Examination of the U.S. and Russia's positions at the U.N. General Assembly 71st session 2016: A regional perspective
Foreword
Thank you Dr. Magda Shaheen for taking a very good care to organize this event, and to invite, in collaboration, with GAPP, for such a timely, thought-provoking topic: Examination of the U.S. and Russia at the U.N. General Assembly: A regional perspective.
However, a word of caution (or a disclaimer) seems pertinent here. On my part, and I am also inclined to believe that Ambassador Magda shares my views that neither of us is speaking on behalf of the U.S. or Russia foreign policy establishments. These are our own private views.
We are only duty bound to exercise a thorough, objective, perusal, analysis and assessment of the positions of Russia and the U.S. at the U.N. General Assembly session, for good or for worse.
Now, without much ado, let me jump start our discussion this afternoon.
I. Some determining factors of Russian foreign policy and international positions (always, now and in the past).
· Russia perceives itself as a great power, by its territorial size, being one of the top ten global powers by size of its economy, reserves, exports of the key natural resources.
· In the 2nd decade of the 21st century, it is also perceiving itself as a state with global responsibilities and a record of global investments.
Text of Ambassador Reda Shehata's presentation as prepared
· The U.N. security council is obviously considered by Moscow as one of leading mechanisms of collective global governance, coordination of interests between major powers.
· Russia's official national security strategy until 2020 postulates that the United Nations S.C. is considered to be a central element of a stable system of international cooperation based on respect, equal rights, and mutually beneficial cooperation between states for resolving regional crises.
· Russia focuses heavily on the role of the Security Council in light of its permanent membership and the veto power it enjoys and which it actively uses to maintain its global role.
· Russia's status in the security council helped Moscow to maintain an independent, often active stand in shaping security council policy regarding most of crucial crises affecting international peace and security (in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria today).
· However, Russia plays a limited role providing personnel or financing for the U.N. peace operations in crisis areas and war ravaged regions.
· An important determining factor of Russian positions in the U.N. generally is the foreign policy concept of the Russian Federation since 2010 which stresses the role of the U.N. as the major organization regulating international relations and which possess a unique legitimacy.
· Indeed, the clue to interpret Moscow's great emphasis on U.N. mechanism and particularly the Security Council is the direct role the former Soviet Union played in the formulation of the U.N. charter, its purposes principles and articles. (since Moscow's conference in October 1943 of the allied states).
II. Now, what could be the perimeters of Russia's outlook to the U.N. security-related and political issues:-
They could be said to revolve around a few yet cardinal vectors:-
1. Multinational approach in global politics.
2. Collective engagement in addressing regional or global security challenges.
3. No duplication of the U.N. efforts through parallel platforms (which could serve political interests of certain states).
4. Centrality of the legal framework of the U.N. charter, rules of international law, implementation of UNGA, S.C, resolutions.
5. Compliance with U.N.S.C resolutions being the principal body discharging the responsibility for maintaining international peace and security (meaning divesting any legitimacy of foreign interference including military in internal affairs of other states).
6. No circumvention of the U.N. charter and no pressure on what is called "unwanted regimes or rogue states" (Syria) and no pretext for protecting civilians (rejection of the responsibility to protect).
7. The urgent need for Security Council to elaborate a clear mandate for peace operations, defining principles, control of the implementation as specified in chapter VII, statement of purpose, extent of the use of force and duration.
8. Now if these perimeters are to be adhered and implemented within the MENA context, according to the Russian established U.N. positions, they have to fall within the following framework:-
a) political conflicts and upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa region are to be resolved in a peaceful manner through National Dialogue, plus elaborating an international mechanism for stabilization.
b) Full respect, should be upheld for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, without external interference.
c) Preventing the Middle East from turning into a source of new challenges to international peace and security.
d) Crisis, such as the one in Syria, could be settled only through political and diplomatic means on the basis of security council resolutions.
e) The over-riding priorities should be:-
* full cessation of hostilities.
* comprehensive dialogue between government and moderate opposition on all issues.
* unilateral actions should be avoided as these would not ensure a peaceful settlement.
f) And if applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict, from a Russian perspective, these perimeters would necessitate:-
* A comprehensive, just and lasting peaceful settlement to be effected only through an international legal basis (that is Security Council Resolution, Madrid Principles (Land for Peace), Road Map (Quartet statements), Arab Peace Initiative ( Fahd Plan 2002).
* The need for the establishment of sovereign, viable, and contiguous Palestinian independent State based on 1967 borders and agreed upon territorial exchanges, with East Jerusalem as its Capital and to live in peace and security with Israel.
* renunciation of violence, unilateral steps, stopping construction of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territories.
* Ultimately, a reconfirmation of the readiness and willingness to host, convene a peace conference on the Middle East in Moscow to resume direct talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis for the stalemated peace talks.
g) On Iraq, the main objective is to promote stabilization of a very tense internal situation,
* to avoid ethnic and religious sectarian divisions.
* to foster an inclusive dialogue of all political parties and religious communities.
h) In the Eastern-Mediterranean, is a renewed strategic theatre for Russian foreign policy positions, with the presence of the Naval Warships. The Cyprus problem is of special interest to Russia in the U.N.
* Russia supports a just and comprehensive solution through the creation of a bi-communal, bi-zonal, federation on the basis of Security Council resolutions.
* Russia is attempting to balance its relations with Greece, Turkey (both NATO members, but with different historic and political, cultural relations with Russia).
I) On Iran's nuclear program:-
* Full compliance with agreed upon arrangements between the U.S. and Iran in September 2015 on the nuclear deal.
* Emphasis on Iran-IAEA cooperation (particularly the additional protocols).
* Russia also stands strongly against sanctions imposed on Iran.
J) On challenges of terrorism and effective strategic responses:-
* Russian positions underline the need to strengthen international counter-terrorism system, and that the U.N. should remain the main coordinating center for such responses.
* The need to comply fully with the U.N. Charter, Security Council resolutions, principles, and norms of international law to respond to terrorist threats.
* The need to fight against extremist-violent ideologies, and the use of media in the dissemination of radicalization and militancy.
III. Now, let me turn to cast some spotlights on Minister Lavrov's address at the U.N.G.A 71st session on particular regional issues on 23rd of September 2016.
I would dare say that there is nothing new in the substance, sometimes, in the wording of Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia. My explanation is very simple;
** Minister Lavrov reflected his views months earlier on March 3rd 2016, in an article on Russian Foreign Policy, its trends, major issues. His U.N.G.A. address is an update of this article, and his approach, or perspectives, were premised on the basics and determinants of Russian National Security Strategy, and Russian Foreign Policy concept which I already outlined a while ago.
I, therefore, would confine my remarks to very few relevant snapshots:-
1. According to Lavrov's U.N. address, the world situation is undergoing a crucial stage and that Russia once again finds itself at crossroads that could determine future global developments.
2. The international order is transitioning from bipolar, uni-polar, to a poly-centric system of international relations.
3. New challenges are threatening all, and they can be overcome only by joint efforts and that 'reckless' unilateral actions led to the bleeding of MENA countries, eroding regional stability.
4. On Syrian crisis, Russian military aid was extended to the legitimate Syrian government in response to its request. Without that aid, the collapse of the state could have taken place with the country's disintegration under terrorist pressures.
5. The International Syrian Support group (ISSG) is an important instrument to initiate a political process to enable the Syrian people to determine their own future through inclusive dialogue according to Security Council resolutions.
6. It is also crucial to dissociate "moderate opposition" from the terrorist groups.
7. However, it is impossible to resolve the Syrian crisis and the civil war, or improve the humanitarian situation, without suppressing ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nusra ( Now Ahrar AlSham) an Al-Qaeda affiliate (Security Council resolution no. 2254).
8. In this way, Lavrov explicitly established direct linkage between conflict resolution in Syria and an effective counter-terrorism strategy.
9. Such regional issues, with global dimensions, could be resolved through common, collective, efforts with no place for double standards.
10. The tragic turmoil, and upheavals in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, are indicative of the need to stop attempts to use the extremists in order to further geopolitical gains (This is again a direct, though masked up charge against U.S. policies towards Syria).
11. According to Lavrov's sketching of Russian positions, it is imperative and urgent to focus on countering-terrorism and extremist ideologies as a paramount priority.
12. The resolution of Arab-Israeli conflict, in this context, would significantly contribute to the elimination of the emergence of radical sentiments or turning the region into a breeding ground for militancy and terror.
Once more, Lavrov established a linkage and contextualized the causes behind terrorism and the absence of an urgent resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
13. On different vital regional security issues, Lavrov attributed the lack of progress in the establishment of Middle East Nuclear free zone to the pressure exercised by some nuclear powers to torpedo any compromise that would allow the start of negotiations on the establishment of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) and their means of delivery in the Middle East.
Of course, this could be easily dismissed as a kind of whitewashing for Russian non-proliferation diplomacy in the Middle East, but the truth remains that indeed lack of progress on such strategically important issues for the security and stability of the Middle East is regrettable and foreboding, to say the least.
* Summing up and analyzing Russian positions regarding major U.N. issues in the regional context. I can tentatively conclude the following:-
1- Russia within the U.N. fora, tended to adopt pragmatism as a key feature in its foreign policy.
2- Putin's years are replete with harsh criticisms for uni-polarity, meaning domination of the U.S. as the only super-power.
3- Repeated calls and appeals for 'multilateralism' expressed an ideological and geostrategic determination to restore big power role in regional and global affairs.
4-Russian standpoints on a series of recent crises over Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, were peculiarly negative, that is vetoing many draft resolutions of the Security Council, so as to pre-empt policies that could damage their global or regional heightened status:-
a) to avoid the imposition of international sanctions (Iran-Syria).
b) to keep U.N. mandated operations within a very rigid legal framework to prevent loose interpretations (granting carte-branche for adhoc actions).
c) Russia stood against the international coalition invading Iraq (2003).
d) On Libya, Russia abstained, when voting on Resolution (1973) in 2011.
e) Russian positions are guided by specific factors:-
· No imposition of sanctions.
· No loose interpretation of S.C. mandates of Western coalition behavior in Libya according to Russia, ended in failure, even with the toppling of Qaddafi's regime. Neither stability nor territorial integrity, nor democratization of Libya were secured.
* Eventually, with such pragmatic approach, Russian positions focus on achieving consensus, compromises, cooperation, as a prelude to restoring Russia's status as a world power.
Russia practiced both positive influence, as well as negative voting to promote its own geostrategic interests, to rebuild its own coalitions, partnerships and collective security structures.
Russia does indeed contribute to conflict resolution mechanisms and processes in the U.N. only through collective decision-making systems rather than providing personnel or financing peace operations.
Russian positions in the U.N. reflect harsh criticisms of sanctions regimes, over use of force, misinterpretations of S.C. mandates.
Finally, Russia during the 71st General Assembly session, this fall, supports ensuring that the Syrian crisis does not follow the Libyan scenario or armed interference. If this eventuality ever takes place, it would cost Russia a huge geostrategic damage, let alone the Assad regime and its allies ultimate downfall which Russia is frantically striving to avoid.
To end up my talk, let me quote a Russian defense analyst who literally said, and I quote:
The thing is not about the war in Syria. Syria is important, but there is more.
Russia wants to spread its influence over the entire region, have bases all over, push the Americans out, and become the dominant power in the region.... Will these ambitions come true ?
THANK YOU !
1