Posted to the web on: 13 March 2006 No need for west to be shy of Putin Philip Stephens - Financial Times
THERE is a nice story doing the rounds about how the west’s leaders may show their displeasure at Russia’s slide into authoritarianism. George Bush will boycott the opening banquet at July’s Group of Eight (G-8) summit in St Petersburg. Not wanting to be left out, but too timid to risk giving quite so much offence to President Vladimir Putin, European leaders will leave the table before dessert is served.
It could almost be true. The story is a perfect metaphor for the tangle in which the US and its partners in the old G-7 now find themselves. Most of them are embarrassed by the summit, but some less than others. One or two have flirted with a token gesture of reluctance. No one has said out loud what all — or maybe most — of them think: Putin’s conspicuous disdain for democracy mocks the values the G-8 is pledged to uphold.
So the diplomatic consensus is that Putin’s guests must simply turn up and bear it in St Petersburg.
It is not all that long ago that Gerhard Schröder, then German chancellor, and France’s Jacques Chirac were cuddling up to Putin in the hope that their new axis would serve as a counterweight to US power. Only last year, Bush himself was greeting the Russian leader at the White House as “my friend Vladimir”.
But it gets ever more difficult to pretend that Putin might yet turn out to be a sheep in wolf’s clothing.
The Russian leader seems unperturbed. The corruption of democratic institutions, tightening Kremlin control over the economy, the crude use of energy as a strategic weapon, suppression of media dissent, interference in Ukraine and the Caucasus and a clampdown on nongovernmental organisations are all of an authoritarian piece.
Those who style themselves members of the realist school of foreign policy ask why any of this should be a problem. Western democracies have always had to deal with tyrants, and Putin is at least an advance on his Soviet predecessors.
The west, the argument runs, should be guided only by its interests. The US needs the Russian leader’s help to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and to collaborate in the war against terrorism. Europe relies on the Putin-controlled Gazprom for a quarter of its gas supplies. So best be hard-headed: leave Russia’s domestic affairs to the Russians and do the deals that benefit the west.
The trouble with this argument is that it muddles short-term tactical gains with long-term strategic interests. It assumes that the west’s interests can be at once cordoned off from Russia’s internal politics and somehow aligned with Moscow’s foreign policy ambitions.
Putin’s desire to suppress democracy in former Soviet republics cannot be neatly separated from his authoritarian rule at home. Russia’s reliability as a supplier of oil and gas must be measured against Putin’s efforts to use energy as a weapon against its neighbours.
Rhetoric about grand strategic partnerships should give way to open an unapologetic defence of democratic principles. There is an obligation on western governments to uphold their values. That is where their interests lie. The G-7 nations should be clear that they will not be complicit in the re-establishment of Russian hegemony over its neighbours; or accept that the former Soviet republics of central Asia are off-limits to the spread of democracy and the rule of law.
Likewise, Europe’s reliance on Russian gas does not mean its interests are aligned with those of Moscow. The continent’s energy security requires transparency, competition, diversity of supply, flexible networks and, yes, solidarity among consumers.
Putin’s objective is to secure long-term contracts with western European consumers that tighten Gazprom’s control of supply and distribution and forestall European efforts to secure alternative supplies.
The mistake the G-7 nations too often make is to assume that Russia holds all the cards. It is true that Russia’s energy resources have transformed its strategic position. But what Putin wants above all is the prestige that comes with being treated as the leader of a great power. More prosaically, Russia needs to sell the gas as much as Europe needs to buy it. It also needs western money and expertise to tap new reserves.
As for Iran’s quest for a nuclear capability, for all that the Kremlin clearly enjoys playing on both sides of the board, Russia’s interests would scarcely be served by putting the bomb into the hands of a radical Islamist regime on its own borders.
The G-7 leaders need not go hungry in St Petersburg. Bush should enjoy his dinner and the Europeans their dessert. Then they should say what they think about the carving up of Russian democracy. You never know, faced with fortitude rather than the usual feebleness, Putin might just listen. http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A168486
Acknowledgement: All available information and documents in "Justice For North Caucasus Group" is provided for the "fair use". There should be no intention for ill-usage of any sort of any published item for commercial purposes and in any way or form. JFNC is a nonprofit group and has no intentions for the distribution of information for commercial or advantageous gain. At the same time consideration is ascertained that all different visions, beliefs, presentations and opinions will be presented to visitors and readers of all message boards of this site. Providing, furnishing, posting and publishing the information of all sources is considered a right to freedom of opinion, speech, expression, and information while at the same time does not necessarily reflect, represent, constitute, or comprise the stand or the opinion of this group. If you have any concerns contact us directly at:
eagle@JusticeForNorthCaucasus.com
