Russia's position on Libya: Trying to have it both ways
Guest post by Dmitry Gorenburg
Dmitry Gorenburg is a senior analyst at CNA's Center for Strategic
Studies, the editor of the journal Russian Politics & Law, and an associate at Harvard University's Davis Center
for Russian and Eurasian Studies. From 2005 to 2010, he served as
Executive Director of the American Association for the Advancement of
Slavic Studies (AAASS). He has taught in the Department of Government at
Harvard University and has served as a consultant on Russian military
and security issues for various agencies of the U.S. government and on
ethnic and minority issues for the European Center for Minority Issues. In addition, he writes the blog Russian Military Reform.
**********
The Russian Government surprised many observers by
going along with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized
international enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. Russia was
initially expected to veto the resolution. Instead, Russia chose to
abstain in order to ensure the protection of civilians, while its
ambassador to the United Nations made statements expressing concern
about how the resolution would be implemented.
In
recent years, Russia has had close trade relations with the Libyan
Government. In particular, it has signed billions of dollars worth of
arms contracts with the regime of Muammar Qaddafi. This is the context
that partially explains the removal of Vladimir Chamov, Russia's
ambassador to Libya, after he sent a telegram to Moscow arguing that
allowing the U.N. resolution to pass would represent a betrayal of
Russia's state interests. Chamov has since returned to Moscow, where he
has publicly spoken out against the implementation of the no-fly zone.
Soon
after the vote, Russia's attitude toward the no-fly zone unexpectedly
became a factor in Russian domestic politics. Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin's statement on March 21 criticized the U.N. for getting
involved in an internal conflict. In the most controversial part of his
remarks, Putin argued that the resolution allowed international forces
to take virtually any measures against a sovereign state, and in this he
said it resembled medieval calls to crusades, "when someone called on
others to go to a certain place and liberate it."
The
response from President Dmitry Medvedev was almost immediate. He argued
that Russia's abstention on the resolution vote was the proper
position. Furthermore, he dressed down Putin (though not by name) by
saying, "[u]nder no circumstances is it acceptable to use expressions that
essentially lead to a clash of civilizations, such as 'crusades' and so
on. It is unacceptable. Otherwise, everything may end up much worse
than what is going on now. Everyone should remember that." And he
removed Chamov from his position, essentially for public
insubordination. Putin came out the next day with a statement indicating
that the president is responsible for foreign policy in Russia and that
he backed his president's policies. A spokesman indicated that Putin's
previous statement was simply an indication of his own personal views
rather than an official policy statement.
It
may be that this conflict was yet another example of the good cop-bad
cop show that the Russian leadership tandem has been putting on for the
last three years. Or it may be that this is the first serious indication that Medvedev and Putin are engaged in a serious behind-the-scenes tussle for the right to run for president in 2012.
Why
do Russian politicians see this conflict the way they do? Their
inconsistent positions on Libya are essentially a case of wanting to
have their cake and eat it too. Russian leaders decided not to veto
Resolution 1973 for two reasons. First, they did not want to alienate
Western leaders who were pushing for the intervention. While the
rapprochement with the United States is important to them and certainly
played a role here, we should also remember the importance of Russian
political and economic ties with European states, and especially France
and Italy, both of whom were strongly in favor of a no-fly zone because
of the potential for a humanitarian and refugee disaster in the event of
an attack by Qaddafi's forces on Benghazi. Second, Russian leaders did
not want to be blamed for blocking the intervention if the result was a
large-scale massacre of civilians.
On
the other hand, Russian leaders also did not want to create a new norm
of international intervention in internal conflicts, particularly when
these conflicts were the result of a popular uprising against an
authoritarian ruler. They genuinely dislike what they see as a Western
predilection for imposing their values and forms of government on other
parts of the world. They remember the color revolutions in Serbia,
the Ukraine, and Georgia, in which friendly regimes were replaced by ones
that were to a greater or lesser extent anti-Russian.
Furthermore,
they believe that these popular protest movements were organized and
funded by Western governments, particularly the United States. This
creates a certain amount of suspicion of similar protests leading to the
removal of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa,
even when the deposed rulers do not have particularly close ties to
Russia.
So Russian
leaders are understandably nervous about the coalition's rather
expansive interpretation of Resolution 1973. They were willing to allow
for the establishment of a no-fly zone in order to avert a likely
massacre of civilians and to help their European partners avoid a flood
of refugees on their soil. They are much less willing to see NATO forces
provide military assistance to a popular uprising against an
authoritarian ruler that it has traditionally supported.
If
this conflict drags on, Russian leaders will increasingly begin to
speak out against the military campaign. They will be especially
concerned if it becomes increasingly clear that NATO air strikes are
targeting Qaddafi's ground forces rather than limiting themselves to
preventing Libyan air forces from targeting civilian areas.
Labels: Dmitry Medvedev, Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Russia, United Nations, Vladimir Putin
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home