Flexing its muscles
Luo Yingjie

LESS than six months after the diplomatic row between Russia and Britain triggered by the poisoning of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, the two countries were embroiled in another dispute at the beginning of 2008. Russia’s closure of two regional offices of the British Council in St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg plunged the countries’ relations to a “freezing point.” Why did their diplomatic conflict escalate within just a few months? Apart from domestic political factors, there are a number of underlying reasons.
Rising power
Russia’s high-profile emergence has enabled it to be more assertive when dealing with its relations with Britain. In the 1990s when the country was mired in a political and economic crisis, Russia sought to coexist peacefully with Western countries in a humble manner. Although it handled foreign affairs in light of its national interests, more often than not it had to compromise its status as a major power and echo Western views. Given its recovery in recent years, Russia has gained the economic clout to challenge the Western world represented by the United States and Britain.
Russia’s recovery is exemplified by its improving macroeconomic landscape and soaring fiscal revenue. Russia joined the ranks of major economic powers as its gross domestic product (GDP) exceeded $1.23 trillion in 2007. Its per-capita GDP is projected to surpass $10,000 by 2015, making it an undisputable world economic power. In sharp contrast to the financial difficulties it suffered in the 1990s, Russia has seen its fiscal surplus grow remarkably in recent years thanks to the increase in its petrodollars. The country’s debts as percentage of GDP plummeted from 140 percent in 1998 to some 9 percent in 2007. Its gold and foreign exchange reserves had amounted to $476.4 billion by the end of 2007, an increase of $172.7 billion, or 58.6 percent, from the previous year’s $303.7 billion. Russia’s gold and foreign exchange reserves currently rank third in the world only after China and Japan. The Russian Government’s stabilization fund stood at 2.3 trillion rubles (approximately $86 billion) at the end of 2006, accounting for 8.5 percent of the country’s GDP. By the end of 2007, the fund had reached 3.8 trillion rubles (approximately $154 billion), representing an increase of nearly 64 percent.
As its economy revs up, Russia, a country that always celebrates power in diplomatic affairs, has regained confidence. It no longer wants to be a follower of the West but has begun to act independently in defiance through a series of major international actions. Without a doubt, Russia’s hard-line stance on the persistent Russia-Britain diplomatic conflict sparked by the poisoning of Litvinenko has much to do with its national rejuvenation. Litvinenko was a former Russian agent who lived in exile in Britain. He suddenly fell ill in November 2006 and died three weeks later, found to be a rare victim of lethal polonium radiation poisoning. Because he revealed some alleged misdeeds by Russia’s Federal Security Service in books he had written, it was widely speculated that the Russian Government was behind his death. In July 2007, Russia declined an official request from Britain for the extradition of former Russian agent Andrei Lugovoi, who Britain believed to be the chief suspect in Litvinenko’s poisoning.
Tactical clashes
Russia and the West have long been haunted by deep-seated strategic conflicts. The recent Russia-Britain disputes took place against a complicated background. There is reason to relate them to the chronic war of words between Russia and the United States in the first half of 2007 and their wrangling over the latter’s establishment of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. It may be said that the Russia-Britain conflict is part of Russia’s longstanding struggle against Western containment and an inevitable result of the deep-seated strategic clashes between Russia and the West. Western countries have never ceased their efforts to contain Russia. It has long been their constant strategic goal to keep Russia “weak but not chaotic” by adopting an approach of “cautious cooperation.” They have grown even more cautious about Russia in recent years, given the country’s rapid development. The United States not only fueled “color revolutions” in member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), but also invited Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO while ignoring the fact that the CIS is part of Russia’s sphere of influence.
After it penetrated Central Asia in the name of fighting terrorism following the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States put forth a “Greater Central Asia” plan in 2006. Under the plan, it had tried to create a southward passage for energy, transportation and communications to link Central Asia to South Asia and compel Central Asian countries to break away from Russian control. In terms of European security, NATO is shaping a missile defense system to besiege Russia. It also announced in the first half of 2007 that it would deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. While encroaching upon Russia’s strategic space, the United States has directed harsh criticism against Russia’s domestic and foreign policies. It questioned the legitimacy of Russia’s “sovereign democracy,” saying it was a regressive notion from the perspectives of human rights and democracy. It also accused Russia of practicing “energy blackmail” against some CIS states. In an attempt to damage Russia’s national image, the West made every effort to demonize the country by using Litvinenko’s poisoning, calling Russia a “spy country.” British security agencies even claimed that Russia’s Federal Security Service was responsible for Litvinenko’s death.
Despite the decrease in its strategic space, Russia has been able to fight back in various ways. It carries out a two-pronged strategy toward the CIS. On the one hand, it has strengthened political and economic cooperation with pro-Russian countries, including Belarus, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, to cement its bonds with these countries. On the other hand, while exerting economic and political pressure on Ukraine and Georgia, it has warned these countries about the consequences of joining NATO. Russia also seeks to have a greater say on regional hot-spot issues. Regarding Hamas as an important political force in the Middle East, Russia underlines the importance of holding talks with this organization. On the Iranian nuclear issue, it firmly opposes the use of force against Iran and calls on Iran and the United States to pursue a political and diplomatic solution to their disputes. It has proposed that Iran relocate its uranium enrichment to Russia to allay Western fears of the technology being diverted to making nuclear weapons. On the status of Kosovo, Russia stands against the U.S.-backed proposal by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, which calls for the independence of Kosovo and is opposed to the submission of the proposal to the UN Security Council. It insists that UN resolutions on Kosovo’s future status should be recognized by Serbia.
Moreover, Russia has defied the United States openly. At the Munich Conference on Security Policy in February 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States of imposing its policies in various fields on other nations. In his World War II Victory Day speech on May 9, Putin drew parallels between America’s diplomatic policy and the expansionism practiced by Nazi Germany. On July 14, he signed a presidential order to suspend the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Analysts considered these moves as Moscow’s responses to Washington’s unrelenting attempts to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. With its rising power, Russia is challenging the international order dominated by Western powers led by the United States. Western countries, however, have refused to drop their containment policy toward Russia. The frequent diplomatic disputes between Russia and Britain are testaments to this irreconcilable contradiction.
Tightening its reins
Russia punished the British Council as an example for other foreign NGOs attempting to infiltrate the country. NGOs have enjoyed rapid development in Russia along with the country’s social, economic and political transition since the disintegration of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. Russia currently has more than 600 independent Western NGOs. These organizations have become a major social force exerting a significant influence on Russia’s economic transition and the rebuilding of its social structure. Despite their positive role in promoting democracy and shaping a market economy in Russia, their negative impact has become increasingly pronounced. Some hostile Western NGOs have tried to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs or have carried out other activities to undermine the Russian Government. They have posed a threat to Russia’s national security and stability with their attempts to change Russia according to Western standards.
To prevent Western NGOs from pushing for a “color revolution” in Russia, the country has tightened its management of these organizations by introducing stricter laws for them. The State Duma, or the lower house of Russia’s parliament, adopted a new bill in November 2005, demanding the re-registration of all NGOs in Russia. It also authorized government agencies to scrutinize the activities and financial states of NGOs based in the country. Any breaches of the law would result in the abolition of an organization. If found to be engaged in activities not specified in their registered charters, the NGOs would be immediately banned by the authorities. These measures have made it difficult for Western NGOs to operate in Russia.
The British Council, founded in 1934, has nearly 200 offices in 109 countries and regions across the world. The cultural body is one of the world renowned NGOs that entered Russia following the disintergration of the Soviet Union. The British Council, a semi-official organization backed by Britain’s foreign office, has seen its presence decline in Russia since the end of 2005. By the end of 2007, it had had only three offices left in the country. By shutting down two of these offices, with the office in Moscow being the only exception, the Russian Government obviously intended to warn NGOs from other countries not to challenge it or the country’s national interests.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)



Israel’s moral compass is flawed
Linda Heard

ISRAELI Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he doesn’t want lessons in morality. He’s right. He and his Cabinet are a lost cause on that front. Any attempts to appeal to their sense of right and wrong would be akin to pouring mineral water onto stones hoping for flowers. The world had condemned Israel’s callous treatment of Gaza, where 1.5 million souls are imprisoned, starved, humiliated and subject to being picked off at whim, yet the Israeli government remains impervious to criticism. Over the past days, over 100 Palestinians have been slaughtered by Israel’s war machine; at least half were civilians and children. Israel says it is targeting workshops where homemade rockets are put together. Who would have thought so many women and toddlers would be working away in such places.
They’re not, of course. If Israel knew where those workshops were, the rockets headed in Israel’s direction would have been stopped long ago. No, this was a brutal exercise in collective punishment. They knew that innocents would die and they went ahead anyway. Here’s the proof. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak yesterday sought advice from governmental and military authorities as to the legality of targeting civilian-populated areas. Anyone blessed with even a rudimentary set of morals would know in their heart that murdering babies is wrong and wouldn’t need to consult an army of lawyers. No, Israel doesn’t need lessons in morality. It’s evident they would be a complete waste of time. Its own deputy defense minister threatened to inflict a holocaust on Gaza. He eventually had to apologize; not to Palestinians, by the way, but to Israelis upset by his use of the term exclusively reserved for the genocide of Jews in World War II.
Last week, on this page, I wrote about mandatory Holocaust education in British and French schools, organized school trips to Auschwitz and the French president’s scheme whereby French 10-year-olds would forge a personal link with a Holocaust victim of his own age. I quoted President Sarkozy as saying, “Nothing is more moving for a child than the story of a child his own age, who has the same games, the same joys and the same hopes as he, but who, at the dawn of the 1940s had the bad fortune to be defined as a Jew”. Wouldn’t it be equally as moving for a child to learn about a living child, who would love to have the same games and experience the same hopes as he, but who, today, has the bad fortune to be defined as a Gazan?
But Western compassion is selective. It is framed at state levels by individuals who would prefer to eulogize those whose lives were cruelly cut short over half-a-century ago than people dying now whose only crime is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And it is framed by a media that gladly floods their broadcasts with gruesome historic pictures and films of Nazi death camp inmates, yet shirks from showing viewers the ashen faces of dead Palestinian children lying on cold mortuary slabs — naturally, to avoid upsetting viewers.
Britain’s Sky News, for instance, spent days giving almost blanket coverage to Prince Harry’s homecoming, virtually ignoring the real story. Fox News is doing a good job in its role as Republican propaganda machine dissecting every aspect of the various presidential hopefuls down to their facial expressions. Gaza, it seems, is barely worth the odd fleeting snippet. To be fair, many Arab-run networks are similarly squeamish. Or have they been told not to stir public emotions? Throughout the past days I’ve been satellite-hopping. To my dismay, only three Arabic-language channels have focused their coverage on the tragedy unfolding in Gaza outside of scheduled news broadcasts.
Governments that exercise control or influence media to keep such horrors from permeating the homes of ordinary people are shrewd. They know full well that most ordinary folks operate under a moral code and would be outraged to see the suffering and carnage perpetrated by Israel in the Middle East. Rather than risking inciting the public with the ugly truth, the media feeds us with the crude antics of Britney or Paris, Oscar ceremonies, ball games, music videos or the minutiae of an investigation into a missing blond-haired five-year-old. Ponder on the morality of the media-inspired public response to Madeleine McCann as opposed to Gaza’s maimed and orphaned babies. According to the British newspaper Independent, there were 465 stories about her in the British press, the family received 1.1m pounds in public donations, while a host of celebrities — including Simon Cowell, Sir Richard Branson and J.K. Rowling — offered rewards totaling 2.6m pounds.
Remember the extensive media coverage, reserved for captured Israeli soldiers, which encompassed every detail of their personal lives? How many of you are familiar with the name Gilad Shalit? How many of you know the name of even one dead Gazan child? Perhaps we all need to search our consciences when it comes to fundamental questions of morality when a living Israeli soldier is worth more airtime than dozens of Palestinian children enduring the kind of suffering most of us can’t even imagine; day after day, year after year. Unless we fight to retain the part of us that makes us human, we might as well give in to the laws of the jungle: Dog eat dog, might is right. As I write, members of the UN are arguing over the wording of a resolution proposed by Libya. Arab states want a strong condemnation of Israel’s strikes on Gaza. The usual suspects, the US and Britain, are demanding a watered-down version heaping most of the blame on the Palestinians.

—Arab News



Let the healing process begin
Joyce Njeri

AFTER two months of gloom and foreboding, the sun can once again smile in a country whose capital was once known as ‘the beautiful green city in the sun.’ And for the umpteenth time, the international glare was on Kenya, but this time for good reasons. Following intense diplomacy, frank, candid and soul-searching discussion of the Kenyan political crisis by chief mediator Kofi Annan and Tanzanian President Kakaya Kikwete, the two top protagonists — President Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga — agreed to form a coalition system that would see the opposition sharing power with the government. How this would happen I do not know, but one Kenyan interviewed by BBC summed it up well. ‘They’re like two kings sharing one power — that can never happen. You cannot have two husbands for one woman in one house.’ A power-sharing system in which the perennial rivals are deeply suspicious of each other is difficult enough to manage. With the agreement signed, Kenyans finally got the breakthrough they had been praying for in the two months since violence broke out after the disputed December presidential elections. It would be a real tragedy and betrayal if an agreement that holds so much hope for the restoration of peace and stability was to be sabotaged by anyone.
The deal procured by Annan saw the creation of the position of a prime minister and his deputies, who will exercise some authority on government. Of course the automatic holder of this new post would be Raila, while some of his party MPs will also be given cabinet positions. In a nutshell, the agreement allows for a coalition and creation of an office of prime minister who will exercise considerable powers coordinating the functions of a unitary government, but the PM’s post will not take away executive powers that President Kibaki enjoys in the constitution. The PM will not be a mere presidential appointee but will come from the party holding a majority in parliament, in this case, suggesting Raila’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). Given the country’s current hostile situation, this arrangement looks like the best option, but it can only be of a temporary nature to create room for comprehensive constitutional reforms and fresh elections. Of course, an election cannot take place until there is an adequate cooling-off period, peace is restored, and the necessary constitutional and administrative reforms are enacted. And with the Tenth Parliament set for re-opening tomorrow, it would be interesting to see a House without Official Opposition side. Worse still, outside of parliament, it would also be interesting to see how the policy implementation arm of government, the civil service, would execute duties with key officials loyal to different political camps.

—Khaleej Times