Reuters latest headline(March-07-06 12:50 PST) is "Rice, Lavrov expose widening U.S.-Russia rift". The story talks about how the U.S. and Russia are supposedly deeply divided over how to engage the Middle East, because the Kremlin invited Hamas leaders to Moscow and has offered to enrich Iran's uranium in Russian reactors.
Russia's diplomatic moves on Iran and Hamas come amid rising strains over what Washington sees as President Vladimir Putin's increasing grip on power, one that belies his status as chair of July's summit of the Group of Eight industrialized democracies.On Tuesday, Rice and Lavrov stood stiffly and at one point the Russian had to reassure Rice, a former Soviet specialist, he had not planted a question from a Russian journalist about trade. "You confirm that you did not (plant it), right?" said Rice, who has complained about the erosion of media freedoms under Putin. That sense of suspicion contrasted with the early days of Bush's presidency when Bush said he trusted Putin after looking into his soul.
While it is unfortunate to see Rice and Lavrov sparring in front of the cameras, once you get past the hype to substance, these apparent differences seem trivial. Hamas, as we've reported here at Russia Blog, received nothing but headlines in Moscow, and its representatives were humiliated. The Kremlin repeated the U.S. position that Hamas must renounce terrorism and enter negotiations with Israel. We've also reported at Russia Blog that Iran has consistently rejected Russia's offer to peacefully enrich uranium at facilities open to international inspectors, which is why Lavrov responded to a reporter's question by saying that the proposal had never been formalized.
Unfortunately, Reuters is still confusing ("Russia denies Iran nuclear proposal" as of 2:20 PST March 07-06) Western readers by making it sound like the Kremlin gave up on a peacemaking proposal to Iran because of Western (read: American) pressure. While this might bolster the notion of warmongering "neocons" still running the Bush Administration, the fact is, Iran's rulers rejected the deal, because they are hellbent on building nuclear weapons as soon as possible.
While the Reuters piece simply reflects the hangover for the mainstream media from the runup to the invasion of Iraq, Richard Pipes piece from March 1st in the Wall Street Journal, "Why the Bear Growls", is emblematic of a deeper problem in how the West views Russia.
Why do the Russians still give us trouble even though the Cold War has long ended? Why do they invite the terrorist Hamas leaders to Moscow? Why do they cut off the natural gas to Ukraine and thereby sharply reduce its flow to Western Europe? Why do they harass foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs), accusing them of espionage and incitement to revolution? Why do they carry out joint military exercises with the Chinese, clearly aimed at Taiwan?
Here at Russia Blog we have tried to answer all of these questions. First, Pipes is correct that Cold War views linger among the Russian people, according to opinion polling. However, Gazprom cut off Ukraine's natural gas pipelines mainly because Ukrainian officials were stealing gas and expecting to buy it at rates far cheaper than what Western Europeans pay. The Duma passed the law excessively restricting NGOs because the majority of Russian non-profits are fronts for money laundering, though many continue to do humanitarian work in spite of the new regulations. Finally, Pipes knows that the balance of power between Russia and China has shifted drastically since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow feels little choice but to appease Beijing as the Chinese mass migrate into Siberia.
Compared to most of the articles on this blog, this one seems much weaker.
Defending Kremlin on the Ukranian gas problem by blaming the Ukranians is silly. Even if the allegations of theft are true, it doesn't excuse the blackmail that Putin resorted to. Two wrongs don't make a right, and to me and most people in the West, the wrong of stealing gas is much less than the wrong of cutting it off. Besides, after Putin's congratulations to Yanukovich, the "theft" explanation can't be taken seriously.
With the NGOs, again, suppose your allegations are true - I personally think they are. In this case, there are two ways of dealing with this: one is to do what Putin did, and the other is to enforce the law. If the authorities are so sure that money laundering takes place, why don't they prosecute it? It's not like burden of proof is much of a concern in Russia.
I agree with this blog's authors that Putin's persona has been vilified too much in the West - especially compared to Yeltsin's who was no less authoritarian than VVP.
However, when you complain about "war-mongering neocons running the Bush administration" - ironically, to make the same point about Iran that the war-mongers have been making - you lose credibility. When you dismiss the significance of the Hamas invitation to Moscow by pointing out the questionable fact of Hamas "humiliation", Americans won't take you seriously, because the detals of the visit can't compare in significance with the fact that they were invited in the first place. Trying to make such a comparison seems like whitewashing to me, and doesn' add to your credibility.
Ivan, I did not phrase that sentence so well (I have changed it), but I was clearly criticizing Reuters coverage for giving a misleading impression to readers not familiar with Iran's persistent rejection of the Russian proposal (making it seem as if the bad Bush Administration were shooting down a peace gesture rather than recognizing reality jointly with the Russians).
We are definitely not here to defend Putin - see some of our first posts on this blog from last year critcizing him severely. The Duma NGOs law went too far and we hope to see it changed.
As for Hamas, as we say, look at money and actions, not just words and symbolic visits. The EU may officially be shunning Hamas leaders but is set to open up the cash spigots, while Russia to my knowledge hasn't given them a dime. The Russian Foreign Ministry shrewdly created suspicion between Hamas leaders and their Chechen "brothers", although I don't think they expected to be shamed by the Israelis into taking a tougher line than they had planned.
Thanks for reading and the critique.
You're welcome, Charlie, and thank you for the thought-provoking analysis and the clarification - I did misunderstnad you.
Your point about the money for Hamas is a very good one. Both Europeans and Americans continue giving money to Islamists, whether it be Hamas or the Egyptians, and that makes our govt's critique of the Russian invitation to Hamas unpursuasive. However, it's not our gov't that makes us unhappy about the visit - it's the actual visit. I'm not sure if it created suspicion between Hamas and Chechen leaders. In the West, it surely created a lot of suspicion towards Russia. Is that what the Kremlin wants? It does seem that way to many people.
Thanks for your reply, I look forward to reading more of your work.
Ivan:
I checked out yo site.
You're a trip mon.
As for Russia Blog, this is a very eclectic venue which invites a wide range of views.
Gotta love it.
I appear to be the resident Putinist. Not that this keeps me from constructively criticizing issues linked to him.