#4 - JRL 6408
Moscow Tribune
August 24, 2002
BELARUS AND IRAQ
What is the logic?
By Stanislav Menshikov
There are times when it is hard to see how the capricious behaviour of leaders of great nations fits their countries' long-term interests. The latest cases are Vladimir Putin's ultimatum to Alexander Lukashenko demanding incorporation into Russia and George W. Bush's proclaimed plans to depose Saddam Hussein by military intervention.
In the short-term the expected benefits of these actions are clear. Putin has put himself into the position of an ardent unifier of lands lost in the demise of the Soviet Union while Lukashenko is now widely castigated as an opponent of Slavic integration. Bush is playing the role of exterminator of dangerous dictators in his crusade against world terrorism. In their minds both Putin and Bush are presumably gaining points in their approaching presidential campaigns.
But if one looks into the longer-term implications one immediately encounters negative consequences for both nations. In Putin's case, his demand that Belarus merges into Russia and Belarus looses its sovereignty is not only contrary to the established tradition of their mutual relations but is also unrealistic. No Belarus leader, whether Lukashenko or his domestic political opposition will agree to annexation. Both have strongly rejected Putin's ultimatum.
It is certainly in Russia's long-term military, geopolitical and economic interests to integrate with Belarus but the only realistic way of doing so is in a form similar to the European Union. By suggesting that Belarus enter the Russian Federation as another non-sovereign republic similar to Tatarstan, Sakha Yakutia, etc. Putin is making that union impossible. No wonder that domestically he has been supported by the foes of the Russia-Belarus Union and been sharply criticised by its ardent proponents. In the West he has been applauded for undermining Lukashenko's political future but NOT for pushing Russia's borders further west. A sovereign post-Lukashenko Belarus could still be a prise for NATO while its annexation into Russia would put an end to such hopes.
Why is Putin so adamant in his desire to antagonise his only faithful ally? Why does he want to aggravate the Kaliningrad enclave problem even further? It is hard to find a logical explanation except some secret motive that will become clear later.
Turning to the prospect of US military intervention in Iraq one wonders what the American national interest is in this case. There is no proven connection between Baghdad and al-Quaida and therefore the anti-terrorist argument is not valid. There is no immediate danger of aggression from Iraq on its neighbours. After the lesson of the Desert Storm, Saddam will not risk another similar adventure. The practically unanimous opposition of Arab nations to US intervention this time around is certainly different from their position twelve years ago. Neither is there wide support this time around among European allies. Russia is showing its opposition in many ways including a new agreement to aid Iraq's economic development. Strong voices in the US Republican elite, including Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have warned against premature military action. So why go against the tide?
One claim is that Iraq has is close to obtaining nuclear weapons of its own. But the well informed Russian intelligence does not see any conclusive evidence to that effect. Some hawks in Israel and elsewhere insist that it is better to intervene now rather than later, before Iraq has the nukes. But such a decision should be taken jointly by leading nuclear powers, not by the US alone. No consultations about this seem to be in progress.
Saddam is a dictator and not a likeable person. But that is not a reason for outside intervention. There is nothing in international law that permits deposing foreign leaders by military force even if they are dictators. Insisting on the sacred right of the US to overthrow tyrants at its will reminds one of the Brezhnev doctrine which empowered the Soviet Union to unseat foreign leaders in the interests of socialist internationalism. Such doctrines undermine the principle of sovereignty and are a dangerous deviation from civilised norms of international relations.
According to such norms military intervention is allowed only in defence against a proven threat of aggression. In the case of today's Iraq that threat is more hypothetical than real. That is why so many nations oppose US plans and insist on peaceful solutions. Going against their wishes is not good policy for a nation that claims the right to world leadership.
But suppose that George W. Bush goes through with his plans and succeeds in deposing Saddam. What kind of a message would that send to the world? First and foremost, that no country whose domestic political structure is different from the American vision of democracy is safe from police action by the US military. Every such country would be left guessing when its turn should come to conform to the American model. It would be a world of widespread fear and apprehension of an omnipotent imperial bully.
In the long run this would be a defeat of the very foundations of democracy. Does George W. Bush want to build that kind of world?
Do the Russian and US presidents know what they are doing?
Back to the Top
Next Article
August 27, 2002:
#6408
- Back to the Top -