Raghida Dergham

Once, during a closed session in the Alps between Russia’s Prime Minister, former President Vladimir Putin and a select group of world media leaders, Putin practiced with astonishing delight the time-honored Iranian tradition of “slaughter by cotton”. He did this in response to someone who had dared ask a question he did not like, forcing the asker to explain in agonizing detail the story of the turquoise-colored ring that adorned the hand he had raised to ask the question. Putin took great delight in embarrassing him, to teach him a lesson that would frighten others. He assumed that his overwhelming self-confidence would cover the flaw in his style, which remained crude despite the fact that Putin had coated it with a sardonic smile. His Foreign Minister, veteran diplomat Sergey Lavrov, has also joined the club of Russian arrogance to which belong the men of the former Soviet Union, men who have adapted to the new Russia after the collapse of the superpower, but have not taken off their old Soviet robe. Many of those in government in Russia came out of the Soviet back door only to enter through Russia’s front door. What feeds their excessive self-confidence is mainly their assumption that the United States and European countries have no choice but to stay on their good side, because they represent the mischievous player that cannot be overstepped. They trust that, despite the spread of corruption within their ranks, the West would not dare delve deep in exposing such corruption or demand that they take measures of reform – as it demands of the rest of the world. Increasing the conceit of those in power in Russia is the fact that the country holds a permanent seat at the Security Council, which allows it to make use of its veto to foreclose resolutions they do not want, just like the other four permanent member-countries –i.e. the United States, Britain, China and France. There have been, during this period, noteworthy developments in the different issues put forward at the Security Council, from Eritrea to Syria. And because Syria might be one of the most important issues, between the five permanent members, the Security Council and the Arab League, international involvement is overlapping Arab efforts, and overlapping also, in equal measure, with what is happening inside major countries as reflected in their foreign policies.

It so happens that the BRICs (Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa) are all Security Council members until the end of the year, yet there is increasing talk of a post-BRICs Russia, in view of its deteriorating economic situation. There is increasing talk of Putin’s popularity declining and of Russians having had enough with corruption and the dictatorship in disguise, and this will reflect on Russia’s stances on international issues, especially regarding Syria and Iran, which are almost the last remaining strongholds of defiant Moscow. Yet this remains contingent upon the serious message Moscow is hearing from Western capitals on the one hand, and from China on the other.

The reassurance of the West – and especially that of US President Barack Obama – to Vladimir Putin is very important for the Kremlin, as Washington is still at the top of Russia’s priorities. As for China, it is Russia’s temporary ally, and the alliance rather depends on current factors and issues: Indeed, in issues pertaining to the Security Council, oil and the Middle East, there is partnership between Russia and China. Yet when it comes to the bilateral relations of each of them with the United States, these relations take precedence. It is therefore not sufficient for the Obama Administration to hide behind a regional or international organization to avoid making the necessary decisions. Instead, the administration holds important cards with China and Russia, and it is time to make use of some of these, even if only as a tactic.

A new report by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) entitled “Dealing with a post-BRICs Russia”, the publication of which coincides with Russian parliamentary elections this Sunday, mentions the following facts:

- Opinion polls indicate that Putin’s popularity has diminished from 83 percent in October 2008 to 61 percent in November 2011.

- 85 percent of Russians believe that they have no influence over their country’s political life, and 55 percent refuse to take part in it.

- Growth in Russia has diminished to a rate of 4 percent – compared to 8.5 percent in 2007 – which is sufficient to keep it afloat but not to an extent that would allow it to keep up with the dynamism of China or India.

Equally important, if not more so, is the fact that the financial crisis has exposed the crisis of governance within Russia, as “instead of modernizing, Russia in 2010 was as corrupt as Papua New Guinea, had the property rights’ status of Kenya and was as competitive as Sri Lanka”. The report also states that this crisis has led Russia to rethink its new situation in a post-BRICs era. Such rethinking now aims at reducing spending on influence in regions located beyond the borders of the former USSR, leaving Russia with growing concerns towards China.

The report also criticizes EU countries for not having a strategy towards the new Russia, believing that Russia had shifted from being a “Large Poland” to being a “Little China”. The report suggests a strategy of reformulating the rules of engagement so as for the European Union to strengthen its engagement with Russia, while increasing pressures on Vladimir Putin and his companions to keep their political maneuvering in check. There are indications that “Putin’s regime is losing its legitimacy”, while he prepares to return to the Presidency (perhaps until 2024), all in conjunction with a nearly inevitable exit from the circle of growth of the BRICs and with “a relative decline in relations with the West”.

The United States too needs to adopt a similar strategy, and so do the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which have the ability to invest in and open up economically to Russia – while making clear to Vladimir Putin and his men the priorities of the Arabs. After all, Russia has behaved in a disrespectful manner towards the Arab League initiative on Syria, and with vacuous conceit. The fact of the matter is that Russia – as well as China to a lesser extent – is misleading the Syrian regime with flowery words, while it is perfectly well aware that it will not come to its rescue in practice, because it does not hold the tools for doing so, neither financially nor strategically – not even at the most basic level required. Agreement has been reached between the League of Arab States, the United States, European countries, Turkey and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and the alliance of defiance at the Security Council – the BRICs alliance – no longer has the ability to act arrogantly and obstruct this.

The leaders of Russian diplomacy repeatedly bring up the “Libyan scenario” in order to scream “not in Syria”, pointing to what they describe as the West “deceiving” them through a Security Council resolution that has since led to regime-change in Libya. They are against regime-change in Syria. They in the Kremlin have not reached the conviction that Bashar Al-Assad’s regime will fall. They are in denial, because they do not want to lose their navy bases, a market for their arms exports, and regional influence through a regime with which they have had longstanding ties. They in the Kremlin feel that they are in turn besieged, especially through the harmful sanctions that have been, and which are being imposed, not just against the Syrian regime, but also against the Iranian regime. This is a source of great concern for Putin and his companions.

Russian diplomacy is itself faltering. What was leaked of Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Arab ambassadors is noteworthy, not in terms of his reiteration of known stances under the headline of “the Libyan scenario”, but rather because he – according to what was leaked – called upon the Arabs to apply the model of the GCC initiative towards Yemen when dealing with Syria – in other words, decisions without ultimatums and with the approval of Security Council members. Well, patience, deliberation, insistence and determination have led to the success of the GCC initiative towards Yemen, with President Ali Abdullah Saleh finally signing and approving it. Yet this initiative was from the beginning based on the notion of stepping down – the Yemeni President stepping down and the regime changing. Why then does Lavrov appreciate this initiative and the role of the GCC in its implementation, but object to the initiative of the League of Arab States towards Syria, which does not make stepping down as its basis?

The fact of the matter is that the Kremlin has ruled itself out of Arab-Western agreement on the issue of Syria, and it perhaps regrets this now. The fact of the matter is that Putin, his Foreign Minister and their companions have adopted a losing and failed policy, which they will have no choice but to backtrack from, while they search for a face-saving formula. And the fact of the matter is that they have tied themselves to the regimes in Damascus and in Tehran, and have dug their “heel” in with these two camps, while others have adapted to the new reality and have adopted rather surprising stances. The talk here is of the League of Arab States led by Nabil El-Arabi, of the exceptional roles played by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and by Qatar, and also of the leading role played by Turkey in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) under the leadership of Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu.

The leadership in Syria might decide to agree to the Arab League initiative of sending observers to protect civilians, because Arab, Turkish, European and American sanctions will besiege and force its hand through de facto international involvement. Indeed, while choosing the observers will lead to weakening/changing the regime gradually with the regime’s own approval, going the way of internationalization represents coercion for the regime through complete deterioration. Indeed, the regime is headed towards its end. What the League of Arab States is doing is unprecedented in the history of the organization, and its Secretary-General deserves all the credit for his boldness and respect for the people’s rights.

Vladimir Putin may have reservations on what the League of Arab States is doing, but he has no say in the matter. Indeed, the issue has left the hall of the Security Council because of Russia’s defiance and the policy of obstruction adopted by the BRICs, an alliance which set itself up as the champion of the case for preserving the Syrian regime and preventing it from being changed. And if the Syrian issue is to return to the Security Council – and it will – this will be through an Arab initiative and under Arab leadership. Then the men of the Kremlin will have no choice but to dissociate themselves from the Council’s resolutions, or to retract their defiance, as they do not today hold the keys to the future of Syria, as they imagine themselves to do. There will soon be no need in Syria for a resolution to impose a no-fly zone that would require Russia’s approval. There is thus no need for this or for an Arab deterrent force. Indeed, the idea of the observers is a clever one because it prevents the army from intervening and gives the opposition the right to protest and to resort to the courts.

The roles played by Syria’s neighbors are of the utmost importance. Turkey is a pioneer and a leader, and one that has the abilities required. Jordan is bold and it takes important stances. Lebanon understands the seriousness of the consequences of the steps it might take if it tries to be equivocal. As for Iraq, it is unfortunately wearing the cloak of Tehran’s mullahs, and (how ironic!) opposing internationalization in Syria while thanking America for liberating it.