Russia Oppresses Its Libya
Published in Kommersant Gazeta
(Russia) on 21 March 2011
by Alexander Gabuev and Vladimir Solovyov (link to
original)
In the conflict between Moammar Gadhafi and the West, Moscow has occupied the position of interested observer.
At the beginning of the military operation against Libya, the United States was able not only to enlist the support of the majority of NATO allies, but also to get the good-willed neutrality of Russia and China. Moreover, according to Kommersant, initially Moscow did not rule out the possibility of voting for the United Nations Security Council resolution, opening the way for military action, but ultimately decided to abstain. In fact, the day before the operation began, Russian Federation Ambassador to Libya Vladimir Chamov was dismissed. As Kommersant ascertained, he supported Gadhafi until the very end. Such an approach allows Russia to solve two problems: to strengthen relations with the West and to preserve its assets in Libya after the removal of the dictator.
Coalition of Bad Will
When planning the operation against Moammar Gadhafi, the U.S. took into account the negative experience gained in the overthrow of another Arab dictator, Saddam Hussein. Exactly eight years ago, on March 19, 2003, Washington began military action against Iraq without having obtained the permission of the U.N. Security Council and relying on the help of only three allies: Great Britain, Australia and Poland. This provoked an outburst of indignation throughout the world and, despite the quick defeat of the Iraqi army, severely undermined the ultimate success of the campaign.
This time, Washington made it clear from the very beginning that it would not fly solo in the case of military action against Gadhafi. In conclusion to a March 9 meeting, in which Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and CIA Director Leon Panetta participated, the U.S. National Security Council Principals Committee recommended to President Barack Obama abstaining from military operations until the U.N. and NATO articulate a coherent position.
Then it seemed that a cross had been placed on top of the option to forcefully remove the Libyan dictator from power: To imagine that Russia and China — each possessing veto power on the U.N. Security Council — would not block the resolution opening the way to military operations was difficult. However, that is how it ultimately played out: By abstaining from voting on Resolution 1973, Moscow and Beijing for all intents and purposes agreed to the execution of military operations.
In this way, differing from the situation eight years ago, Washington immediately was able to begin the operation with many allies and a mandate from the U.N. More importantly, after yesterday’s NATO meeting in Brussels, at which the alliance supported the U.S. and partners’ action, the campaign against Moammar Gadhafi began to resemble more and more the operation against Yugoslavian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic. For the U.S., the situation is even more fortunate than in 1999 — then in the world there was an obvious camp of displeased Russian leaders. This time, Moscow did not place any obstacles in the way of beginning this operation.
Passive Opposition
It must be said that it is not easy for Russia to take this position. According to Kommersant, several options for action were being discussed in Moscow while the West was actively preparing for military intervention in Libya. As Kommersant sources confirm, Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev at some point was even inclined to support the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had discussed the advisability to employ the veto and block the resolution. In the end, a compromise was reached, and a decision to abstain was accepted.
In the Kremlin, however, such inconsistencies are denied. “Our position was consistent from the very beginning and remains such even now. We condemned and do condemn Gadhafi’s perpetrations against a peaceful population. And on this score there are no discrepancies with the West,” stated Natalia Timakova, press secretary for the Russian president. “The politics of Gadhafi contradict all conceivable international norms, and namely for this reason, we supported sanctions against Libya and the colonel’s family.”
This position, clearly, was decisive in the Russian government’s decision not to veto Resolution 1973. Indeed, Moscow did not support the document, insofar as Moscow was opposed to the scenario that is currently unfolding in Libya. “On one hand, our measure of the Libyan regime has not changed. And on the other hand, we do not welcome a military solution to these problems,” said a Kommersant source from the Russian president’s administration in explanation of the position of the Russian Federation. “Questions arose for us and for Germany, which also abstained from voting. How far should the operation go, and what will happen next? What’s the Libyan opposition like, for which Western countries are willing to go to bat? Neither the Germans nor we have heard answers to these questions.”
It is curious that Russian Ambassador to Tripoli Vladimir Chamov was dismissed on the eve of the U.N. vote. Moreover, according to Kommersant, the question of his dismissal was decided not in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but in the Kremlin, where the diplomat’s actions were considered inadequate for the situation. “Instead of defending his country’s interests in the conflict — the reason why he was sent there — the ambassador relayed the interests of another government: Libya’s,” said a resentful Kommersant source who is familiar with the motives for accepting this personnel decision.
The ambassador seemingly suffered because he forgot about the international political policy, which Dmitry Medvedev gave Russian diplomats at a conference with the diplomatic corps in July of last year. Then explaining the importance of developing democracy in Russia, Mr. Medvedev noted that Moscow “must promote the humanization of social systems around the world and especially at home.” “It is in the interests of Russian democracy for as many nations as possible to follow democratic standards in their domestic policy,” the president then said, stipulating that such standards “cannot be imposed unilaterally.” Moscow’s behavior, on the one hand condemning the Libyan leadership and on the other not supporting military intervention, fits into this difficult-to-implement scheme.
Silence is Black Gold
Yesterday, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs continued to oppose military operations. Thus, an announcement appeared on the ministry website, in which the ministry calls on the operation’s participants to “stop the non-selective use of force.” The ministry stated on Smolenskaya Square, “We strongly believe that it is unacceptable to use the mandate derived from U.N. SC Resolution 1973, the adoption of which was quite an ambiguous step, in order to achieve goals that go far beyond its provisions, which only provide for actions for the protection of civilians.”
In this way, Russia distanced itself from the negative consequences of the military operation in Libya, including civilian casualties (by the way, the People’s Republic of China made a very similar statement yesterday). Overall, however, the tactic chosen by Moscow allows her to retrieve dividends from the situation around Libya.
Several positive results are already apparent. First of all, the Libyan crisis allowed Moscow not only to not spoil its relationship with the West, but also to strengthen it. And this means that the operation to remove Moammar Gadhafi will not affect the “reset” of relations with the U.S. and will not disturb the recently improving partnership with the European Union and NATO under President Medvedev.
Besides not posing obstacles to the dictator’s removal, Russia has the right to count on the gratitude of the government that will come to power following Gadhafi’s likely fall. Moscow does not want to forfeit multibillion-dollar contracts that state corporations Rosoboronexport, Gazprom and Russian Railways signed with Tripoli during the colonel’s rule (see Kommersant reference: http://www.kommersant.ru/Doc/1605124). Moscow can duly count on an advantageous outcome; indeed, even in post-war Iraq, Russian companies still have some oil fields.
At the beginning of the military operation against Libya, the United States was able not only to enlist the support of the majority of NATO allies, but also to get the good-willed neutrality of Russia and China. Moreover, according to Kommersant, initially Moscow did not rule out the possibility of voting for the United Nations Security Council resolution, opening the way for military action, but ultimately decided to abstain. In fact, the day before the operation began, Russian Federation Ambassador to Libya Vladimir Chamov was dismissed. As Kommersant ascertained, he supported Gadhafi until the very end. Such an approach allows Russia to solve two problems: to strengthen relations with the West and to preserve its assets in Libya after the removal of the dictator.
Coalition of Bad Will
When planning the operation against Moammar Gadhafi, the U.S. took into account the negative experience gained in the overthrow of another Arab dictator, Saddam Hussein. Exactly eight years ago, on March 19, 2003, Washington began military action against Iraq without having obtained the permission of the U.N. Security Council and relying on the help of only three allies: Great Britain, Australia and Poland. This provoked an outburst of indignation throughout the world and, despite the quick defeat of the Iraqi army, severely undermined the ultimate success of the campaign.
This time, Washington made it clear from the very beginning that it would not fly solo in the case of military action against Gadhafi. In conclusion to a March 9 meeting, in which Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and CIA Director Leon Panetta participated, the U.S. National Security Council Principals Committee recommended to President Barack Obama abstaining from military operations until the U.N. and NATO articulate a coherent position.
Then it seemed that a cross had been placed on top of the option to forcefully remove the Libyan dictator from power: To imagine that Russia and China — each possessing veto power on the U.N. Security Council — would not block the resolution opening the way to military operations was difficult. However, that is how it ultimately played out: By abstaining from voting on Resolution 1973, Moscow and Beijing for all intents and purposes agreed to the execution of military operations.
In this way, differing from the situation eight years ago, Washington immediately was able to begin the operation with many allies and a mandate from the U.N. More importantly, after yesterday’s NATO meeting in Brussels, at which the alliance supported the U.S. and partners’ action, the campaign against Moammar Gadhafi began to resemble more and more the operation against Yugoslavian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic. For the U.S., the situation is even more fortunate than in 1999 — then in the world there was an obvious camp of displeased Russian leaders. This time, Moscow did not place any obstacles in the way of beginning this operation.
Passive Opposition
It must be said that it is not easy for Russia to take this position. According to Kommersant, several options for action were being discussed in Moscow while the West was actively preparing for military intervention in Libya. As Kommersant sources confirm, Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev at some point was even inclined to support the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had discussed the advisability to employ the veto and block the resolution. In the end, a compromise was reached, and a decision to abstain was accepted.
In the Kremlin, however, such inconsistencies are denied. “Our position was consistent from the very beginning and remains such even now. We condemned and do condemn Gadhafi’s perpetrations against a peaceful population. And on this score there are no discrepancies with the West,” stated Natalia Timakova, press secretary for the Russian president. “The politics of Gadhafi contradict all conceivable international norms, and namely for this reason, we supported sanctions against Libya and the colonel’s family.”
This position, clearly, was decisive in the Russian government’s decision not to veto Resolution 1973. Indeed, Moscow did not support the document, insofar as Moscow was opposed to the scenario that is currently unfolding in Libya. “On one hand, our measure of the Libyan regime has not changed. And on the other hand, we do not welcome a military solution to these problems,” said a Kommersant source from the Russian president’s administration in explanation of the position of the Russian Federation. “Questions arose for us and for Germany, which also abstained from voting. How far should the operation go, and what will happen next? What’s the Libyan opposition like, for which Western countries are willing to go to bat? Neither the Germans nor we have heard answers to these questions.”
It is curious that Russian Ambassador to Tripoli Vladimir Chamov was dismissed on the eve of the U.N. vote. Moreover, according to Kommersant, the question of his dismissal was decided not in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but in the Kremlin, where the diplomat’s actions were considered inadequate for the situation. “Instead of defending his country’s interests in the conflict — the reason why he was sent there — the ambassador relayed the interests of another government: Libya’s,” said a resentful Kommersant source who is familiar with the motives for accepting this personnel decision.
The ambassador seemingly suffered because he forgot about the international political policy, which Dmitry Medvedev gave Russian diplomats at a conference with the diplomatic corps in July of last year. Then explaining the importance of developing democracy in Russia, Mr. Medvedev noted that Moscow “must promote the humanization of social systems around the world and especially at home.” “It is in the interests of Russian democracy for as many nations as possible to follow democratic standards in their domestic policy,” the president then said, stipulating that such standards “cannot be imposed unilaterally.” Moscow’s behavior, on the one hand condemning the Libyan leadership and on the other not supporting military intervention, fits into this difficult-to-implement scheme.
Silence is Black Gold
Yesterday, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs continued to oppose military operations. Thus, an announcement appeared on the ministry website, in which the ministry calls on the operation’s participants to “stop the non-selective use of force.” The ministry stated on Smolenskaya Square, “We strongly believe that it is unacceptable to use the mandate derived from U.N. SC Resolution 1973, the adoption of which was quite an ambiguous step, in order to achieve goals that go far beyond its provisions, which only provide for actions for the protection of civilians.”
In this way, Russia distanced itself from the negative consequences of the military operation in Libya, including civilian casualties (by the way, the People’s Republic of China made a very similar statement yesterday). Overall, however, the tactic chosen by Moscow allows her to retrieve dividends from the situation around Libya.
Several positive results are already apparent. First of all, the Libyan crisis allowed Moscow not only to not spoil its relationship with the West, but also to strengthen it. And this means that the operation to remove Moammar Gadhafi will not affect the “reset” of relations with the U.S. and will not disturb the recently improving partnership with the European Union and NATO under President Medvedev.
Besides not posing obstacles to the dictator’s removal, Russia has the right to count on the gratitude of the government that will come to power following Gadhafi’s likely fall. Moscow does not want to forfeit multibillion-dollar contracts that state corporations Rosoboronexport, Gazprom and Russian Railways signed with Tripoli during the colonel’s rule (see Kommersant reference: http://www.kommersant.ru/Doc/1605124). Moscow can duly count on an advantageous outcome; indeed, even in post-war Iraq, Russian companies still have some oil fields.