#7
Izvestia
No. 24
February 2003
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
VLADIMIR PUTIN BETWEEN IRAQ, THE OLD WORLD AND THE NEW WORLD
Vladimir Putin went on a three-day official visit to France and found himself in the epicentre of a planetary scandal. The USA is vexed by the attitude of its NATO allies, who refuse to support its plans of a war on Iraq. In this situation Putin's task is not to gain dividends but try not to quarrel with everyone.
By Georgy BOVT

Thrown into the epicentre of a flaming scandal between the USA and those whom the Americans contemptuously call "the old Europe," Vladimir Putin is trying to play actively on this diplomatic field, upholding the importance of Russia's role. But this is a veritable mine field, where the consequences of such activity depend on the delicacy and sophistication of "diplomatic tricks." In principle, the role of an active intermediary who maintains relations with all members of this multilateral conflict can bring substantial dividends, but only hypothetically so.

Of all G8 members Russia has the best relations with Baghdad and could encourage it to become more pliant. But it has not been successful so far. Instead, Saddam Hussein has broadened the split in the ranks of his opponents. Russia has nearly allied relations with the USA, cemented by the personal friendship of their presidents. It also has pragmatic relations with the EU, which are seemingly progressing towards economic integration, as seen by the favourable talks about potential humanitarian integration and the simplification of the visa regime. How can one use this incredible diplomatic wealth? The trouble is that any step taken towards either side in the conflict may be regarded by the other side as treachery. What prize can be worth risking one's prestige in this multilevel game?

The history of diplomacy knows of many examples of successful manoeuvring by a not very strong country between very strong players. (It is a fact that Russia is not in its best form now.) For example, during the NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontation, the communist China played the role of the Wise Monkey who watched the battle of two Tigers - the USA and the Soviet Union - from a nearby hill. And today China, which has become much stronger, is not playing an active part in the Iraqi settlement. It has opted for a more passive stand than those of Moscow and Paris, though Beijing supports their views on the issue. China is not eager to jangle the nerves of the USA, who is rearing for a crucial battle with Iraq, with peaceful statements. Why bother? Isn't it clear that the fate of Iraq has long been decided, unless France, Russia and Germany decide to dispatch a joint military group there for erecting a live barrier on the way of "the American aggression"? And they will not do this.

What is the main goal of Russian diplomacy on the issue of Iraq? A goal that would justify the diplomatic activity of Moscow at the top level, which entails the involvement of Russia in the internal NATO scandal where the sides have become personal. Is it the struggle for peace and against war? Very noble. But few people believe in mindless altruism today, the more so that the struggle against terrorism in Chechnya does not bespeak of any love for such regimes and terrorists in principle.

Or is the goal resistance to "US hegemony seeking policies"? Sounds good, too, but what dividends can it bring and what subsequent steps can be taken? Or does Russia still hope that Iraq will repay its 7-billion dollar debts? If so, who will repay them? The current regime or the new one? Different variants presuppose different tactics. So far, it appears that Hussein has taken offence and will not repay a cent of these debts or confirm the oil contracts with Russia. LUKoil was officially denied the right to develop the West Kurna oil field yesterday. As for the potential new masters of Iraq, their attitude to Russia is unknown.

A few words about the involvement of Russia in the scandal between the Old World and the New World. Who can guarantee that France will close its eyes to the war in Chechnya if Russia supports its dissenting opinion on Iraq? Until recently France has held a very tough stand on this issue. And will Germany, acting jointly with France, advocate a softer EU attitude on the main issues of contention with Russia, such as the deadlocked negotiations on Russia's accession to the WTO (fierce debates on the "proper" domestic prices of Russian energy resources)? Or will it help soften the EU anti-dumping policies with regard to Russia, facilitate a new visa policy in general and the issue of transit to and from the Kaliningrad Region in particular?

It should be said that by pursuing an anti-American policy on the issue of Iraq, France and Germany are acting in their own pragmatic interests. To Schroeder, the anti-Bush policy (the two leaders hardly talk with each other now) is an attempt to keep up his rating, which is crumbling under the weight of economic problems. And France, with its "special stand" in NATO, hopes to satisfy its oil interests in Iraq in any situation.

It can be assumed that by inciting Russia to fight the USA over peace in Iraq, "the old Europe" will try to turn it into the main anti-American force. There are no reasons to assume that France would dare to vote against the USA in the UN if Russia and China choose not to do so.

And what can Russia gain from siding with the USA? Will the USA abolish the discriminatory Jackson-Vanik Amendment? Or lobby for the admission of Russia to the WTO (just like it forcefully lobbied in support of the Turkish request for EU membership)? Or will it help the Russian Aerospace Agency with money and technology in view of the recent Columbia catastrophe? Or guarantee Russia's oil interests in Iraq under a new government? Or do something else?

The traditional argument against the above is well known: Plain bargaining is not a method of big-time diplomacy. This is certainly true. But first, even the noblest of principles should bear practical fruit. Second, friendly relations cannot rest only on commitment to common ideals but should take into account mutual pragmatic interests. And third, the greatest disappointment comes when the fruits of the superhuman efforts of one player are appropriated by other, stronger players (this is inevitable when the players are of different weight categories).

So, it is sometimes better to quit the fight before the other fighters, dissatisfied with the standards of your mediation, start clobbering you.

BACK TO THE TOP    #244 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE