Russia's Self-Marginalization: Allowing
The Massacre To Continue In Syria
21 Feb 2012By Alon Ben-Meir
Russia's foreign policy doctrine appears to be
based on rejecting every policy initiative that the
United States and the European Union take and only
then, beginning to negotiate from ground zero. This
has been demonstrated in Russia's Middle East approach
where Moscow has chosen extremely shortsighted policy
options, allowing the massacre to continue in Syria
while remaining mute regarding Iran's pursuit of
nuclear weapons. As a global power, Russia enjoys a
unique position of tremendous influence on both Syria
and Iran and has the ability to play an
extraordinarily positive role in defusing the internal
conflict in Syria and the Iranian-Western conflict in
connection with Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Having
failed to do so may risk turning these conflicts into
major regional, if not global, crises while
marginalizing Russia itself both regionally and
internationally.
The role Russia, and to a lesser extent China, is
currently playing in the Middle East is destructive
and self-defeating. Russia's obstructionist approach
is reminiscent of the Soviet Union Cold War mentality
based on a zero-sum game in which Western gains were
seen as net losses for Russia and vice versa. This
logic, however, fails to appreciate that we currently
face certain trends in the wake of the Arab Spring
that cannot be stopped and new realities on the ground
that must be recognized. The pro-democracy Arab
uprising was and is not orchestrated by any one person
or group. It is a general outcry for freedom, humanity
and dignity and a voiced yearning for meaningful life
with opportunity and hope. This is what the Syrian
people are seeking and are willingly sacrificing
themselves to achieve.
For Russia to suggest that there is a way to keep
Syria's President Bashar Assad in power is nothing
short of permitting him to continue to slaughter his
people with impunity. This policy is not only
misguided and dangerous but also most
counterproductive for Russia itself. The same is
applicable to Iran. Moscow either believes that Iran
is not pursuing nuclear weapons or that Tehran might
be willing to negotiate a peaceful solution to its
impasse with the US in particular. The first
assumption will prove to be dead wrong and the second
is simply based on wishful thinking. Russia knows full
well that along with its strategic interests, its
major economic concerns as well are at stake. The
question then is why the Kremlin is pursuing policies
that could potentially lead to catastrophic
developments from which Russia not only reaps no
benefits but could also end up losing much of its
strategic and economic interests.
The explanation lies in four main factors. The first
is domestic politics. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
will return as Russia's president in March 2012 and he
is determined to show an assertive Moscow restoring
its standing as a global superpower that can challenge
Washington, especially now as he faces a growing
opposition to his ascendancy to the Presidency again.
For a former KGB officer, it is extremely important to
hold on to what is left of the sphere of influence
from the Soviet era, especially in the wake of
happened in Libya and how the US and the EU presumably
"manipulated" the United Nations resolution to bring
about a regime change in Tripoli.
Closely linked is the second factor, which is
political. By carving out a foreign policy independent
from the West, Russia wants to reassert itself, along
with China, as the power who opposes the principle of
interference in the domestic affairs of other
sovereign states in the emerging new political order.
The third factor is economic. Russia is the largest
supplier of weapons to the Syrian army with
outstanding export contracts believed to be in the
billions. And finally, Russia has a unique military
interest as Russia possesses a naval base in the
Syrian Mediterranean port of Tartous, which is
Russia's last military base outside of the former
Soviet Union republics. Strategic and financial ties
also exist with Iran, as Russia is the major
contractor for Iran's nuclear facilities and a
supplier of arms to the Iranian naval and air forces.
As such, Moscow has developed a vested national
interest in what Iran has created, referred to here as
the "Khomeini, Predominantly-Shiite Crescent", which
is an anti-Western regional block extending from the
Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean including: Iran,
Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
A closer look at the implications of these factors,
nonetheless, would reveal the Kremlin is
miscalculating. A sound foreign policy cannot be one
that is simply against something, but must be for
something. The Soviet Union collapsed not because it
failed to defend its areas of influence abroad, but
because it failed to deliver the basic human rights
and public goods to its own citizens. Moreover,
whereas Russia promotes itself as the bulwark against
non-interference, Russia itself now interferes in the
domestic affairs of its neighbors, particularly those
of the former Soviet Union, and this of course flies
counter to what Russia preaches to whoever cares to
listen.
Even the practical aspects that underpin the Russian
calculations are questionable. Bashar Assad of Syria
has lost his legitimacy and he certainly will not
survive the popular uprising against his rule. Every
explanation the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei
Lavrov, has given to justify his country's veto of the
resolution to bring an end to the carnage in Syria
last week in the United Nations Security Council is
completely baseless. That the, "President of Syria
assured us [Russia] that he was completely committed
to the task of stopping violence," in Lavrov's words,
convinces no one, given the Assad regime's history of
lies and their determination to crush the
ten-month-long uprising through whatever force was
necessary.
Russia also knows that Iran, too, will not be able to
acquire nuclear weapons, which Israel and the US are
committed to prevent if not peacefully, then through
force. How will Russia react should the US, EU and
Turkey (with the support of the Arab League) decide to
take whatever measures necessary, including the
imposition of a no fly zone, the arming of Syria's
freedom fighters in Syria, or if the US and/or Israel
decide to attack Iran's nuclear facilities? What is
Russia's leverage on the US, the EU and Israel if they
decide to act outside the UNSC framework to prevent
events from unfolding contrary to its design?
Russia is simply betting on losers and the
consequences must be clear. When the situation settles
in Syria, however long that might take, how will the
Syrian people remember Russia? If the Kremlin believes
that ordinary Syrians will simply forget that it was
Russia that allowed this slaughter to continue, they
must think again. In Iran, too, the time will come
when the Iranian people recognize who stood behind the
Ayatollahs in draining the nation's resources and
wasting them on exporting terrorism and building a
nuclear arsenal that paved the way for endless
conflict with the West.
Russia's unwavering support of Syria and Iran, two
renegade states, points to Moscow's determination to
support any country, regardless of its horrifying
human rights violations and abuses as long as it
serves its perceived national interests. Instead of
inviting the Syrian government and opposition to meet
in Moscow, which would essentially be a continuation
of the regime's denials, Russia should use its
considerable influence to mediate a solution
acceptable to the Syrian people but one that excludes
President Assad and his cohorts. Indeed, without
Russia's direct military support and political shield,
Mr. Assad may agree to relinquish power and seek a
safe haven some place else and spare the Syrian people
continued death and destruction. Russia, who has
special relations to the Syrian army, may wish to
encourage a military coup with the promise of
continued support to the military post Assad's reign.
In the same token, Russia can also play a constructive
role with Iran and possibly persuade the Mullahs that
their insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons, under
the pretext of their right to enrich uranium, has the
potential for horrifying consequences.
There is no guarantee that Russia can succeed in
either case but it is guaranteed that unless Russia
acts constructively, it will be seen as the culprit
behind the two most pressing conflicts in the region,
thereby not only marginalizing itself in the Middle
East but running the likely chance of bearing the full
brunt of responsibility for the currently unfolding
disasters.
A noted journalist and author, Dr. Alon Ben-Meir
is professor of international relations and Middle
East studies at the Center for Global Affairs at New
York University. Ben-Meir holds a masters degree in
philosophy and a doctorate in international relations
from Oxford University.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments