Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

How the West lost a friend in Moscow

Hasan Suroor

Persistent Western criticism of Russia and America's role in the unrest in its neighbourhood appear to be testing the patience of even pro-western Russian leaders. Now Mikhail Gorbachev tells Washington and London to keep their hands off Russia.

IN ONE of his characteristic hail-fellow-well-met moments, the United States President George W. Bush once famously said after meeting his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin that he had looked deep into his eyes, seen his soul, and liked it. That was then. These days he barely sees eye-to-eye with his former "buddy" and his administration misses no opportunity to lay into the Putin dispensation.

Indeed, persistent Western criticism of Russia and America's suspicious role in the political unrest in Moscow's neighbourhood appear to have started to test the patience of not only President Putin but even pro-Western Russian leaders. Mikhail Gorbachev, who became a poster boy for the West in its campaign against communism after he presided over the disintegration of the Soviet Union, launched a blistering attack this week against his friends in Washington and London telling them to keep their hands off Russia.

In an explosive interview with The Times, he directly accused America of interfering in his country's internal affairs and declared that Russia was "not anyone's domain." It was a "rising" power and if some people find that "inconvenient," tough luck.

In an unprecedented outburst, which is likely to cause embarrassment in White House and Downing Street, Mr. Gorbachev denounced American and European concerns about human rights and democracy in Russia as "hypocritical." He said Western governments did not seem to be concerned about these issues when they involved their own allies.

"I don't think many Western governments are that concerned about these issues ... but if someone ... takes an independent position, they don't like it," he said.

Mr. Gorbachev's intervention, ahead of the G8 Summit in St Petersburg next month, is significant, coming as it does against the background of growing tensions between the U.S.-British alliance and President Putin over a range of key issues — from the U.S.-led Iraq invasion to Iran's nuclear programme and the developments in many of the former Soviet republics. The reason: Moscow's unwillingness to unconditionally buy their worldview. President Putin's initial enthusiasm for close ties with the West led the latter to believe that a truncated post-Soviet Russia, in need of economic assistance and a new role on the international stage, would willingly line up behind any Western project. But events did not unfold according to the script. President Putin had his own script according to which he would go only so far to accommodate the West as his own perceived national interests permitted him. The key to co-existence, as per his script, was that the two sides would live and let live. Moscow would go along with the West; and in return the West would respect Moscow's sensitivities, especially in relation to its regional neighbours.

The deal worked wonderfully well for a while. In fact, there was a time when President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and President Putin came to be known as an inseparable trio — holding summits at the slightest pretext, posing for informal photographs, singing from the same hymn sheet. But then things started to go wrong as it became apparent that they had simply too many conflicting and competing interests for them to remain soul mates for long.

Here, it is worth quoting Mr. Gorbachev at some length to give a flavour of the current view from Russia as President Bush and Mr. Blair prepare to use the G8 Summit to put pressure on President Putin over human rights and political freedoms in Russia.

Mr. Gorbachev said such attempts would be "counter-productive" because, in essence, the Russian Government's position on these issues was "very close to the aspirations of the people."

"I have said myself that Putin has made mistakes. But the principles of democracy are realised in a specific context, and you have to bear in mind the Russian historical, economic and social situation," he added.

Ukraine issue

Mr. Gorbachev pointedly accused American diplomats in Ukraine of interfering in its domestic affairs at the height of the so-called Orange revolution and said America had a history of "outside interference."

"The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was mostly of domestic origin, because people were upset about corruption. ... But there is another factor, that the U.S. Embassy was heavily involved, and of course America has great experience in interfering in the affairs of other countries. Had this same thing been happening in America, I am sure they would have put an end to outside interference," he said.

Mr. Gorbachev was unsparing in his criticism of America's "unipolar" approach to international affairs and suggested that it was doomed in a multipolar world.

"We have heard a lot in the U.S. about building a new American empire. But that train has left the station. This unipolar approach will not happen. In a multipolar world it is difficult to bring order and governance, but any other approach is dangerous," he said.

Moscow has been provoked by Western interference in its backyard through what it sees as attempts to destabilise pro-Russian regimes in the region. It also accuses the West of double standards over allegations of human rights abuses in Chechnya arguing that countries which themselves are guilty of serious rights crimes in Iraq and of suppressing liberties of their own citizens in the name of fighting terrorism have no moral right to point a finger at others. President Putin has been scathing about calls for Russia's exclusion from the G8 in a bid to force him to introduce democratic reforms at home. He has been accused of using Russia's energy resources as a political and economic weapon after the state-run Gazprom cut off gas supplies to Ukraine over a price dispute — an accusation that Russian analysts say is rather rich coming from countries that are ready, at the drop of a hat, to slap sanctions on governments they do not like.

Rejecting the allegation, Mr. Gorbachev, in his interview, said he was willing to "put my head on the block" on the issue. "But I think it is rather strange that the West recommends that we have a free market in our natural gas and, when we start to, the West protests that we are charging market prices. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't," he said.

Arguably, President Putin is no angel and there is a lot about his policies that can be questioned. But are the West's "concerns" really genuine? Or do they arise from its pique over Russia's reluctance to abandon its independent foreign policy? There is a view that, for all the Western angst about President Putin's approach to human rights and democracy, he would have still got away with it had he been more willing to toe the Bush-Blair line on issues such as the Iraq invasion and Iran.

It is important to recall that Russia's opposition to the Iraq invasion marked the beginning of the end of its honeymoon with its Western allies. Here is how the BBC reported Mr. Blair's visit to Russia after the invasion:

"This was Mr. Blair's first visit to Russia since the United States-led invasion of Iraq. And it was clear there was no meeting of minds. Many articles in Russian newspapers suggested Mr. Blair had come to Russia to ram home the point — the world has changed. ... Some Russian newspapers with a military orientation went even further. Their line was basically: `London and Washington have again put Russia in what they perceive as its (lowly) place.' They have demonstrated that Russia's opinion does not matter. This is a widespread view amongst ordinary Russians."

One BBC reporter noted that the two leaders "met, shook hands, clapped elbows and hugged ... And that was about as matey as it got."

Since then their relations have never really recovered. There have been diplomatic rows over a number of issues including allegations of a British spy ring in Moscow, and covert British funding for unauthorised Russian NGOs. Earlier this year, Russia's state security service, the FSB, caused a sensation when it accused British diplomats of spying after a Russian TV report showed footage of what it said were British agents retrieving data from a fake rock planted on a street. The British Government strongly denied the allegation but the episode was yet another illustration of the state of British-Russian relations.

Moscow's ties with America have been even more strained especially after an ill-tempered attack by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney on the Russian government during a visit to Lithuania recently. Mr. Gorbachev's tell-tale intervention leaves no room for any doubt over the current state of play. Kremlinologists will be closely watching the body language of the host and his guests at St. Petersburg.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

On track with China
The power of philanthropy
How the West lost a friend in Moscow
How Big Brother might harness technology
Corrections and clarifications
Cleverspeak
On V.P. Singh
Amchi Mumbai
Golden oldies

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu