In the end, judges from Poland, Lithuania,rnFrance, Austria, Norway, Britain,rnand Albania held that, because convincingrnand weighty reasons had not been offeredrnfor the ban, the Ministry’s polic’rncould not pass muster under the EuropeanrnConxention on Human Rights,rnrhe one judge from Cyprus dissented.rnllpon learning of the court’s ruling,rnDuncan Lustig-Prean, one of the litigantsrnin the case who had been dischargedrnfrom the Roal Naw because of his homosernualit, cheered the decision andrnnoted that the “armed forces exist to defendrnthe rights and freedoms of all meiu-rnIKTS of societ}. Thc- need to reflect therndiersit of society they purport to defend.”rnOf course, under such reasoning,rnthe mentallv and phvsicallv handicapped,rnwho are certainly members of socich,rnshould be mustered into the armedrnforces. If homosexuality is no longer arnground to keep Lustig-Prcan out of thernnaxy, perhaps stupiditv will suffice.rnOne might have hoped for some resistancernin the British government to therncourt’s ruling, but Defence SecretaryrnLord Robertson soiemnlv promised thatrn”[t]his Go’crnment, like all goxernments,rnhas to accept the rulings of thernEuropean Court of Llimian Rights. “rnRobertson further declared that all disciplinaryrncases pending against homosexualsrnwoidd be put on hold. The fact thatrnjust diree vears ago Parliament, formerlvthernrepository’ of British sovereigut}’, votedrn188-120 to keep the ban on gays inrnplace shows a revolution has taken place.rnMagna C’arta and the English Bill ofrnRights now take a backseat to the universalrnrights of man as crafted bv moderndarnRobespierres and Coudions.rnThomas Jefferson once described thernfederal judiciary as the “engine of consolidation.rn” Sid^stitute the word “European”rnfor “federal” and the future of thernbureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourgrnlooks bright. Unfortunately, as the sunrnrises for the bureaucrats, it sets on thernmost important right of all, that of selfgovernment.rnPerhaps the ECHR’s rulingrnw ill force Britons to recognize what theyrnhae lost while the’ still have time to recoverrntheir birthright.rn— William J. Watkiiis. jr.rnRUSSLN-AMERICAN RELATIONS,rncommentators warned, would be damagedrnby NATO’s war in Yugoslavia, butrnthe Clinton administration dismissed thernidea. Russian auri-Americanism seemedrna passing phase that would dissipaternwhen media attenhon turned to the nextrninternational crisis. Events like BorisrnYeltsin’s August 25 meeting with JiangrnZemin, in which Russia’s president accusedrnNATO of “trying to build a woddrnorder that woidd be convenient onlv tornthem,” cast serious doubt on such optimism.rnMore lies at stake here than an ailingrnleader’s wish to play China and thernUnited States against one another. Thernchairman of the lOuma’s Eoreign AffairsrnCommittee, Vladimir Lukin, has distinguishedrngeneral anti-Western sentimentrnfrom specific anger at the LInited States.rnCalling Russian opinion “keen ratherrnthan deep,” Lukin suggested a change inrnl.l.S. policy might remove “this acute civilizationalrnsenhment of alienation towardrnAmerica and NATO countries.” Attitudesrnamong Russian intellectuals suggestrna far greater distrust of the West. Notrnlong before Lukin’s remarks, AleksandrrnSolzhenitsyn likened NATO, in its warrnagainst Serbia, to Adolf Hitler. “For diernthird month before the eyes of the worldrna luiropean country is being destroved,”rnlie said in a widely cited interview; NATOrn”wants to establish its order in thernw orld, and it needs Yugoslavia simpK as arnpretext—let’s punish Yugoslavia and thernwhole planet will tremble.”rnWestern critics might join British historianrnOrlando Eigs in dismissing the elderlyrnSolzhenitsyn as “out of date,” butrnmanv Russians share his sentiments.rnMoreover, Solzhenitsyn’s statementrnbuilds on a long-standing critique. Hisrnfamous Harvard .speech in 1978 assailedrntlie secular left’s influence on Americanrnsocietv, citing pornography, crime, a demoralizingrnpopular culture, and passivihinrnthe face of Soviet aggression. Significantly,rnSolzhenitsyn also criticized thernWesf s history of colonizing other peoples.rnThe “decline in courage” he noticedrnamong ruling and intellectual elitesrnfailed to mitigate their willingness to usernforce, and much of Solzhenitsyn’s criticismrnof America during the 197()’s andrn80’s appears in Russian complaints today.rnThe political thaw under Khrushchevrnthat allowed Solzhenitsyn to publish OnernDay in the lAfe of Ivan Desinorivh alsornsaw the gradual emergence of Rirssianrnnahonalist sentiment. Communists tiedrnRussian patriohsm to Soviet identity, andrnSlavophile intellectuals received activernencouragement under Brezhnev. Butrnwhile nationalists lauded the Soviet ictorvrnover Germany and achievement ofrnsuperpower status, the decried thernregime’s assault on peasant folkwavs andrnthe Orthodox Church. Socialism, theyrnbelieved, sacrificed Russia’s culture to arnmaterialistic view of progress, and the nationalistrnrevival provided as forceful andrndangerous a criticjue of communism asrndid the liberal dissent epitomized by AndreirnSakharov.rnDisillusionment among Russians sympatheticrnto Solzhenitsvn and otherrnSlavophiles drives their criticism of America,rnwhich now finds an audience far be-rnond their own ranks. Economic reformsrnmade under the supervision ofrnAmerican experts impoverished manrnRussians and led others to believe Westernrninterests robbed their countrv to securernit as a compliant source of raw materials.rnx a caricature of privatizationrnthat gave capitalism the air of a casino,rnapparatchiks bought at grosslv devaluedrnprices the state enterprises thev once ran.rnThe ruble’s collapse and recent bankingrnscandals only deepened disillusionmentrnwith the post-Soviet order. Aspects ofrnAmerican culture that Solzhenitsvn hasrnattacked most bitterly took center stagernwith the end of Soviet censorship ofrnWestern films, television, and popularrnmusic. Once eager to emulate America,rnRussians developed a warv distrust of itsrnculture and leadership.rnThat view provides the undercurrentrnto Russian outrage over Kosovo. Russians,rnrightiy or wrongly, concluded thatrnNATO defeated Serbia to humiliate theirrncountry and denronstrate American power.rnThe reasons for that belief deservernmore serious consideration than thernAmerican media or foreign policv establishmentrnseems willing to give. Whilernopen conflict is unlikely, Russia’s turn towardrnChina and Iran threatens muchrnmore than globalism or the New WorldrnOrder. By aiding regimes equally dangerousrnto both sides, leaders in Moscowrnand Washington mav find they haverndamned themselves for the privilege ofrncursing each other.rn— William Anthony I lavrnF R E E HAWAIII One parhcularlv annoyingrnaspect of “Third Wav” politics isrnits proponents’ penchant for symbolic,rnfeel-your-pain apologies. Tony Blair offeredrnone to the Irish for Britain’s inactionrnduring the Potato Famine; Bill C]lintonrndelivered another to black Americansrnfor slaverv’. Surely no good can comernfrom such empty sentimentalism.rnDECEMBER 199^/7rnrnrn