Viorel ROMAN
THE EASTERN QUESTION 2003-07-07
inapoi
THE EASTERN QUESTION 1. THE EASTERN QUESTION Churchill and Stalin established in 1944 on a half-sheet paper the percentage of influence of the Anglo-Saxons respectively of Moscow in the Balkans: 90% Russia in Romania and the same figure the UK with the USA in Greece; in Yugoslavia 50% etc. This deal was a continuation of the old Eastern Question, one of the most complicated problems of history, which began 1774 with the peace treaty of Kutschuk-Kainargi (Silistra) between the Turks and Russians and only apparently ended with the 1923 peace treaty of Lausanne. The Question was and still is existent in Kosovo and Macedonia: who will get the legacy of the Sick Man of Bosphorus - the Sultan? The Russians or the West? How will the Balkan nations, subjects for centuries to the Crescent, emancipate, and around whom will they gravitate? Who will win, the Pravoslavs, the Roman-Catholics or the Protestants? The Sultan disappeared, Islam not. However, even today these questions puzzle the Orthodox Serbs and the Muslim Albanians, who keep their weapons handy. After dismemberment of Yugoslavia, NATO forced the pullout of Serbian troops from Kosovo. The Albanians today are in the same situation in Macedonia. In this conflict, when the world was least expecting, the Russians landed on the Pristina Airport and demanded an Occupation Zone, similar to the other super-powers. The Albanians refused to make a distinction between two Orthodox nations and protested, although the West accepted the Russian offer of participating with troops. But they did not grant the Russians a distinct Orthodox Occupation Zone similar to that in Germany following World War II. 2. THE ISLAM EXPANSION. The Turks were stuck 1683 at Vienna. Russia’s Peter the Great, remarking on the lack of cohesion of Western Christians, begins the so-called Pravoslavic Crusades, the 8 Russian-Turkish Wars (1710 – 1878) for liberating Constantinople from the Turkish-Muslim yoke. The West, equally interested in the emancipation of the Christians from the Turks, could not accept a southbound expansion of Orthodox Russia without conditions. That was Turkey’s chance till World War I, after which they pulled back to Asia. In Europe they remained with only a bridgehead around Istanbul and the Turkish-Muslim enclaves represented by the Bosnians and the Albanians. In order to liquidate Belgrade’s Pravoslavic domination of the Roman-Catholics and Muslims in ex-Yugoslavia, NATO fought for a decade, and the Pravoslavic Slobodan Milosevic is now held responsible before the International Tribunal for hindering the religious emancipation of Roman-Catholics and Muslims. As the spearhead of all Pravoslavs directed against the West, the Russians support the Serbs. On the other hand, Istanbul gained a profit from the dissension among Christians; exactly as it they did from 1774 until 1923. Today the Western Military, NATO, has a unique command, however the Western goals are, similar to the past, very different. The French conduct traditionally the subtlest Turkish-Muslim politics, because they are not able to fill the power-gap, which would remain from a Muslim disaster. The English pursue tenaciously the so-called balance of power, from which they always win. The North Americans, following closely in their footsteps, have decided to catch the bull by the horns, both the Pravoslavic and the Islamic one. Berlin and Vienna agree nolens-volens with Moscow, which in turn, grants periodically substantial concessions to the Germans. On the other hand the Russians cannot not support the Slavophiles and Pan-Orthodox Serbs, ready to stand, with weapons and luggage, in their camp. In this century old context is not surprising news, comments, as well as the positions of the parties involved in the Kosovo and Macedonia conflict are controversial at every step. Russia was not implicated directly in avoiding the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, despite the fact that Belgrade had asked for troops & weapon support, because it no longer has the status of a super-power and subsequently it no longer has an Occupation Zone in the Balkans. As typical in the past, but especially since the Crimean War, the West does not want the destruction of Moscow or of Belgrade, but to bring them back on the right path, of Christian coordination and cooperation against Islam. The periodic reopening of the Testament of the Sick Man from the Bosphorus will not be of any consequence in the delimitation of the Western, Orthodox and Muslim political and religious spheres of influence. Moscow is today on the defensive, the same as after WWI, so the danger to restore a 90% Russian influence in Bucharest and a 50% influence in Belgrade, etc, as well as the deal between Churchill and Stalin no longer exists. Although the liberation of the Southern Slavs, of the Moldo-Vlahs from Turkish-Muslim domination has been adjourned for hundreds of years by the non-concordance of the goals of the great Christian powers. Even today, the old and complicated Eastern Question in Kosovo and Macedonia, with both its visible and especially its invisible traps, has not been solved. Viorel ROMAN, ARA MEMBER Universität Bremen, Vor dem Steintor 18-22, D-28203 Bremen roman@uni-bremen.de