|
|
 |
Seizing the Throne
// Moscow Steps into Washington's Power Vacuum in the Near East
The recent spark of diplomatic activity by Moscow in the Near East is unfolding against a backdrop of strikingly atypical passivity from America's diplomats, who seem to be running out of ideas about what to do with the region as this year draws to a close. Washington's last try to finally strike it lucky in the Near East was undertaken at the beginning of October, even though the region ranks number one among America's priorities. October was when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited the Near East in an attempt to create a coalition of moderate Arab regimes to help America oppose increasingly radical elements in Palestine and Lebanon and to be enlisted as an ally in the struggle against Iran and Syria. However, it is impossible to call Ms. Rice's mission a success. The idea didn't stir up much enthusiasm. And because anti-American moods were running high, Ms. Rice even had to pass on visiting friendly Lebanon entirely.
It's understandable why Arab leaders aren't flying to Washington. Moscow, however, is another matter. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who is seen as being backed by the US and the rest of the West, is coming to the Russian capital in search of support. In his wake, Moscow awaits a representative from the Near East of an entirely different political stripe: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. A curious pattern is beginning to emerge: although everyone talks about the necessity of collective efforts by the world's superpowers to achieve peaceful resolution the conflict, the weakening of Washington's position appears to be fortifying Moscow. Today's Near-Eastern geopolitics are being built on that compensatory function.
And it's not only today's geopolitics. We don't have to go too far back in time before we reach the international conference on the Near East that took place in Madrid in 1990, of which Moscow and Washington were co-sponsors. The equality of the two co-chairs was conditional right from the very beginning: throughout the 1990s, the dominant position was held by Washington, who was busy trying to make peace between the Israelis and the Arabs on its own. Moscow had to be content with the role of an extra on the stage.
However, now the positions are switched. The Near East, control over which was the cherished dream of Presidents Clinton and Bush, has slipped through America's fingers. And if events in Palestine and Lebanon are anything to judge by, America's chances of winning over the region have dwindled to practically nothing. Now it's the Moscow conference, not the Madrid conference, which barely anyone remembers anymore, that has everyone's attention. Just a little over 15 years later, history is repeating itself, with one difference: this time Russia is aiming to be at the center of Near-Eastern diplomacy, not at its periphery. In other words, to occupy the seat that belonged to America throughout the 1990s.
So what's in it for Moscow? The main thing is that by getting what America couldn't, Russia can sock away diplomatic capital that can be converted into hefty dividends on all levels of the relationship between Moscow and Washington. But beyond that it doesn't pay to get a swelled head: the Near East has long been accustomed to going its own way, without a "big brother" – whether American or Russian.
Sergey Strokan
All the Article in Russian as of Dec. 14, 2006
|
|
|
