The end of October was marked by many important developments. Their consequences will influence the world for several years. The death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, proposals by the US and Russia on missile defense systems and the election of Azerbaijan as a non-permanent member of the Security Council of the UN – these and other events were discussed by the director of the Russian Social and Political Research Center, Vladimir Yevseyev, in an interview to VK.
- Last week the State Department stated that the USA is ready to confirm that the building of European missile defense systems is not directed against Russia, but they cannot confirm it in a legal form. Is this proposal acceptable to Russia and how can it influence Russian-American relations?
- It is true that the USA said they can give written but not legal guarantees. I think this is a great step by the USA and it should be supported, as the United States is a country that keeps its word. Even after they withdraw from a treaty, they try to follow it, if there are reasons for it. A bright example of the US keeping its word is the one-sided initiatives of 1991-1992 in the sphere of reducing the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the USA, and these initiatives were fulfilled. Even though the guarantees won’t be legal, it is an important step, as it somehow makes the US follow what they will write there. The statement is better than utopian ideas about using missile defense systems against space objects, these systems cannot destroy objects beyond 2000 km. Even if an object is destroyed, falling from such a height would seriously damage facilities on earth. Such ideas are fantastic. But giving written guarantees by the USA is an acceptable step: it enables us to move out of the dead-end which has formed. I think this initiative by the US should be supported. As well as the proposal by some European countries to carry out a computer test next spring. I think this idea is reasonable too, as such tests were carried out within Russia-NATO and Russian-Azerican relations. They were stopped after the war against Georgia in 2008. In general, it is important for Russia that Barak Obama be elected for a second term. It will make our relations predictable. I hope Obama will bring to a close the problem of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
One shouldn’t concentrate on problems. We have problems with Syria, for example. Very serious problems. There is a less tense problem today – the problem of the Iranian nuclear program. There are some other problems, on which we cannot agree. Sometimes our views are opposed. But we have a common position on Afghanistan, for example. We should develop our cooperation, relying on common positions. In this case, the re-election of Barak Obama would be positive. The disadvantage is that Russian-American relations are not stable, because they are not based on a solid economic background. At the moment, Barak Obama is under heavy moral criticism in the USA for his direction in restarting Russian-American relations. I don’t think it is right to contribute to worsening the situation. First of all, Russia should support the initiative on providing written guarantees. This is important. Secondly, we should try to find common interests. We know the problems which exist. There are different points of view on whether relations with Hamas and Hezbollah are acceptable. However, one shouldn’t get stuck on the problems, we should develop relations.
- What will Western countries and the forces which supported the revolutions do after they get an opportunity to influence the situation in Syria?
- I don’t think these revolutions, or the Arab Spring as they are called by the West, were inspired by Western countries. It was a set of circumstances, but the West tries to use it in favour of its interests. Developments in Libya didn’t come to an end. At the moment the country is on the edge of a civil war. Firstly, some sons of Gaddafi survived and are looking for revenge. Secondly, enormous amounts of weapons are in the country and beyond it. Moreover, there are many people who do not support people from Benghazi coming into office. Deepening rancor will take place. Some people do not agree that the new state should be based on Shariah law. So a civil war is possible. From this point of view, beginning operations in other places, for example in Syria, will demand great resources. I don’t see these resources at the moment.
I think that NATO military participation in Syria is unrealistic for many reasons. But they can contribute to stabilizing the situation. It is not clear what forces will come to power. I mean, it is understandable that brother-Muslims can do it, if we speak about Syria. However, this variant is not favorable for the West. I don't think the people who will come into office in Libya will fulfil the expectations of the West. No serious democratization will take place in it. But strong Islamization in Libya is possible. Other states can be influenced by this process too. I think the joy about the death of Gaddafi is overdone, as its consequences could be negative for Western countries. For example, Egypt has already stated that the situation in relations with the West have changed. Relations between Egypt and Israel will remain tense. Terrorist attacks committed in Israel show that the borders have become transparent.
Destabilization of the situation in Syria can spread to other states, including Lebanon, Jordan, both Palestine autonomies and Israel.
- You said an outflow of weapons from Libya is taking place. How can this influence international security?
- What is most dangerous? Shoulder-fired missiles. During Gaddafi’s regime, a huge number of shoulder-fired missiles disappeared. There is information they were spread at least in the countries of Africa. Military supply depots were eviscerated or left. Weapons are transported to various places. Shoulder-fired missiles are real threats to civil aviation. Other kinds of armaments also disappeared. These circumstances can echo in any part of the world. Shoulder-fired missiles are very valuable on the black market.
This is one of the circumstances of unreasonable policy, which the West provided in Libya. North Korea and Iran have got more facts in favor of them having a nuclear weapon. The nuclear non-proliferation regime was undermined. The negative aspects of the developments surpass the positive ones.
- Azerbaijan became a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this event for Azerbaijan and other countries?
- It is a great and important event, which shows the growth of Azerbaijan’s respectability. Now Azerbaijan can influence developments taking place far from its borders and it shouldn’t be underestimated. Russia supported Azerbaijan, as it follows its interests. Other states supported Azerbaijan too.
As for circumstances, I think the efforts of the US to launch new sanctions against Iran will face the necessity of bargaining with Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is not an obedient state in this case, as new sanctions against Iran are not favorable for Azerbaijan. I hope the same position will be taken by Azerbaijan toward sanctions against Syria, though it has no veto right. However, the event is great for the country. There are only 15 members of the UN SC: 5 permanent and 10 non-permanent ones. When permanent countries do not use their veto, the position of each non-permanent member is very important.
Now Azerbaijan will be involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as the issue of giving Palestine full membership of the UN will be discussed.
I think it will be a favorable platform for their own initiatives. I don’t know whether Azerbaijan will try to use it as a way to settle the conflict or not. Someday such efforts will be taken. The dead-end of the situation is obvious, but Azerbaijan will make the efforts, as it is a good cause. However, the key point will be the support of other members. Cooperation with other countries is important for Azerbaijan.
Interview by Yevgeny Krishtalyev. Exclusively to VK
