Convergence (III)

Solzhenitsyn goes on

But the blindness of superiority continues in spite of all and upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present day Western systems which in theory are the best and in practice the most attractive. There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crises or by their own barbarity or incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy and from adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet's development is quite different.

Anguish about our divided world gave birth to the theory of convergence between leading Western countries and the Soviet Union. It is a soothing theory which overlooks the fact that these worlds are not at all developing into similarity; neither one can be transformed into the other without the use of violence. Besides, convergence inevitably means acceptance of the other side's defects, too, and this is hardly desirable.

If I were today addressing an audience in my country, examining the overall pattern of the world's rifts I would have concentrated on the East's calamities. But since my forced exile in the West has now lasted four years and since my audience is a Western one, I think it may be of greater interest to concentrate on certain aspects of the West in our days, such as I see them.
__________________________________________________________________________
KMB’s comments

The “soothing theory” continues to have play. Take the recent G-whatever trend. The West still seems to envision a convergence of governments that will hold together and create some sort of balance of harmony. The EU itself clings to the hope, though the converging policies of the intellectual elite in Brussels rarely gain popular support when put to a general election. The G-20 economic conference this week in London is only the latest iteration.

But can we really believe that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela . . . all come to the table to give for the greater good? Pray we aren’t that naïve. The Mythic vision of each nation is driven by monolithic strength and a sense that the ends of national glory justify any means.

These governments (nearly a quarter of the G-20 already and who knows how many others like them) will keep their sheepskins snugly wrapped and maneuver for every opportunity to take advantage of “certain aspects of the West in our days.” Namely . . .