 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Antonio Fabrizio European Balloon Krzys Wasilewski Oh, To Be in England Gavin Ayling Anti-Life Opposition David Holcberg, et al Appeasing Hamas Elan Journo Talking To Iran Condi Rice Obligation To Truth ASH Smyth Darwin's CEOs Atul Bharadwaj |
Russia could be an ally of sorts on Iran, Hamas and North Korea
By Molly Nixon
Posted: July 15, 2006
Relations between Moscow and Washington appear likely to overshadow joint policy discussions at
this weekend’s G8 summit, hosted for the first time by Russia. Criticism of Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s administration both from advocacy groups and senior U.S. politicians, including President
George Bush, has increased ahead of the annual meeting and Russia hasn’t turned a deaf ear to the
scolding. Just four days ahead of the G8 gathering in St. Petersburg, Putin observed that rhetoric about
the spread of western-style democracy is sounding similar to that used in the 19th century’s
arguments favoring colonialism.
Whether or not Putin is mistaken in his analogy is largely irrelevant; the U.S. has indeed been
reprimanding Russia as one would a petulant child in need of civilizing. If such denigration continues
to be made on the world stage, it would be a shame for both parties as an alliance between what were
once rival superpowers could prove invaluable at a time when a series of international relations
conundrums facing the world are expected to require the merging of diplomatic teams.
Much of the negative focus has been on Russia’s rather unsavory group of acquaintances. Iran, North
Korea, and Hamas are just a few on the list. But it is Moscow’s ability to communicate with members
of this group, which the U.S. long ago alienated (though not for no reason), that make it such a valuable
ally.
When Palestinians elected militant group Hamas to parliamentary leadership in January last, most of
the West was incensed. Many states immediately began looking for ways in which to destabilize the
new Palestinian government, or at best attempted to work around it. In February, however, Russia
invited a Hamas delegation to Moscow for talks. The move angered western nations, notably Israel and
the U.S., but was a pragmatic decision that paved the way for the beginnings of cooperation.
For Hamas, Russia proved it was willing to pay attention to it at a time when a group that had never
held political power was being charged with the task of running an authority and few gave it much
chance of survival. Should Hamas retain power, which it is likely to do fundamentally if not in name, the
Kremlin is in a position to exert a moderating influence. It would be helpful for the Bush administration
if Washington had a say in the direction in which Russia chooses to moderate.
The same can be said for Iran, whose nuclear program has prompted international outrage and
concern. Iran’s current administration has little incentive to concede anything to Europe or the U.S. as
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has very publicly declared his contempt for those directing
ultimatums toward Tehran. Russia, on the other hand, has shown Iran a degree of respect, which
makes it a viable negotiating partner, as diplomats have already witnessed in a previous offer to
conduct joint uranium enrichment with Iran on Russian soil.
Pride is a factor that has to be given adequate consideration when predicting how an administration
will act or react in negotiations. Tehran is far more likely to consider proposals coming from a
government that has shown a willingness to work with it as opposed to the powers that have
repeatedly supported any feasible opposition to the current regime, regardless of how well meaning
that policy may be.
Most recently, North Korea has shown not only that it has no regard for global opinion, but also that it
will make an effort to work antagonistically toward international concerns. Working with China, Moscow
has offered an alternative United Nations Security Council resolution in response to Pyongyang’s
missile tests. Whether or not the version is too weak, which many have condemned it for being so, is
almost irrelevant at this stage. A principal difficulty with North Korea is that it has invested little in the
international system. If a major player, like Russia, shows itself willing to lend diplomatic support, then
that player automatically becomes an ally of sorts.
Russians, Europeans, and Americans broadly but ultimately have similar interests in the advancement
of the same basic tenets of foreign relations and peace in the Middle and Far East. That’s not a lot, but
it is a jumping-off point for policy coordination. North Korea’s not going to acquiesce in indulging the
international community at U.S. insistence but Russia has a more legitimate shot at convincing
Pyongyang of its stake in it.
Though neither seemingly intended to do so, Moscow and Washington have established excellent
preconditions for a “good cop, bad cop” routine in a variety of diplomatic situations. The U.S. sets a
prime example for what a democratic country with a liberal economy can accomplish. But nations don’t
like to be preached to, especially nations attempting to assert authority themselves. Russia, with all of
its flaws, becomes a reasonable example for states that are going through one transition or another
and are looking for an ally that comes with fewer strings attached.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea for the U.S. to permit Russia to talk to its controversial friends in the hope that
a burgeoning relationship between Moscow and Washington could give the West some say in the
course of events Russia is trying to shape.
Having made a case for maintaining an open dialogue with Russia because of its associates, it is
important to note that the mounting criticism aimed at the Kremlin is not undeserved. In the 15 years
since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has taken both forward and backward steps in pursuing
standard Western ideals of democracy and capitalism – these probably coincide with how appealing
and convenient such ideals appear at the given moment.
Suggesting unmitigated trust of Putin would be foolish as he is still a somewhat unknown entity.
Reports from watch groups note with concern the curbs put on independent media in Russia, and the
direction of economic and democratic reforms. Putin acknowledged these in his last state of the union
address, pointing out the extensive corruption on all levels and calling for reform and development.
In a recent interview, the Russian president said his administration would be receptive to “well-
intentioned criticism.” Taking into consideration the achievements Russia has made in the relatively
short time since the Soviet Union’s humiliating and devastating collapse, constructive, not
condescending, criticism is what the West currently has a justification to extend.
President Bush has made comments suggesting he understands this in the days leading up to the
G8 Summit. Speaking in Germany, Bush said he wouldn’t shy away from addressing with Putin the
concerns brought up by American lawmakers and advocates but acknowledged that a public rebuke
isn’t likely to better the relationship or have a substantial impact on improving Russia’s faltering civil
society. Putin has stabilized Russia and the world is better off for that, for the time being. Whether or
not values are prioritized identically should be put aside, for the moment, in favor of the advancement
of shared considerations.
The G8 was created as a forum for economic cooperation. As founders of the EU understood, political
cooperation and a strengthened outlook for peace don’t come far behind. It would be a shame if an
opportunity to actively work toward common security goals was lost in an exchange of sound bites
aimed at taking a former Cold War foe down a notch.
### ### ###
Molly Nixon is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
By Molly Nixon
Posted: July 15, 2006
Relations between Moscow and Washington appear likely to overshadow joint policy discussions at
this weekend’s G8 summit, hosted for the first time by Russia. Criticism of Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s administration both from advocacy groups and senior U.S. politicians, including President
George Bush, has increased ahead of the annual meeting and Russia hasn’t turned a deaf ear to the
scolding. Just four days ahead of the G8 gathering in St. Petersburg, Putin observed that rhetoric about
the spread of western-style democracy is sounding similar to that used in the 19th century’s
arguments favoring colonialism.
Whether or not Putin is mistaken in his analogy is largely irrelevant; the U.S. has indeed been
reprimanding Russia as one would a petulant child in need of civilizing. If such denigration continues
to be made on the world stage, it would be a shame for both parties as an alliance between what were
once rival superpowers could prove invaluable at a time when a series of international relations
conundrums facing the world are expected to require the merging of diplomatic teams.
Much of the negative focus has been on Russia’s rather unsavory group of acquaintances. Iran, North
Korea, and Hamas are just a few on the list. But it is Moscow’s ability to communicate with members
of this group, which the U.S. long ago alienated (though not for no reason), that make it such a valuable
ally.
When Palestinians elected militant group Hamas to parliamentary leadership in January last, most of
the West was incensed. Many states immediately began looking for ways in which to destabilize the
new Palestinian government, or at best attempted to work around it. In February, however, Russia
invited a Hamas delegation to Moscow for talks. The move angered western nations, notably Israel and
the U.S., but was a pragmatic decision that paved the way for the beginnings of cooperation.
For Hamas, Russia proved it was willing to pay attention to it at a time when a group that had never
held political power was being charged with the task of running an authority and few gave it much
chance of survival. Should Hamas retain power, which it is likely to do fundamentally if not in name, the
Kremlin is in a position to exert a moderating influence. It would be helpful for the Bush administration
if Washington had a say in the direction in which Russia chooses to moderate.
The same can be said for Iran, whose nuclear program has prompted international outrage and
concern. Iran’s current administration has little incentive to concede anything to Europe or the U.S. as
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has very publicly declared his contempt for those directing
ultimatums toward Tehran. Russia, on the other hand, has shown Iran a degree of respect, which
makes it a viable negotiating partner, as diplomats have already witnessed in a previous offer to
conduct joint uranium enrichment with Iran on Russian soil.
Pride is a factor that has to be given adequate consideration when predicting how an administration
will act or react in negotiations. Tehran is far more likely to consider proposals coming from a
government that has shown a willingness to work with it as opposed to the powers that have
repeatedly supported any feasible opposition to the current regime, regardless of how well meaning
that policy may be.
Most recently, North Korea has shown not only that it has no regard for global opinion, but also that it
will make an effort to work antagonistically toward international concerns. Working with China, Moscow
has offered an alternative United Nations Security Council resolution in response to Pyongyang’s
missile tests. Whether or not the version is too weak, which many have condemned it for being so, is
almost irrelevant at this stage. A principal difficulty with North Korea is that it has invested little in the
international system. If a major player, like Russia, shows itself willing to lend diplomatic support, then
that player automatically becomes an ally of sorts.
Russians, Europeans, and Americans broadly but ultimately have similar interests in the advancement
of the same basic tenets of foreign relations and peace in the Middle and Far East. That’s not a lot, but
it is a jumping-off point for policy coordination. North Korea’s not going to acquiesce in indulging the
international community at U.S. insistence but Russia has a more legitimate shot at convincing
Pyongyang of its stake in it.
Though neither seemingly intended to do so, Moscow and Washington have established excellent
preconditions for a “good cop, bad cop” routine in a variety of diplomatic situations. The U.S. sets a
prime example for what a democratic country with a liberal economy can accomplish. But nations don’t
like to be preached to, especially nations attempting to assert authority themselves. Russia, with all of
its flaws, becomes a reasonable example for states that are going through one transition or another
and are looking for an ally that comes with fewer strings attached.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea for the U.S. to permit Russia to talk to its controversial friends in the hope that
a burgeoning relationship between Moscow and Washington could give the West some say in the
course of events Russia is trying to shape.
Having made a case for maintaining an open dialogue with Russia because of its associates, it is
important to note that the mounting criticism aimed at the Kremlin is not undeserved. In the 15 years
since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has taken both forward and backward steps in pursuing
standard Western ideals of democracy and capitalism – these probably coincide with how appealing
and convenient such ideals appear at the given moment.
Suggesting unmitigated trust of Putin would be foolish as he is still a somewhat unknown entity.
Reports from watch groups note with concern the curbs put on independent media in Russia, and the
direction of economic and democratic reforms. Putin acknowledged these in his last state of the union
address, pointing out the extensive corruption on all levels and calling for reform and development.
In a recent interview, the Russian president said his administration would be receptive to “well-
intentioned criticism.” Taking into consideration the achievements Russia has made in the relatively
short time since the Soviet Union’s humiliating and devastating collapse, constructive, not
condescending, criticism is what the West currently has a justification to extend.
President Bush has made comments suggesting he understands this in the days leading up to the
G8 Summit. Speaking in Germany, Bush said he wouldn’t shy away from addressing with Putin the
concerns brought up by American lawmakers and advocates but acknowledged that a public rebuke
isn’t likely to better the relationship or have a substantial impact on improving Russia’s faltering civil
society. Putin has stabilized Russia and the world is better off for that, for the time being. Whether or
not values are prioritized identically should be put aside, for the moment, in favor of the advancement
of shared considerations.
The G8 was created as a forum for economic cooperation. As founders of the EU understood, political
cooperation and a strengthened outlook for peace don’t come far behind. It would be a shame if an
opportunity to actively work toward common security goals was lost in an exchange of sound bites
aimed at taking a former Cold War foe down a notch.
### ### ###
Molly Nixon is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |