Russia in Glasshouse

 

A: Mr. Sarkozy’s policy has been very successful so far. He has managed to avoid confrontation with Russia as a big global power and at the same time devise a mechanism to check Moscow despite its decisive operations against Georgia in the early stage. France has adopted a policy which could bring the Russians into the negotiation table and on at the same time avoid humiliation of the Georgians. So, as we see Sarkozy has been successful so far and is in control of a dossier he has opened.

In the next stage, he needs to manage the case. It seems that Sarkozy has reached some understanding with the Russians. It is unlikely for the French president not to have received some concessions from the Russians in return for his opposition to imposing sanctions on Moscow by part of the EU. This European management not to boycott Russia could not have occurred without some prior coordination and understanding with Moscow behind the scene. But in order to find out in what area this understanding has taken place, I think we should scrutinize the stance of Russia in the early days after Sarkozy’s first visit to Moscow. In those days, the clearest stance was taken in Vladimir Putin’s interview. After meeting with Sarkozy, the Russian prime minister in an interview commenting on Iran’s nuclear issue said: “Our national interests are prior to other issues and we will continue our cooperation with the West on the question of Iran.” This could be a sign and an assumption that Sarkozy and Putin had discussed Iran and reached some understanding on this issue.

 

A: It seems that Sarkozy’s statement in Damascus has a different point. He wants to show that France follows a dynamic and intelligent foreign policy. Before visiting Syria, Sarkozy announced at a summer seminar of French ambassadors that neither an Iranian bomb nor bombing Iran would be the West’s option to settle its dispute with Teheran.

Part of this stance is a warning to the international community by Sarkozy that Paris is opposed to war and would seriously avoid it. Concerning the phrase “Iranian bomb” coined by Jaques Chirac before, France seems to accelerate cooperation with the IAEA in view of Iran’s stances regarding its nuclear issue. For them, the endpoint of IRI’s cooperation with IAEA is the acceptance and endorsement of the Additional Protocol and they have set this as a condition in order to admit that Iran’s nuclear activities are peaceful. They have either kept a mysterious silence vis-à-vis what has been accomplished by Iran and verified by the IAEA so far or consider it insufficient. By repeating these words and reiterating these stances, they want to steer Iran in the direction they want. Of course, in justifying this policy they say their aim is to prevent wrong assumptions regarding the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

While in Damascus, Sarkozy unlike the past addressed a new country in his remarks. Perhaps it was for the first time that head of a European state so openly voiced concern over Israel’s aggressive goals. Over the past half a century, the Europeans and the Westerners have either supported the expansionist and irresponsible policies of the Qods occupier regime or have kept mum vis-à-vis these aggressions. But Sarkozy cautioned the international community that Israel is an irresponsible and adventure-seeking regime.

The importance of Sarkozy’s statement becomes clearer when we recall that Israel has adopted a more hostile stance against IRI and is issuing different threats against Tehran. For instance, (Israeli Transport Minister Shaul) Mofaz has said Israel intends to attack Iran. But after Sarkozy’s remarks, Shimon Peres (Israeli president) in his visit to Italy announced that he supported diplomacy and believes military option against Iran would be a mistake.

We should see what has made the head of a European state which houses the biggest Jewish minority in its soil to voice such open criticism against Israel’s irrational behaviors. Today, it is clear to the French and other Europeans that Israel is a concern for all the international community because both the people of the region as well as the Europeans have to pay for its uncontrollable behaviors. It can be concluded that France and other European states are tired of Tel Aviv’s irrationality.

This also shows that France has identified the opportunities and Sarkozy’s diplomacy is seeking to correct its mistakes over the past couple of years in following US policies without deep analyses. With this shift in policy, we should expect France to take its next steps towards European orientation vis-à-vis certain crucial international dossiers such as Iran, Drafur, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

 

A: We should first clarify Russia’s goals behind its military operations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is obvious that the operations were started due to a strategic blunder made by Georgian leader Saakashvili. As to where the order to Georgia came from is similar to what happened during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991. At that time, the American ambassador to Baghdad in a meeting with Saddam Hussein had said the United States would support him under any conditions. This gave Saddam the wrong impression that if he attacked Kuwait the international community would be behind him. The same occurred in Georgia. The Georgians launched the operations in Ossetia based on the green light they had received from the Americans.

Although the Russian response was crushing but it was defensive and Moscow had no calculated plans for attacking Georgia. Of course, Russia always exercised pressures to increase its influence in the Caucasus but military operations were not very much favorable for a country which itself has numerous autonomous republics and regions. Russia attracted 50 billion euros in foreign investment in the past year. This volume of investment shows that the Russian economy is very dynamic despite its high inflation. Russia wants to continue attraction of foreign investment as a stable country. It does not want to turn into a country with high investment risks as a result of possible sanctions and other problems. As a result, it can be said that Moscow did not essentially intend to use military tools in the regional crises. We should also admit that Russia, like many other countries, is sitting in a glasshouse and should not throw any stones outside. Russia has many autonomous regions itself.

In the meantime, Russia would try not to lose any points in this confrontation. Instead, it would seek to gain some opportunities and concessions. I do not agree with some analysts who believe Russia is heading towards a new cold war era. I think Moscow will follow the course of understanding with the West as a Russian tradition although this course would not be short and friendly.

The European Union too would weigh up its losses and gains and they don’t seem to be scared either. The EU knows that what happened in the Caucasus was a response to the Kosovo events. It was an equal action to maintain the balance in Europe and the Caucasus. The Europeans had made this calculation several years ago. It should also be noted that the extent of Europe’s playing with Russia is controllable due to their dependence on Russian energy. Therefore, they would never opt for confrontation with Russia. Europe still believes that Russia is an ally in the face of global crises.

Another point is that the crisis in the Caucasus alongside the high oil prices left an important impact on the European public opinion. The behavior of Russia and the rising oil prices came as a blessing for the European states seeking nuclear energy because it almost persuaded the people in these countries to support the policies of their governments in developing nuclear technology to overcome energy concerns. For instance, due to the extensive activities of the Greens and the Left in Germany, development of nuclear energy seemed to be impossible. But when they recall the Russian threats on gas supply they somehow come to think about legitimacy of using nuclear energy. This is a golden opportunity for part of Europe, like France, which owns the technology and wants to develop it.