T
he world has certainly come a long way from the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960’s when the United States and the then Soviet Union were on the brink of war and nuclear annihilation. Thankfully the threat of a mutually destructive war between the two sides is now a thing of the past. However tensions continue to linger between the two former adversaries despite the fact that Soviet bloc collapsed over two decades ago and the new Russia is no longer committed to Marxist-Leninism but to the basic tenets of capitalism. It has, in fact, emerged as one of the most thriving economic powers in the world. Despite the growing tensions in recent months over a number of contentious issues, both sides have tried to appear as though they are fully able to manage the stress on their post-Soviet relationship. At a recent press conference in Washington, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry compared the tensions between the two sides to occasional bumps in a game of hockey. ‘Sergei Lavrov and I are old hockey players and we both know that diplomacy, like hockey, can sometimes result in the occasional collision, so we’re candid, very candid, about the areas in which we agree, but also the areas in which we disagree, ’ Kerry said. Kerry attempted to smooth things over, claiming that Washington and Moscow were trying to reach a common ground on such areas as Syria and missile defence. Also present at the press conference were Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel and Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoygu. The press conference was held only two days after US President Barack Obama cancelled his planned summit meeting in Moscow with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, in what many described as a ‘high profile snub’. It is the first time in decades that an American leader has called off such a trip. Obama will not even meet with Mr. Putin on the sidelines of the G-20
26
gathering in September in Russia. It should not come as a surprise that Obama has cancelled the meeting. He does not have a good memory of their last meeting in June 2012 on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland, when they both appeared before the press and the atmosphere was so thick, you could cut it with a knife.
End of Rapprochement Following the September 11th attack on New York and Washington, there emerged a short-lived sense of camaraderie between the two world powers, with Moscow claiming that it understands America’s pain because it had dealt with similar attacks by Chechen separatists. Russia actually gave the United States a gift to memorialise the victims of the 9/11 attacks and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing. The gift was a sculpture called ‘To the Struggle Against World Terrorism’ which has been installed in the city of Bayonne, New Jersey. It is a 100-foot (30 m) tower made of steel and coated in bronze. The monument was unveiled on September 11, 2006 in a ceremony attended by former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Putin who was at the time serving as Russia’s premier. But tensions have emerged in the ties not only because of Cold War style rivalry in the Middle East over the fate of the government in Damascus, but also over temporary asylum granted to the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. Throughout the whole Snowden affair, while Russia’s approach has been to avoid escalating tensions, the U.S. approach has included using rather inflammatory language in the insistence that Russia returns the NSA whistleblower. While Putin said Snowden could stay in Russia if he agreed to stop releasing further leaks, he also said that he did not want anything to harm ‘our American partner’. But statement after statement
from the United States showed that the art of diplomacy was a rare commodity in Washington and uncommunicative stone-age brutes are ruling the roost.
Condescending Attitude At the same time the mainstream US media has shown a condescending attitude in its coverage of Russia. In recent months, a massive media campaign has been underway to depict Russia as a backward country, not worthy of its world stature and not even worthy of holding international athletic events. Russia is considered a land of ‘oligarchs’. Yes, the American right wingers say, Russians have become capitalists, but they are still afflicted with ‘oligarchy’. (The critics in the States should take a good look at U.S. economy where the richest 1% of the American population owns 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% own 50.5%) Disproportionate coverage is given to any negative or controversial news from Russia. First there was the sacrilegious activities of a certain feminist punk rock band considered by most Russians as a bunch of lunatics who decided to profane a church in Russia. After their arrest, for days on end, you could hear or watch on the UK and US radio and TV, the hullabaloo of how these talentless ‘artists’ were being persecuted in Russia. Recently the Western media went totally agog over Alexei Navalny, a critic of Putin and a contender in Moscow’s mayoral race. The trial of Navalny on charges of embezzlement received such prominence that one might be justified in asking if he was a close friend of agenda setters in the Western media. An ignoramus in the British press who could not curb his enthusiasm called the recent newcomer to Russian politics ‘Russia’s Mandela’. Navalny may well be a good honest critic of the Russian establishment but the same media hardly notices other critics who engage in criticising pro-American establishments. Most recently the world noticed a well-
orchestrated campaign against Russia for its alleged persecution of homosexuals. The gay activists in Western capitals were upset about a new Russian law that bans pro-gay propaganda to minors. The campaigners, who received plenty of airtime on Western television channels, demanded a boycott of the upcoming Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics.
Not quick on the uptake In this conflict, it appears that while the United States seems to have forgotten its bitter lesson from decades of misadventure in the Middle East, Russia has moved on from its Soviet era mindset. Russia’s support for Syria remains nuanced, whereas the American support for the Free Syrian Army and the rebels is rather gung ho, even ignoring the long-term interests of the United States. (After all, the rise of al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra in the Syrian conflict is against America’s stated goal of crushing al-Qaeda and its allies…) Tell Washington pundits, for instance, that rebels have added beheading, rape, and cutting out and eating the hearts of an enemy combatant to their repertoire of atrocities, and they just don’t want to hear about it. Tell them that the rebels have killed over 400 Kurds in northern Syria and taking scores of Kurds as hostages and they just turn a deaf ear. But tell them that you have a scoop on an atrocity committed by Assad’s forces, and you will not only be listened to, but also feted and given plenty of column inches or airtime. To be sure, Russia has its own skeletons in the closet. Moscow sided with Belgrade while the genocide in Bosnia was underway and had its own killing fields in Chechnya more than a decade ago and these memories are still fresh for Muslims all over the globe. The collision of these two titans should not come as a surprise to anyone. The fact remains that the US-Russian relationship started out on a collision course on the day the Syrian crisis began.
Washington is adamant on arming the rebels, even though it dithers over what it will provide and which of the multitudinous factions will receive anything. Russia meanwhile fears loss of historic influence in the region which the fall of Assad would potentially bring, not to mention its Mediterranean naval base in Tartus. One of the aims of U.S. involvement in the Middle East is to appease and protect its principal Arab client states, especially the Gulf monarchies headed by Saudi Arabia. There is a strange symbiotic relationship at work. Both sides need each other. The unelected monarchies need the United States for their protection and Washington needs and relies on them for the flow of oil. This is despite the fact that these monarchies are quite ‘fundamentalist’ in their approach to Islam, an approach that Washington pundits have always abhorred in other Muslims, especially if they appear to be critical of U.S. policies. A case in point is the recent bloody crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood by Egyptian putchists which has not been sufficiently condemned by officials in Washington. The Brotherhood consists of the other -unobliging - type of fundamentalists who are undeserving of sympathy. The explanation for this apparent condition is that the policies continue to be defined by Realpolitik and not by morality. The U.S. sees the Middle East as a game of chess in which the ultimate goal is to ensure the constant flow of oil, bring about absolute security for Israel and maximum pain and insecurity for independent forces such as Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. •
Masoud Tehrani is a London based journalist who writes on the dynamics of the Islamic world.
27