Article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov “On the Right Side of History”, published in The Huffington Post, 15 June 2012,
In the past year and a half, events taking place in North Africa and the Middle East have come to the forefront of world politics. They are often called the most prominent phenomenon of international life in the new XXI century. The fragility of authoritarian regimes in Arab countries and the likelihood of sociopolitical upheavals have long been noted by experts. However, the scale and rapidity of the wave of change in the region was really difficult to predict. Along with the accumulation of crisis phenomena in the world economy, these events became one of the most obvious signs that the process of the formation of a new international system entered the zone of turbulence.
With the growth of mass social movements in the countries of the region, the topic of which line should be chosen by interested external players and the international community as a whole has become increasingly relevant. In numerous expert discussions on this topic, and then in practical actions of states and international organizations, two main approaches emerged - to help the Arab peoples themselves determine their own destiny or, using the softening of the previously overly harsh power structures, to try to "blind" the new political reality at their own discretion . The situation continues to evolve rapidly, and it is important that those who are most dependent on the progress of affairs in the region finally join forces, and do not continue to pull in different directions, like the characters of the famous fable I. Krylov.
I will try to summarize the arguments that I have repeatedly had to express in connection with the evolution of the situation in the Middle East region. First, Russia, like the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world, is on the side of the Arab peoples in their quest for a better life, democracy and prosperity, ready to contribute to these efforts. That is why we, in particular, supported the initiative of the Deauville Partnership at the G8 summit in France. We strongly oppose the use of violence during the transformations taking place in the Arab states, especially against the civilian population. We understand that transformations in society are complex and, as a rule, a lengthy process that almost never takes place without serious consequences.
Russia — perhaps better than most other states — knows the true price of revolutions. We are aware that revolutionary changes are always associated not only with a rollback in socio-economic development, but also with human sacrifice and suffering. That is why we support the evolutionary, peaceful way to bring about urgent changes in the Middle East and North Africa region.
The question arises - what to do if the “showdown” between the authorities and the opposition nevertheless assumed a violent, armed character? The answer seems obvious - external players must do everything in their power to stop the bloodshed and ensure a compromise with the participation of all parties involved in the conflict. In deciding whether to support resolution 1970 of the UN Security Council and not opposing the approval of resolution 1973 on the Libyan problem, we proceeded from the assumption that these solutions will limit the possibilities of excessive use of force and open the way to a political settlement. Unfortunately, the actions of the NATO countries to implement these resolutions resulted in their gross violation and in support of one of the parties in the civil war in order to overthrow the existing regime, damaging the authority of the Security Council.
There is hardly any need to explain to people experienced in politics that “the devil is in the details” and rude power solutions are in most cases not capable of ensuring a lasting and lasting settlement. And in modern conditions, characterized by the repeated complication of international relations, the futility of the use of force to overcome conflicts has become apparent. There is no need to go far for examples. This is both a difficult situation in Iraq and a crisis in Afghanistan that is far from being resolved. There is a lot of evidence that things are not going smoothly in Libya after the overthrow of M. Gaddafi. A wave of instability rolled further along the Sahara-Sahel region, the situation in Mali sharply aggravated.
And Egypt, where the change of power was without major outbreaks of violence, and H. Mubarak, who ruled the country for more than three decades, voluntarily left the presidential palace soon after the start of mass protests, is still far from a safe coast. In particular, reports of the growing number of sectarian clashes and violations of the rights of the Christian minority cannot but cause concern.
The grounds, in general, are more than enough so that with regard to the most acute situation in the region today - the Syrian crisis - to approach as carefully as possible. It is clear that after what happened in Libya, it was impossible to follow the path of making insufficiently clear decisions of the UN Security Council, leaving the "free hand" to their performers. Any mandate issued on behalf of the entire international community should be as clear and specific as possible, leaving no room for ambiguous interpretation. Therefore, it is important to understand what is actually happening in Syria and how can this country be helped to overcome the current difficult phase in its stories.
Unfortunately, a qualified honest analysis of the events in Syria and their possible consequences is still in short supply. Often it is replaced by a cheap popular picture, black and white propaganda clichés. Leading world media for months replicated the thesis of a corrupt dictatorial regime, ruthlessly overwhelming impulse of their own people to freedom and democracy. At the same time, the authors of the reports did not seem to be bothered by the question of how the government, which has no support among the population, has managed to remain in power for more than a year, despite the extensive sanctions imposed by its main economic partners? Why did the majority of voters vote for the new draft constitution proposed by the authorities? Why, finally, retains the loyalty of their commanders, the bulk of the Syrian soldiers? If only fear explains everything, then why didn't he help other authoritarian rulers?
We have repeatedly stated that Russia is not the defender of the current regime in Damascus, it has no political, economic or other reasons for this - after all, we have never been the leading trade and economic partner of this country, whose leaders communicated mainly with Western European capitals. We are no worse than others, seeing that the Syrian leadership bears the main responsibility for the crisis that has engulfed the country, it did not take the path of reform in time, did not draw conclusions from the deepest changes taking place in international relations. All this is right. But really, and more. Syria is a multi-confessional state, besides the Sunni Muslims and Shiites, there are Alawites, Orthodox and Christians of other faiths, Druze, Kurds. At the same time, during the secular Baathist rule over the past few decades, the principle of freedom of conscience was implemented in Syria, and representatives of religious minorities fear that this tradition could be broken if the regime is broken.
When we say that these concerns must be heard and tried to be dispelled, we are sometimes accused of almost anti-Sunni and generally anti-Islamic sentiments. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Russia, various confessions peacefully coexist for centuries, leading among them are Orthodox and Muslims. Our country has never waged colonial wars in the Arab world, but on the contrary, has consistently supported the independence of the Arab peoples and their right to independent development. And, by the way, is not responsible for the consequences of colonial rule, during which the social texture of society was changed, which often led to the emergence of lines of tension, which still manifest themselves today. It's about something else. If some part of society has concerns about the possibility of discrimination on the basis of religion and nationality, then these people should be given the necessary guarantees in accordance with the generally accepted international standards in the humanitarian sphere.
As regards the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in the Middle Eastern states there have traditionally existed and there are quite a few serious problems - this was one of the main reasons for the current “Arab revolutions”. Syria, however, historically was not the last in this ranking, and the degree of citizens' freedom there was immeasurably higher than in some of those countries whose rulers are trying today to give Damascus democracy lessons. In a recent issue, the French Le Monde Diplomatic led to a chronicle of human rights acts of a major Middle Eastern state, including, in particular, the execution of death sentences by 76 only during the 2011 year, including on charges of witchcraft. If our goal really is to promote respect for human rights in the Middle East, then let's say it openly. If the main thing we want is to stop the bloodshed, then this is what we need to do, that is, we must first achieve a cease-fire and help start an inclusive, all-Syrian dialogue in order to develop the Syrian formula for overcoming the crisis peacefully.
Russia called for this from the very beginning of unrest in Syria. We, as I think, and to everyone who has enough information about this country, it was clear that the demand for the immediate departure of B. Assad despite the will of that considerable part of Syrian society, which continues to associate its security and well-being with the current regime, means pushing Syria into the abyss of a protracted and bloody civil war. The role of responsible external players should be to help the Syrians avoid this, to ensure that the political power system in Syria is reformed in an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, way through a national dialogue, and not by force from outside.
In the real circumstances of today's Syria, an orientation towards unilateral support of the opposition, and even more so only its most militant part, does not lead to the rapid achievement of peace in this country, and therefore contradicts the tasks of protecting civilians. It seems to be dominated by aspirations to achieve a regime change in Damascus as part of a large regional geopolitical game. Undoubtedly, Iran takes into account these developments, and a wide conglomerate of states, including the United States and NATO countries, Israel, Turkey, and some countries in the region, has become interested in weakening its regional positions.
Today, they talk a lot about the prospect of a military strike on Iran. I have repeatedly stressed that such a choice would have dire, disastrous consequences. It is still impossible to cut the knot of accumulated problems in one fell swoop. In this connection, we can recall that at one time the US military invasion of Iraq was announced as a “golden chance” to quickly and decisively reshape the political and economic realities of the “big Middle East”, turning it into a region that embarked on the development path “on the European model ".
But even if we abstract away from the situation around Iran, it is obvious that the unwinding of the internal Syrian civil strife can trigger processes that would have a very negative effect on the vast surrounding space, which would have a serious destructive impact not only on regional, but also on international security . Risk factors include the loss of control over the Syrian-Israeli border, the complication of the situation in Lebanon and other countries in the region, weapons into “unwanted hands”, including terrorist organizations, and, perhaps most dangerous of all, the aggravation of interfaith contradictions and contradictions within the Islamic world.
* * *
In his book The Clash of Civilizations, published back in the nineties, S. Huntington noticed a tendency to increase the significance of the factor of civilization, religious identity in the era of globalization, convincingly demonstrating the relative reduction in the capacity of the historical West to project outside its influence. Of course, it would be an exaggeration to try to build a model of modern international relations only on such premises, but today it is impossible to deny the existence of such a trend. It has been brought to life by a number of factors, including increased transparency of national borders, an information revolution that highlighted the glaring inequalities in the levels of socio-economic development, and the peoples' desire to escalate against this background to preserve their originality and not to get into the red book of history.
The desire to return to their civilizational roots can be clearly seen in the Arab revolutions, turning around at this stage with broad public support of parties and movements that are under the flag of Islam. And the matter was not limited to the Arab world. Suffice it to mention Turkey, which is increasingly positioning itself as an independent center of power, a major player in the Islamic and regional spaces. The Asian states, including Japan, declare their identity more boldly.
Such a situation is one of the signs that a simple (not to say “unpretentious”), “binary” construction that fit into East-West formulas “capitalism-socialism”, “North-South” existed during the period of the “cold war” , is replaced by a multidimensional geopolitical reality, in which it is no longer possible to isolate one factor that dominates others. The global financial and economic crisis has finally put an end to the reasoning about the possibility of any single system dominating in any areas - be it economics, politics or ideology. There is no doubt that within the general framework that defines today the development of the overwhelming majority of states and consists in recognizing the principles of democratic government and market economy, each country will choose specific political and economic models independently, taking into account its own traditions and cultural and historical features. And this is likely to mean a further increase in the weight of the factor of civilizational identity in international affairs.
From the point of view of practical politics, such conclusions can only mean one thing: attempts to impose their own scale of values on others are absolutely unpromising and can only lead to a dangerous increase in inter-civilization tensions. From this, of course, it does not follow that we must completely refuse to influence each other, to promote the objective perception of our country in the international arena. But this must be done by honest, open methods, expanding the export of our culture, education and science, but with unconditional respect for the civilizational values of other nations as a guarantee of preserving the diversity of the world and respect for pluralism in international affairs.
It seems obvious that the calculations can not be justified in using modern means of disseminating information and communications, including social networks, in order to format the consciousness of certain peoples and create a new political reality - the modern market of ideas is too heterogeneous, and the rate on virtual methods creates only virtual reality. Of course, if you do not think in terms of the Orwellian “big brother” - but then you can forget about democracy, not only in the countries-objects, but also the subjects of such influence.
The development of a common value, moral scale, which could become the basis of a respectful and productive inter-civilization dialogue, whose starting point would be a common interest in reducing the level of instability, which arose at the stage of creating a new international system, and ultimately achieving a reliable, effectively working polycentric world order. At the same time, success can be achieved only if extreme approaches are excluded - whether it is a question, for example, of a hypertrophied understanding of the rights of sexual minorities or, on the contrary, attempts to raise the political level of a narrow moral concept that corresponds to the concepts of only one group of the population and infringes upon the natural rights of other citizens, including those belonging to different confessional communities.
* * *
In international relations there is a certain limit to crisis situations that cannot be crossed without prejudice to global stability. Therefore, work to extinguish regional fires, including domestic conflicts, should be carried out as seriously as possible, without the use of double standards. Using a “sanctioning club” every time is a way to a dead end. All parties to internal conflicts must be confident that the international community will act on the basis of firm principles, speaking with one voice and striving for an early end to violence and a mutually acceptable settlement through a comprehensive dialogue.
Russia is guided only by such principles in relation to domestic crises, and this is precisely the reason for our position on what is happening in Syria. Therefore, we fully and sincerely supported the mission of UN / LAS Special Envoy K. Annan, aimed at the early search for a mutually acceptable compromise. In the statements of the President of the UN Security Council and the resolutions of the UN Security Council in this regard, the approaches that we promoted from the very beginning of the internal shocks in Syria were recorded, the same ideas were reflected in the agreed March 10 of this year. our joint statement with the League of Arab States.
If it were possible to ensure that these approaches worked in Syria, then they could become a model of international assistance in resolving future crises. The essence of K. Annan’s “six principles” is to ensure the cessation of violence, wherever it comes from, and to start a political dialogue led by the Syrians themselves, which must find answers to the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the Syrian people. Its result should be a new political face of Syria, reflecting the interests of all groups of its multi-religious society.
It is necessary, without getting up to either side, to contribute to the elaboration and implementation of agreements on the settlement of the conflict, to encourage the one who performs them, and to directly name the true opponents of the peace process. This requires an impartial monitoring mechanism, which was created by UN Security Council resolutions 2042 and 2043. Russian military personnel is a member of a group of international observers.
Unfortunately, the process of implementing the plan of K. Annan in Syria is very difficult. The whole world was shocked by the cases of reprisals against unarmed civilians, including the 25 incident of May this year. tragedy in the settlement of Hula, the subsequent massacres in Hama. It is necessary to find out who is responsible for this and punish those responsible. No one has the right to usurp the role of a judge and use these tragedies to achieve their own geopolitical goals. Only the rejection of such attempts will stop the unwinding of the spiral of violence in Syria.
Those who say that Russia "rescues" B. Asad are mistaken. Once again, the choice of the political system and the leaders of this country is the business of the Syrians themselves. We are not trying to conceal the numerous mistakes and miscalculations made by Damascus, including the use of force against peaceful demonstrations at the initial stage of the crisis. For us, it’s not the main thing who is in power in Syria, it is important to ensure the cessation of the death of the civilian population and the commencement of political dialogue, while all external players respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country. No violence can be justified. The shelling of residential neighborhoods by government forces is unacceptable, but they cannot be considered as an indulgence for terrorist acts in Syrian cities, for murders committed by militants opposing the regime, including "al-Qaeda".
The logic that dictates the need to break the vicious circle of violence prevailed in the unanimous support of K. Annan’s plan by members of the UN Security Council. We are depressed by the statements and actions of some of the players involved in Syrian affairs, who clearly saw a stake on the failure of the special envoy’s efforts. In this series - and calls for the leadership of the Syrian National Council (SNA) for foreign intervention. It is not clear how such statements can contribute to the efforts of the SNA sponsors to unite the Syrian opposition under its “roof”. We are in favor of uniting the Syrian opposition solely on the basis of readiness for political dialogue with the government, in strict accordance with the plan of Annan.
Russia almost daily continues to work with the Syrian leadership, persuading him to fully comply with K. Annan’s “six points” and resolutely abandon the illusory calculations that the domestic political crisis in Syria will evaporate by itself. We work with representatives of almost all branches of the Syrian opposition. We are sure that if all of our partners act with the same concentration, without “hindsight” and double standards, there is a chance to achieve a peaceful settlement of the situation in Syria. It is necessary to “lean on” everyone together on the regime and on the opposition and make them stop fighting and sit down at the negotiating table. We consider it important to undertake urgent collective efforts for this by convening an international conference of states directly involved in the Syrian crisis. We carry out close contacts with K. Annan and other partners for this purpose.
Only by acting in this way can the Middle Eastern region be kept from slipping into the abyss of bloody wars and anarchy and thus remain, as it is now fashionable to say, on the right side of the historical process. We are confident that other schemes involving external intervention in Syria - from blocking television channels that do not suit someone to increasing arms supplies to opposition groups and air strikes - do not carry peace to this country or the region as a whole. So, they will not be justified by history.
Information