Putin
opens Benghazi door for
Obama By M K Bhadrakumar
At a time when the United States-Russia
"reset" lies in limbo, it should come as no
surprise that President Vladimir Putin has made
one of the most important statements of his
four-month-old presidency, drawing attention to
the commonality of interests between the two major
world powers and indeed between Russia and the
West on one of the hottest issues of current world
politics - the Middle Eastern question.
Putin's statement on Thursday came in the
nature of his reaction to the terrorist attack on
the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the
killing of the American ambassador. Without doubt,
it was a structured statement - albeit couched as
ex tempore remarks to the media - that
amounts to a dramatic call for Russia and the West
to jointly mould the Arab Spring in the right
direction.
The Kremlin statement stands
apart from harsh Chinese
comments, which have been
more in the nature of critical finger-pointing and
"I-told-you-so" homilies. To be sure, Moscow sees
a window of opportunity to bridge the dangerous
hiatus that has appeared in the respective
positions of Russia and the West over such
contentious issues as Syria and Afghanistan - and
Iran.
Putin spoke at some length. He
"condemned" the Libyan attack in exceptionally
strong terms, calling it a "terrible crime" that
lies "outside modern civilization". The vehemence
of the condemnation made it clear that Moscow will
not strive to take advantage of the US'
predicament in Libya, although the two countries
have profound differences over the NATO's
intervention in that country.
Interestingly, Putin completely ignored
the ground reality that it was only the Western
intervention that spawned the radical Islamist
groups in Libya, which have now come to hit at US
interests. Obviously, Moscow estimates that this
tragic moment is inopportune to say harsh things
or even aim subtle barbs.
'We're all
Americans' Putin then went on to speak at
length about the "many differences of opinion"
that Moscow has had in the recent years with
Washington over the "ways of resolving problems in
troubled countries." He said Russia too shares
with the US the principles of democracy and
freedom and would agree with the US that there is
a deficit of democracy in "numerous political
regimes".
But the difference lies in the
respective Russian and US approaches to creating a
better world. Moscow believes that these problems
need to be solved through peaceful negotiations so
that the authoritarian regimes can evolve in a
positive direction that ensures social harmony at
the level of faiths, religions and ethnicity.
Admittedly, this may be a "difficult, painstaking
process that requires patience and
professionalism", but there is no real
alternative.
The nearest that Putin came
to obliquely touch on the Syrian crisis was when
he said Moscow cannot support the alternative
course of regime change through force and external
intervention. If armed groups labeled as "freedom
fighters" are supported from the outside, "an
absolute deadlock" may result and the "region
could descend into chaos, which indeed, is what is
already happening".
Putin also had an
indirect message for Egypt. Without mentioning
President Mohammed Morsi by name, Putin
underscored that leaders like Morsi who led the
successor regimes bore "personal responsibility"
for "what is happening". Putin seemed to echo the
sense of disquiet in Washington that Morsi took
well over 24 hours to make his first reaction -
and that too, via Facebook - on the mob attacks on
the American embassy in Cairo.
In
historical terms, Putin has once again stood up
and is allowing himself to be counted as a friend
- and potential ally - of the US at a time of
distress and emotional trauma in Washington. The
previous such occasion was 11 years ago in the
wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and
Washington. This trains the searchlight once again
on Putin's political agenda, which is to integrate
Russia with the West but as an equal partner with
mutual respect and acknowledging its legitimate
interests as a great power - and the failure of
successive US administrations to recognize the
raison d'etre of the Russian leader's policies.
In fact, Putin summed up Thursday's
statement in a spirit of total solidarity with
President Barack Obama:
I really expect that this tragedy -
this certainly is a tragedy, one that, I want to
stress, concerns all of us, as we and our
Western partners, including US partners, are
combating terrorism together - I really expect
that this tragedy will motivate us all to
intensify our joint - I should emphasize the
word joint - struggle against terrorism and
terrorist threats.
Clearly, Moscow has
put out an important signal to the Western world
and to Obama in particular. What needs to be noted
is that Putin has certainly factored in the attack
on Obama by his Republican opponent Mitt Romney
over the crisis of the Benghazi incident and has
desisted from any sort of direct criticism of US
policies in the Middle East.
Putin's
statement naturally becomes the final word on the
Russian position on the issue of the setback to
the US in the Middle East, no matter what the
media organs in Moscow may say. Equally, the
salience that cannot escape attention is that
Moscow has taken a strikingly different approach
in comparison with the reaction from Beijing on
the Libyan terrorist attack.
The Chinese
foreign ministry has given a formal reaction
expressing shock and condemnation of the "violent
deeds" and underscoring the imperative to observe
the norms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations. It was brief, crisply worded and very
correct but devoid of any empathy.
A
new stakeholder ... On the other hand, the
leading Chinese dailies opened a virtual broadside
on the US policies in the Middle East, holding
them responsible for the tragedy on Monday. A
signed article in the Global Times said:
The assassination of the ambassador
and his colleagues underscores the bankruptcy of
US foreign policy in the region. Washington's
policy of regime change in the region may well
lead to an "Arab Winter" ... and the so-called
pivot to Asia may stumble in the Middle East
quagmire.
Looking at the overall
situation in the Middle East and North Africa,
it is becoming clear that the political trend is
Islamist rather than secular ... There are sharp
contradictions in Washington's Middle East
policy. The policy of regime change in Syria
aligned the US with extremist Salafist and
Wahhabi political and terrorist groups in the
region ... Some of these groups have links with
Al Qaeda.
Calm and searching reflection
are [sic] needed by Washington on its Middle
East policy ... Americans are reaping the tragic
whirlwind and it is time for a serious and
searching reappraisal agonizing as it may be.
In another commentary, Global Times
pointed out:
Arabs demand the US respect their
culture. But the cannon-loaded warships will not
serve that purpose. ... US warships can only
generate more hatred from the Islamic world ...
Americans hold a deep sense of cultural
superiority. They see many other cultures as
being marginal with an exotic value. If other
cultures stand against the West, they would be
labeled as bizarre and harmful.
Islamic
culture is sensitive due to its relatively
disadvantageous position in the world. The world
should respect their sentiments ... Provocations
against the Islamic faith have occurred
repeatedly in the West ... Americans must
sincerely learn about other cultures. They
should be able to find the merits of other
cultures, which have helped many emerging
countries develop rapidly ... Many people in the
world are restraining their discontent toward
the US. Washington also needs to exercise
restraint to better communicate with other parts
of the world.
The Chinese reaction is
partly at least motivated by its growing anger at
the US' containment strategy in the Asia-Pacific.
Having said that, the stunning geopolitical
reality is also that China is steadily becoming a
stakeholder in the epochal changes taking place in
the Middle East, including the region's steady
gravitation toward Islamism as the dominant
ideology.
The dramatic choice made by
Morsi to make first state visit to China brought
out that Beijing is meeting with success in
positioning itself on the "right side of history".
The Chinese oil companies are gaining a presence
in Iraq's oil industry; China is mulling over the
prospects for making investments in Egypt (BP has
just announced a US$10 billion investment to
exploit Egypt's gas reserves); China has
wide-ranging relations with the Persian Gulf
countries (both the Gulf Cooperation Council
states and Iran). Even the relations with Israel
and Turkey are on upward swing.
... and
a status quo-ist The competitive tone of
the Chinese criticism of the US' Middle East
policies stands out. Russian regional policies, on
the other hand, are struggling uphill. Russia has
to clear the backlog of ties with the Hosni
Mubarak regime in Egypt; its ties with Iran are
complex and inchoate and would have to disentangle
forever from a painful past history;
contradictions exist in Russia-Israel ties
(especially with Israel's thrusts against Russian
interests in the Caucasus and the Caspian and
Russia's alliance with Syria); its ties with the
Gulf Cooperation Council states, especially Saudi
Arabia, are in doldrums. Suffice to say, Russia is
far from engaged in a competition with the US for
creating a "level playing field" for the future
expansion of its regional influence in the Middle
East.
Russia's concerns are principally as
a status quo power. The Middle Eastern revolutions
do not suit Russian interests, even if they may,
arguably, lead to further weakening of the US'
regional influence. The Russian frustration is
that the US does not realize that in actuality in
a long-term perspective the two countries could
have shared interests and concerns in the Middle
East.
Again, by no means can Russia view
the rise of Islamism with the same equanimity with
which China is apparently addressing the
historical processes in the Middle East. Russia's
"soft underbelly" lies adjacent to the Middle East
and is highly vulnerable to the winds of radical
Islamism.
Also, China is willing to see
the rise of Islamism in countries such as Egypt in
a broader cultural context of Arabism imbued with
"anti-Western sentiment" (to quote Global Times),
which could even provide a conducive setting for
the future expansion of its influence in the
Middle East.
Of course, both Russia and
China abhor the ascendancy of the Salafist
fighters in the volatile situation in Libya or
Syria. Both resent Western intervention to force
"regime change" in Middle East countries. And for
both, the sovereignty of independent states and
the observance of international law and respect
for the territorial integrity become sacrosanct
principles that are intertwined with their
national interests.
But what ultimately
differentiates Putin's reaction from the Chinese
comments is that Moscow is probing for new
thinking in Washington. Moscow would visualize
that the Obama administration has received a
traumatic shock in the past 72 hours and that may
prompt a rethink if not a hard appraisal of US
policies. Specifically, in the current situation,
Moscow would hope for a new US approach on the
Syrian crisis, where Russia has high stakes.
The Obama administration's policy on Syria
is highly calibrated, stopping short of
intervention but relentlessly creating the
momentum for regime change in Damascus. Moscow
would seek a fundamental course correction on the
part of the Obama administration. Moscow expects
that Washington would sit up, finally, and begin
to comprehend that if Syria unravels, it will be
manifold more catastrophic than what the Libyan
"revolution" turned out to be in its aftermath.
It is this expectation that Putin's
statement has sought to convey to Obama. The
statement is intended as a signal to Obama at a
moment when he is most receptive to fresh thinking
on the Middle East question. It signals that if a
window of opportunity arises for Russia to work
together with the US on a political transformation
in Syria, that would open up a new vista of
possibilities in the UN Security Council, and, in
turn, even the flame of the Russia-US "reset" may
begin to shine again.
The big question is
whether the Obama administration will see things
that way. In 2001, George W Bush took Putin's
support and then forgot about it for the next
seven years.
Ambassador M K
Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the
Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included
the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and
Turkey.
(Copyright 2012 Asia Times
Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
