Tweet
THE WEST MUST WORK WITH PUTIN'S RUSSIA, NOT JUST BERATE IT
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3908aff0-b576-11e1-ab92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1yGul4Chg
June 19, 2012 7:23 pm
The arguments between the west and Russia over what to do in Syria
resemble the old proverb of the two bald men arguing over a comb. In
truth, neither side knows what to do. Both, however, respond to their
lack of a plan in their traditional fashion: Russia, with stonewalling;
the west, with empty rhetoric.
The west is right to believe that the Baath regime in Syria cannot
continue in power without endless savagery, and that an agreed
departure of the Assad dynasty is greatly to be desired. Russia is
right to fear that its fall may lead to an even worse regime and a
nightmare for Syria's minorities.
However unpalatable this may be to Washington, the Kremlin is
also correct in arguing that if there is to be any chance of an
international deal over Syria working, then Iran has to be part of it.
This is because of Tehran's close ties with the Syrian regime and
because Iran has a legitimate stake in the future of the quasi-Shia,
Alawite minority. Moreover, as has happened all too often in the past,
the US and Israeli obsession with Iran has led Washington to turn a
blind eye to the dangers posed by Saudi policy, despite the way in
which Saudi support has helped lay the basis for Islamist extremism
in Pakistan and elsewhere.
When listening to Washington and Paris on Syria, it is worth
remembering US and French policy towards their ally Algeria in the
1990s, when the military cancelled a democratic election and engaged
in a ferocious campaign of repression against the Islamist victors,
leading to more than 150,000 deaths. There was no question then of
the west isolating or intervening in Algeria.
This record casts an ironic light on present western rhetoric. Perhaps
before Hillary Clinton called Russia and China "despicable" for
opposing international action over Syria, she might have taken a quick
look in the historical mirror. It also does not help that Mrs Clinton
publicly accused Russia of selling attack helicopters to Syria, only
for US officials to admit privately that she deliberately exaggerated
the claim to put pressure on Moscow. Is this supposed to increase
mutual respect and confidence?
The case of Syria is of great human and geopolitical importance in
itself, and has serious implications for the wider issue of the west's
relations with Russia. Sections of western opinion are engaged in
another round of furious rhetoric against the Putin administration,
mainly because of its semi-authoritarianism, but with Syria supplying
additional ammunition. This is by no means wholly unjustified, given
some of the odious aspects of the Russian state, but it needs to
be qualified.
As both Russia's election results and the composition of the
opposition demonstrations make clear, an overwhelming majority of
Russians support a mixture of nationalists and Soviet loyalists. Even
if they are sick of the corruption of the elites, most are not going
to vote for pro-western liberals. This underlying Russian reality -
and the relatively good performance of its economy under Vladimir
Putin's cautious management - not only gives the Putin administration
residual strength, it also means that in the unlikely event that it
fell, Russian foreign policy would not change by one iota.
The west needs to seek compromises with Russia in part because the
west is weaker than it was. Among other things, the idea of Nato and EU
membership for Georgia and Ukraine, or even any significantly enhanced
partnership, is dead. This in turn requires a change in western policy
from expansion vis-a-vis Russia to a strategy of jointly containing
crises: for example, the real danger of a new Armenian-Azeri war
over Nagorno-Karabagh.
Current developments suggest two other things: that if we wish
western democracy to retain its global influence, we need to work
urgently on improving its performance at home; and that the world
will in future have a plurality not only of great powers but also of
political systems.
So, if there is to be any chance of international co-operation, we
must learn to treat each others' systems with respect. Talks with
Russia and China over Syria would be a good place to begin.
The writer is a professor in the War Studies Department of King's
College London and author of 'America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of
American Nationalism'
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3908aff0-b576-11e1-ab92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1yGul4Chg
June 19, 2012 7:23 pm
The arguments between the west and Russia over what to do in Syria
resemble the old proverb of the two bald men arguing over a comb. In
truth, neither side knows what to do. Both, however, respond to their
lack of a plan in their traditional fashion: Russia, with stonewalling;
the west, with empty rhetoric.
The west is right to believe that the Baath regime in Syria cannot
continue in power without endless savagery, and that an agreed
departure of the Assad dynasty is greatly to be desired. Russia is
right to fear that its fall may lead to an even worse regime and a
nightmare for Syria's minorities.
However unpalatable this may be to Washington, the Kremlin is
also correct in arguing that if there is to be any chance of an
international deal over Syria working, then Iran has to be part of it.
This is because of Tehran's close ties with the Syrian regime and
because Iran has a legitimate stake in the future of the quasi-Shia,
Alawite minority. Moreover, as has happened all too often in the past,
the US and Israeli obsession with Iran has led Washington to turn a
blind eye to the dangers posed by Saudi policy, despite the way in
which Saudi support has helped lay the basis for Islamist extremism
in Pakistan and elsewhere.
When listening to Washington and Paris on Syria, it is worth
remembering US and French policy towards their ally Algeria in the
1990s, when the military cancelled a democratic election and engaged
in a ferocious campaign of repression against the Islamist victors,
leading to more than 150,000 deaths. There was no question then of
the west isolating or intervening in Algeria.
This record casts an ironic light on present western rhetoric. Perhaps
before Hillary Clinton called Russia and China "despicable" for
opposing international action over Syria, she might have taken a quick
look in the historical mirror. It also does not help that Mrs Clinton
publicly accused Russia of selling attack helicopters to Syria, only
for US officials to admit privately that she deliberately exaggerated
the claim to put pressure on Moscow. Is this supposed to increase
mutual respect and confidence?
The case of Syria is of great human and geopolitical importance in
itself, and has serious implications for the wider issue of the west's
relations with Russia. Sections of western opinion are engaged in
another round of furious rhetoric against the Putin administration,
mainly because of its semi-authoritarianism, but with Syria supplying
additional ammunition. This is by no means wholly unjustified, given
some of the odious aspects of the Russian state, but it needs to
be qualified.
As both Russia's election results and the composition of the
opposition demonstrations make clear, an overwhelming majority of
Russians support a mixture of nationalists and Soviet loyalists. Even
if they are sick of the corruption of the elites, most are not going
to vote for pro-western liberals. This underlying Russian reality -
and the relatively good performance of its economy under Vladimir
Putin's cautious management - not only gives the Putin administration
residual strength, it also means that in the unlikely event that it
fell, Russian foreign policy would not change by one iota.
The west needs to seek compromises with Russia in part because the
west is weaker than it was. Among other things, the idea of Nato and EU
membership for Georgia and Ukraine, or even any significantly enhanced
partnership, is dead. This in turn requires a change in western policy
from expansion vis-a-vis Russia to a strategy of jointly containing
crises: for example, the real danger of a new Armenian-Azeri war
over Nagorno-Karabagh.
Current developments suggest two other things: that if we wish
western democracy to retain its global influence, we need to work
urgently on improving its performance at home; and that the world
will in future have a plurality not only of great powers but also of
political systems.
So, if there is to be any chance of international co-operation, we
must learn to treat each others' systems with respect. Talks with
Russia and China over Syria would be a good place to begin.
The writer is a professor in the War Studies Department of King's
College London and author of 'America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of
American Nationalism'