Tuesday, April 01, 2003
10:40 pm
Trapped by their publics - 1st April 2003, 22.40
One can never be sure the course that nations take at times of crisis are an indication of longer term trends or just the confluence of short term political pressures and opportunism. No doubt, historians with the benefit of hindsight can pick out the combinations of longer term policy and tactical objectives. But if any argue that French or Russian intransigence was predictable, then they would have wilfully misunderstood the rules of the game that applied to the United Nations during the 1990s: the support of the great powers was available for a price, even if it conjured up perceptions of cynical manoevrings amongst a public audience.
In 2003, the rules changed for reasons that are not yet apparent. Perhaps the stakes for power were higher and neither France nor Russia were willing to acquiesce in what they perceived as a brazen attempt at US dominance in the United Nations. It is almost certain that they equated diplomatic power with military and economic power, boosting their willingness to oppose US/UK actions and only facing the problem of 'overstretch' after their wishes had been brushed aside.
What it does mean is that articles such as this ring hollow, with a Westerniser's hope for:
Russia's direct national interest to craft a special relationship with America, both to underpin its modernisation strategy and to deal with the countless security problems facing Eurasia.
It is unlikely that such a "special relationship" will be constructed in the near future. Not only do most Russians want Iraq to win, although this would deepen their own decline, but the current campaign of anti-Americanism has been set in train by the Putin administration itself, jeopardising their bilateral relationship with Washington.
The current spate of anti-American hate fests on just about every Russian television channel has proven much more effective in the ratings. The tone and language used in news coverage of the war cannot have been left to chance, especially on the state-owned and state-controlled stations.
If, as the responsible leader of his country, Putin should try to halt the growing anti-American hysteria at some point in order to preserve the diplomatic capital he has accumulated over the last 18 months, his actions would be interpreted as capitulation and a show of weakness. The Putin administration did much to set the current wave of anti-Americanism in motion, then quickly lost control of it. If Putin decides to ride that wave, he will be forced to adopt positions that directly conflict with his entire post-Sept. 11 foreign policy. His political opponents would rush to fill that breach, from the Communists to Boris Berezovsky, by reminding the nation of the U.S. bases in Central Asia, the bases that we closed in Vietnam and Cuba, and many other "concessions" made to Russia's past and present Enemy No. 1.
Both France and Russia used this crisis and war to enhance the political support of their existing regimes and found that they were constrained by the expectations that they had nurtured and unleashed. Since America is very likely to win this war, it is not a question of if but when they follow the backtracking that Schroeder has commenced, now that domestic considerations no longer play a primary role in Germany's foreign policy.
What accounts for the nuanced but unmistakable shift? Two things: the war is on, and the German elections that originally induced Schroeder to play the peace card, first in September and again for two regional votes in February, are over. Foreign policy, as a result, is said to be back in the hands of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and his professional diplomats instead of Schroeder's political advisers.
One can never be sure the course that nations take at times of crisis are an indication of longer term trends or just the confluence of short term political pressures and opportunism. No doubt, historians with the benefit of hindsight can pick out the combinations of longer term policy and tactical objectives. But if any argue that French or Russian intransigence was predictable, then they would have wilfully misunderstood the rules of the game that applied to the United Nations during the 1990s: the support of the great powers was available for a price, even if it conjured up perceptions of cynical manoevrings amongst a public audience.
In 2003, the rules changed for reasons that are not yet apparent. Perhaps the stakes for power were higher and neither France nor Russia were willing to acquiesce in what they perceived as a brazen attempt at US dominance in the United Nations. It is almost certain that they equated diplomatic power with military and economic power, boosting their willingness to oppose US/UK actions and only facing the problem of 'overstretch' after their wishes had been brushed aside.
What it does mean is that articles such as this ring hollow, with a Westerniser's hope for:
Russia's direct national interest to craft a special relationship with America, both to underpin its modernisation strategy and to deal with the countless security problems facing Eurasia.
It is unlikely that such a "special relationship" will be constructed in the near future. Not only do most Russians want Iraq to win, although this would deepen their own decline, but the current campaign of anti-Americanism has been set in train by the Putin administration itself, jeopardising their bilateral relationship with Washington.
The current spate of anti-American hate fests on just about every Russian television channel has proven much more effective in the ratings. The tone and language used in news coverage of the war cannot have been left to chance, especially on the state-owned and state-controlled stations.
If, as the responsible leader of his country, Putin should try to halt the growing anti-American hysteria at some point in order to preserve the diplomatic capital he has accumulated over the last 18 months, his actions would be interpreted as capitulation and a show of weakness. The Putin administration did much to set the current wave of anti-Americanism in motion, then quickly lost control of it. If Putin decides to ride that wave, he will be forced to adopt positions that directly conflict with his entire post-Sept. 11 foreign policy. His political opponents would rush to fill that breach, from the Communists to Boris Berezovsky, by reminding the nation of the U.S. bases in Central Asia, the bases that we closed in Vietnam and Cuba, and many other "concessions" made to Russia's past and present Enemy No. 1.
Both France and Russia used this crisis and war to enhance the political support of their existing regimes and found that they were constrained by the expectations that they had nurtured and unleashed. Since America is very likely to win this war, it is not a question of if but when they follow the backtracking that Schroeder has commenced, now that domestic considerations no longer play a primary role in Germany's foreign policy.
What accounts for the nuanced but unmistakable shift? Two things: the war is on, and the German elections that originally induced Schroeder to play the peace card, first in September and again for two regional votes in February, are over. Foreign policy, as a result, is said to be back in the hands of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and his professional diplomats instead of Schroeder's political advisers.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
April
(66)
- Diminished - 30th April 2003, 23.50 Sixty years a...
- The Plotter Thickens Matthew D'Ancona writes on C...
- Britain in Iraq - 27th April 2003, 18.20 Given th...
- Putting the puzzle together - 27th April 2003, 17....
- Let us have our say - 27th April 2003, 15.42 Paul...
- What happened in the Convention - 27th April 2003,...
- Paris-US rift - 24th April 2003, 23.00 To reitera...
- What future for the Common Foreign and Security Po...
- News from the Convention - 24th April 2003, 22.17 ...
- George the Dragon Tomorrow being St. George's day...
- A Succinct Precis of Franco-German Contradictions ...
- Wordsmithing - 21st April 2003, 20.32 Perhaps the...
- Biased Biased BBC? The Biased BBC blog has been g...
- The issue of Iraqi sanctions - 20th April 2003, 18...
- Zimwatch: Send for the Troops Alasdair Palmer wri...
- Staying on, and on According to the Telegraph: ...
- So Easy - 20th April 2003, 13.55 It is always a p...
- After Empire Theodore Dalrymple writes a depressi...
- Cheering Crowds One of the most facile of the pro...
- The world's most powerful Trots While talking abo...
- Why National Sovereignty trumps Human Rights Harr...
- Mandarins against the Special Relationship Prospe...
- Divisions on European Defence - 20th April 2003, 2...
- Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British R...
- Is it all just Wilsonian? John Ikenberry's articl...
- Clear as mud Well I think I know why generally le...
- Zimwatch: It can get worse, now the world's starti...
- EU asked for it So we have the formal acceptance ...
- The Fallen - 15th April 2003, 22.46 Some deaths i...
- Unriven There's too many sunny optimists out ther...
- Gabbing We have a new contributor. Dr Sean Gabb,...
- Irrational? 15th April 2003. Has anybody else ha...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 101 Monday, 14 A...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 101 Monday, 14 A...
- Iraq: A spur to European integration - 14th April ...
- Missile Defence: Costs and Benefits to the UK - 14...
- Hungary votes yes - 13th April 2003, 22.22 On a l...
- Those cheering crowds, ctd The picture below come...
- Does the British Government support looting? This...
- The St Petersburg Trio - 12th April 2003, 16.48 C...
- ... or you're with the terrorists So Britain is n...
- Even Governments Lie The lack of weapons of mass ...
- What our rulers think One of those Things I Mean ...
- Damn - 10th April 2003, 22.07 One of the possible...
- The "Reckoning" - 10th April 2003, 21.35 Jack Str...
- Can we go home now? Now that Baghdad is under Ame...
- UNresolved? - 8th April 2003, 22.40 Tonight, Blai...
- Defining Quagmire So what's this worry about quag...
- Further developments in European Defence - 7th Mar...
- The Hungarian Referendum - 7th April 2003, 20.13 ...
- Zimwatch: Spot the difference In South Africa the...
- Understanding Blair (Revisited) - 6th April 2003, ...
- New Forum For those of you who want to have a gen...
- The penny drops: Links update - 6th April 2003, 15...
- Reclaim the Bases - 6th April 2003, 0.26 When doe...
- Was Private Eye the first blog? Discuss This is a...
- Blackwell's Charge - 5th April 2003, 23.27 Lord B...
- Anyone out there who can explain this Maybe my br...
- Losing friends over the war? Here's a way to make...
- Euforia - 4th April 2003, 23.25 Just as a follow ...
- The penny drops - 4th April 2003, 22.55 If you re...
- Zimwatch: Almost official Not much to report apa...
- Now I'm pro-war Welcome to all the Political Scie...
- Trapped by their publics - 1st April 2003, 22.40 ...
- Zimwatch: A deadline passes So the deadline has ...
- More of the same As if to show what's in store fo...
-
▼
April
(66)
0 comments:
Post a Comment