Tweet
Izvestiya, Russia
Sept 5 2013
Separate Seating.
Political Analyst Boris Mezhuyev on Main Purpose of G20 Summit
[translated from Russian]
Observers from all over the world will be in front of their television
screens tomorrow looking for just one thing: how the leaders of Russia
and the United States relate to one another, whether they look one
another in the eye, whether they smile at one another or shake hands,
and, if they do shake hands, how firmly they do so. And that aspect of
the upcoming meeting will exercise observers much more even than such
acute issues of the current agenda as preventing another twist to the
world economic crisis and the need for consolidated action by the
monetary authorities, which was supposed to be the focus of the
upcoming G20 session. It looks as though the heads of state will make
only routine, protocol speeches on ecological questions and on the
subject of the danger from asteroids, which Russia introduced.
Obviously, what everyone will have on their minds is not even the
situation in Syria but first and foremost the attitude of all the
other members of the Group towards Russia in connection with Syria.
The Anglo-Saxon press most frequently refers to Russia, like Iran, as
one of the parties involved in the internal war in that state: It sees
Russia and Iran on one side (note: not China, which along with Russia
objects to the unilateral use of force) and Saudi Arabia and Turkey on
the other. The dispute is over whether America should join with the
latter or stand aside from the conflict.
Such an open split among the main members of the international
community has not been seen in a long time. In 2003 Russia, along with
France and Germany, opposed Bush's plan to occupy Iraq, but no one
said that Russia was involving itself in the conflict on Saddam
Husayn's side.
Aware of the full seriousness of the situation that has taken shape,
Vladimir Putin stated in his interview with Channel One and Associated
Press that Russia may change its position on the Syrian question in
the Security Council if the Americans and their allies present
convincing proof of Al-Asad's complicity in the chemical attack in
East Guta. This is a very precise diplomatic manoeuvre - a kind of
response to Barack Obama's evasive decision to postpone any possible
military action pending the support of both houses of Congress. The
move is clearly a polite invitation to the American President to join
in constructive cooperation on the Syrian problem - as if to say: We
are not enemies, we understand your difficult position, and we are
ready to help you extricate yourself from it. The complimentary
comments about Obama and the very correct explanation of our country's
position in the Snowden affair - in the spirit of the need to respect
Russia's prestige as a state, without any ostentatious
anti-Americanism - are confirmation of this very clearly expressed
desire to support Obama. To support him if, of course, he shows
himself ready to accept that support.
The whole question now, strictly speaking, turns on what kind of a
world the White House boss is living in right now. To what extent does
he really believe McCain, Lindsey Graham, and his own immediate
entourage when they tell him that Russia is an enemy to America and
represents civilizational evil incarnate, a country where - as the
British actor Stephen Fry, clearly no friend to Russia, says
-homosexuals kill themselves in despair, where they are regularly
beaten up by club-wielding skinheads and shot by police?
Well, it would seem that in order to actually resolve this whole
conflict in Syria, which he finds so unpleasant, Obama ought first of
all to ask Russia for assistance and, to that end, upgrade its status
just a little in the international field. Or in any event not portray
it as some kind of medieval despotism. Yet for the past several months
Obama has talked about Russia only in terms of some hackneyed
nonsense. It has to be admitted that Moscow's clever boys have played
into his hands in that respect with their highly untimely conservative
legislative initiatives. But this era of rather flippant game-playing
with our cultural contrasts seems to have ended: At any rate, judging
from Putin's interview Russia has stopped playing that particular
game. And it is clear why: Faced with a world war, it is possible to
forget for a time about nuances in attitudes towards the unhappy
champions of same-sex love.
But as yet Obama has not openly given a single indication of being
well disposed towards Russia. It may be that secretly, via channels
inaccessible to the press, the Russian and American sides are
conducting consultations of some kind (one would like to hope so), but
all we know for the time being is that Obama is preparing to meet in
St Petersburg with human rights organizations including activists from
the LGBT community. Yet even the Cold War forced leaders to take the
politics seriously to some extent, so that Khrushchev was able to
reach agreement with Kennedy at the crucial moment and Nixon with Mao,
and none of them thought about whether a particular conversation or a
particular handshake would appear to be adding an extra few cents to
his opposite number's "soft power" account.
What does "soft power" matter, for heaven's sake, when the survival of
civilization is actually at stake? Because, no matter how things may
appear, the affair will not be limited to a couple of strikes against
one country. To begin with the United States will hit Syria, then
Israel will attack the Hizballah movement in Lebanon, then Iran will
strike Israel, Turkey will attack Iran, Azerbaijan will attack
Armenia, then Georgia will strike into South Ossetia again and of
course Russia will be forced, as in 2008, to repel Georgia, and the
NATO navy will rush to Georgia's aid once more. I am not trying to
predict the future but merely identifying the likely dangers if the
situation gets out of control. It may be that Israel has no plans to
settle accounts directly with Hizballah and that Baku has no plans to
take the conflict with Yerevan into a hot phase; but the problem is
that a major war provides a fine pretext for resolving chronic
territorial disputes. And a third world war could flare up even
without any intention on the part of the United States and Russia of
exchanging thermonuclear strikes. Simply because, while Russia and the
United States are trying not to look one another in the eye, under the
wing of their powerful patrons their "friends" are making their own
arrangements. The First World War, by the way, began in precisely that
way, even though nobody actually wanted it. It was simply that Russia
and Germany considered themselves "obligated to defend" their allies.
So tomorrow's G20 meeting is a last opportunity for Russia and America
to agree on some kind of joint action plan. It will be a great pity
if, in Petersburg, Obama prefers instead to discuss the sufferings of
Russian gays and averts his eyes from his Russian colleague to smile
sweetly at the Turks and the Saudis.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Sept 5 2013
Separate Seating.
Political Analyst Boris Mezhuyev on Main Purpose of G20 Summit
[translated from Russian]
Observers from all over the world will be in front of their television
screens tomorrow looking for just one thing: how the leaders of Russia
and the United States relate to one another, whether they look one
another in the eye, whether they smile at one another or shake hands,
and, if they do shake hands, how firmly they do so. And that aspect of
the upcoming meeting will exercise observers much more even than such
acute issues of the current agenda as preventing another twist to the
world economic crisis and the need for consolidated action by the
monetary authorities, which was supposed to be the focus of the
upcoming G20 session. It looks as though the heads of state will make
only routine, protocol speeches on ecological questions and on the
subject of the danger from asteroids, which Russia introduced.
Obviously, what everyone will have on their minds is not even the
situation in Syria but first and foremost the attitude of all the
other members of the Group towards Russia in connection with Syria.
The Anglo-Saxon press most frequently refers to Russia, like Iran, as
one of the parties involved in the internal war in that state: It sees
Russia and Iran on one side (note: not China, which along with Russia
objects to the unilateral use of force) and Saudi Arabia and Turkey on
the other. The dispute is over whether America should join with the
latter or stand aside from the conflict.
Such an open split among the main members of the international
community has not been seen in a long time. In 2003 Russia, along with
France and Germany, opposed Bush's plan to occupy Iraq, but no one
said that Russia was involving itself in the conflict on Saddam
Husayn's side.
Aware of the full seriousness of the situation that has taken shape,
Vladimir Putin stated in his interview with Channel One and Associated
Press that Russia may change its position on the Syrian question in
the Security Council if the Americans and their allies present
convincing proof of Al-Asad's complicity in the chemical attack in
East Guta. This is a very precise diplomatic manoeuvre - a kind of
response to Barack Obama's evasive decision to postpone any possible
military action pending the support of both houses of Congress. The
move is clearly a polite invitation to the American President to join
in constructive cooperation on the Syrian problem - as if to say: We
are not enemies, we understand your difficult position, and we are
ready to help you extricate yourself from it. The complimentary
comments about Obama and the very correct explanation of our country's
position in the Snowden affair - in the spirit of the need to respect
Russia's prestige as a state, without any ostentatious
anti-Americanism - are confirmation of this very clearly expressed
desire to support Obama. To support him if, of course, he shows
himself ready to accept that support.
The whole question now, strictly speaking, turns on what kind of a
world the White House boss is living in right now. To what extent does
he really believe McCain, Lindsey Graham, and his own immediate
entourage when they tell him that Russia is an enemy to America and
represents civilizational evil incarnate, a country where - as the
British actor Stephen Fry, clearly no friend to Russia, says
-homosexuals kill themselves in despair, where they are regularly
beaten up by club-wielding skinheads and shot by police?
Well, it would seem that in order to actually resolve this whole
conflict in Syria, which he finds so unpleasant, Obama ought first of
all to ask Russia for assistance and, to that end, upgrade its status
just a little in the international field. Or in any event not portray
it as some kind of medieval despotism. Yet for the past several months
Obama has talked about Russia only in terms of some hackneyed
nonsense. It has to be admitted that Moscow's clever boys have played
into his hands in that respect with their highly untimely conservative
legislative initiatives. But this era of rather flippant game-playing
with our cultural contrasts seems to have ended: At any rate, judging
from Putin's interview Russia has stopped playing that particular
game. And it is clear why: Faced with a world war, it is possible to
forget for a time about nuances in attitudes towards the unhappy
champions of same-sex love.
But as yet Obama has not openly given a single indication of being
well disposed towards Russia. It may be that secretly, via channels
inaccessible to the press, the Russian and American sides are
conducting consultations of some kind (one would like to hope so), but
all we know for the time being is that Obama is preparing to meet in
St Petersburg with human rights organizations including activists from
the LGBT community. Yet even the Cold War forced leaders to take the
politics seriously to some extent, so that Khrushchev was able to
reach agreement with Kennedy at the crucial moment and Nixon with Mao,
and none of them thought about whether a particular conversation or a
particular handshake would appear to be adding an extra few cents to
his opposite number's "soft power" account.
What does "soft power" matter, for heaven's sake, when the survival of
civilization is actually at stake? Because, no matter how things may
appear, the affair will not be limited to a couple of strikes against
one country. To begin with the United States will hit Syria, then
Israel will attack the Hizballah movement in Lebanon, then Iran will
strike Israel, Turkey will attack Iran, Azerbaijan will attack
Armenia, then Georgia will strike into South Ossetia again and of
course Russia will be forced, as in 2008, to repel Georgia, and the
NATO navy will rush to Georgia's aid once more. I am not trying to
predict the future but merely identifying the likely dangers if the
situation gets out of control. It may be that Israel has no plans to
settle accounts directly with Hizballah and that Baku has no plans to
take the conflict with Yerevan into a hot phase; but the problem is
that a major war provides a fine pretext for resolving chronic
territorial disputes. And a third world war could flare up even
without any intention on the part of the United States and Russia of
exchanging thermonuclear strikes. Simply because, while Russia and the
United States are trying not to look one another in the eye, under the
wing of their powerful patrons their "friends" are making their own
arrangements. The First World War, by the way, began in precisely that
way, even though nobody actually wanted it. It was simply that Russia
and Germany considered themselves "obligated to defend" their allies.
So tomorrow's G20 meeting is a last opportunity for Russia and America
to agree on some kind of joint action plan. It will be a great pity
if, in Petersburg, Obama prefers instead to discuss the sufferings of
Russian gays and averts his eyes from his Russian colleague to smile
sweetly at the Turks and the Saudis.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress