
36. Glanville, Luke. “Does R2P Matter? Interpreting the Impact of a Norm.” Cooperation and Conflict 51, no. 2 (2016): 184–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715612850.
37. Grono, Nick. “Briefing: Darfur: The International Community’s Failure to Protect.” African Affairs 421, no. 105 (2006): 621–31.
38. Hobson, Christopher. “Responding to Failure: The Responsibility to Protect after Libya.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44, no. 3 (2016): 433–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816640607.
39. Hopf, Ted. “Change in International Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 24, no. 3 (September 2, 2018): 687–711. doi:10.1177/1354066117718041.
40. Ignatieff , Michael. “Human Rights: The Midlife Crisis.” New York Review of Books 20, (1999): 58–62.
41. Ingebritsen, Christine. “Norm Entrepreneurs.” Cooperation and Conflict 37, no. 1 (2002): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836702037001689.
42. Jackson, Robert H. Quasi-States. Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1993.
43. Jones, Bruce D. “Libya and the Responsibilities of Power.” Survival 53, no. 3 (2011): 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2011.586188.
44. Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2002. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871.
45. Kaldor, Mary. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
46. Kaufmann, Chaim D., and Robert A. Pape. “Explaining Costly International Moral Action: Britain’s Sixty-Year Campaign Against the Atlantic Slave Trade.” International Organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 631–68. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081899551020.
47. Keck, Margaret E, and Kathryn Sikkink. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.
48. Khudaykulova, Alexandra V. “Conflict Management in the New Century.” International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy 14, no. 4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2016.14.4.47.5.
49. Krasner, Stephen D. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
50. Krasner, Stephen D. “Abiding Sovereignty.” International Political Science Review 22, no. 3 (July 23, 2001): 229–51. doi:10.1177/0192512101223002.
51. Neumann, Iver B. “Russia’s Standing as a Great Power, 1492–1815.” In Russia’s European Choice, edited by Ted Hopf, 11–34.
52. New York: Palgrave, 2008A. Neumann, Iver B. “Russia as a Great Power, 1815– 2007.” Journal of International Relations and Development 11, no. 2. (2008B):128–51.
53. Neumann, Iver B., and Vincent Pouliot. “Untimely Russia: Hysteresis in Russian–Western Relations Over the Past Millennium.” Security Studies 20, no. 1 (2011):105–37.
54. Kuperman, Alan J. “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya Campaign.” International Security 38, no. 1 (2013): 105–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00126.
55. Laruelle, Marlene. Russian Nationalism, Foreign Policy and Identity Debates in Putin’s Russia New Ideological Patterns after the Orange Revolution. CA: Ibidem Press, 2012. http://cup.columbia.edu/book/russiannationalism-foreign-policy-and-identity-debates-inputins-russia/9783838203256.
56. Leeuwen, Theo Van. “The Representation of Social Actors.” In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, 32–70.
57. New York: Routledge, 1995. Leeuwen, Theo Van. “The Visual Representation Of Social Actors.” In Discourse and Practice, 136–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.003.0008.
58. Luck, Edward C. “The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade.” Global Responsibility to Protect 3, no. 4 (2011): 387–99. https://doi.org/10.1163/187598411X603025.
59. Mikhelidze, Nona. “After the 2008 Russia-Georgia War: Implications for the Wider Caucasus.” The International Spectator 44, no. 3 (2009): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932720903148807.
60. Mills, Kurt. “Reconstructing Sovereignty.” In Human Rights in the Emerging Global Order, 9–53. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230373556_2.
61. Morris, Justin. “Libya and Syria: R2P and the Spectre of the Swinging Pendulum.” International Aff airs 89, no. 5 (2013): 1265–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12071.
62. Mutua, Makau W. “The Ideology of Human Rights.” Virginia Journal of International Law 36, no. 3 (1996): 589–657.
63. Nuruzzaman, Mohammed. “The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Doctrine: Revived in Libya, Buried in Syria.” Insight Turkey 15, no. 2 (2013): 57–67.
64. Orford, Anne. Reading Humanitarian Intervention Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 2003.
65. Paris, Roland. “The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and the Structural Problems of Preventive Humanitarian Intervention.” International Peacekeeping 21, no. 5 (2014): 569–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2014.963322.
66. Posner, Michael. “Foreword: Human Rights and Non-Governmental Organizations on the Eve of the Next Century.” Fordham Law Review 66, no. 2 (1997): 627–30.
67. Price, Richard. “Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines.” International Organization 52, no. 3 (1998): 613–44. Accessed November 13, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601403.
68. Pouliot, Vincent. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International Organization 62, no. 2 (2008): 257–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090.
69. Pouliot, Vincent. International Security in Practice. International Security in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676185.
70. Pouliot, Vincent, and Jérémie Cornut. “Practice Theory and the Study of Diplomacy: A Research Agenda.” Cooperation and Confl ict 50, no. 3 (September 13, 2015): 297–315. doi:10.1177/0010836715574913.
71. Quinton-Brown, Patrick. “Mapping Dissent: The Responsibility to Protect and Its State Critics.” Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 3 (2013): 260–82. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-00503003.
72. Rosencrance, Richard. Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. London: Basic Books, 1987.
73. Ruggie, John Gerard. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 855–85. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550770.
74. Sakwa, Richard. “Dualism at Home and Abroad: Russian Foreign Policy Neo-Revisionism and Bicontinentalism.” In Russia’s Foreign Policy, 65–79.
75. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015A. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137468888_5.
76. Sakwa, Richard. “Power, Politics and Confrontation in Eurasia.” Edited by Roger E. Kanet and Matthew Sussex. Power, Politics and Confrontation in Eurasia: Foreign Policy in a Contested Region. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015B. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-52367-9.
77. Smith, Karen, and Margot Light. Ethics and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Stedman, Stephen J. “UN Transformation in an Era of Soft Balancing.” International Aff airs 83, no. 5 (2007): 933– 44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00663.x.
78. Stefan, Cristina G. “On Non-Western Norm Shapers: Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting.” European Journal of International Security 2, no. 1 (2017): 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2016.18.
79. Tang Abomo, Paul. “The Responsibility to Protect: The History of a Growing Norm.” In R2P and the US Intervention in Libya, 7–38. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78831-9_2.
80. Tannenwald, Nina. “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use.” International Organization 53, no. 3 (1999): 433–68. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081899550959.
81. Thakur, Ramesh, and Thomas Weiss. “R2P: From Idea to Norm—and Action?” Global Responsibility to Protect 1, no. 1 (2009): 22–53. https://doi.org/10.1163/187598409X405460.
82. Tuathail (Gerard Toal), Gearóid Ó. “Russia’s Kosovo: A Critical Geopolitics of the August 2008 War over South Ossetia.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 49, no. 6 (2008): 670–705. https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216 .49.6.670.
83. Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1979. Weiss, Thomas G. “Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action.” Ethics & International Aff airs 13 (March, 1999): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1999.tb00322.x.
84. Weldes, Jutta. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger. University of Minnesota Press, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2001.28.3.714.
85. Welsh, Jenifer. “The Responsibility to Protect: Dilemmas of a New Norm.” Current History 111, no. 748 (2012): 291–98.
86. Welsh, Jennifer. “Civilian Protection in Libya: Putting Coercion and Controversy Back into RtoP.” Ethics & International Aff airs 25, no. 3 (2011): 255–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679411000207.
87. Welsh, Jennifer M. “Norm Contestation and the Responsibility to Protect.” Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 4 (2013): 365–96. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X00504002.
88. Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press, 1999. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511612183.
89. Williams, Paul D., and Alex J. Bellamy. “Principles, Politics, and Prudence: Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Use of Military Force.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 18, no. 3 (2012): 273–97. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01803003.
90. Yost, David S. “The Budapest Memorandum and Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine.” International Affairs 91, no. 3 (2015): 505–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12279.
91. Zähringer, Natalie. “Norm Evolution within and across the African Union and the United Nations: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a Contested Norm.” South African Journal of International Affairs 20, no. 2 (2013): 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2013.811336.
92. Zimmermann, Lisbeth. “Same Same or Diff erent? Norm Diff usion Between Resistance, Compliance, and Localization in Post-Confl ict States.” International Studies Perspectives 17, no. 1 (2016): 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12080.
93. Fomin, Ivan V. “Structural Research of Images in Political Discourses.” [Vozmozhnosti Strukturnogo Issledovaniya Obrazov v Politicheskih Diskursah] Political Science 1, no. 2 (2012): 237–50] [In Russian].
94. Fomin, Ivan V. “Images of South Ossetia and Kosovo in Russian foreign policy discourse.” [Obrazy YUzhnoj Osetii i Kosova v Rossijskom Vneshnepoliticheskom Diskurse] Polity. Analysis. Chronicle. Forecast 72, no.1 (2014): 128–43] [In Russian].
Review
For citations:
Neklyudov N.Ya. Bound to Interpret: Russia, NATO, and the Military-Political Crises in the Post-Cold War Order. Journal of International Analytics. 2020;11(3):35-60. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-3-35-60
Views:
1479
Email this article 