Joe Lauria
Jun 15, 2012
UNITED NATIONS // Fears of militant Islamists taking over in Syria are fuelling Moscow’s unyielding support for Damascus, which has earned it strong condemnation from the US and the West, analysts and observers say.
Washington’s latest clash with Moscow came on Tuesday when Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, called Russia’s assertion that it sold only defensive weapons to Damascus “patently untrue”. That was after Mrs Clinton accused Russia of shipping attack helicopters to Syria to crush the rebellion, a charge denied by Moscow. The New York Times reported yesterday that Russia was only returning repaired helicopters sold to Syria decades ago.
In February, Susan Rice, the top US diplomat at the United Nations, used strong language to say the US was “disgusted” by Russia’s veto of a Security Council resolution that would have condemned the Bashar Al Assad regime. The tough talk appears designed to embarrass Russia, especially after the upsurge in fighting and a string of grisly massacres blamed on Moscow’s client.
Russian officials say their position is based on opposition to regime change, particularly if it is led by western military intervention, as in Libya. Moscow’s support for the Syrian regime has not changed though it has recently inched away from Mr Al Assad leading it.
Analysts routinely cite three additional reasons for Moscow’s Syria policy: Russia’s millions of dollars a year in legal arms sales to Syria, Russian naval access to a port at Tartus on Syria’s Mediterranean coast and a desire to maintain its last ally in the Middle East.
But a clearer image of Russia’s stance comes into focus when put in the context of Moscow’s 30-year struggle against encroachment into its sphere of influence by militant Islam. The support at times given these groups by the US and Gulf nations has opened a three-decade rift with Russia that began in Afghanistan and has run across the Northern Caucasus to the Balkans and now into Syria.
Russia is opposed to regime change in Syria not only on principle, but because the likely new regime would be headed by an Islamist government.
“You can talk about arms sales, and the port, but the real thing that Russia is worried about is an Islamic government coming to power in Syria,” said a western diplomat.
“Russia feels that the West doesn’t know how to handle regime change and that the outcome is almost invariably the kind of the chaos from which Islamic extremist movements arise,” said Mark Galeotti, who chairs the Centre for Global Affairs at New York University.
The dominant member of Syria’s opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood, suppressed for 40 years by Mr Al Assad and his father Hafez before him. The discord in the Syrian opposition arises largely from differences between the Brotherhood and secular liberal groups, the western diplomat said. The alleged emergence of Al Qaeda groups has added a menacing dimension.
“There is a general sense in Moscow that if Syria fell to extremists hands the whole Middle East could explode, which is also a security concern for the Russians,” Mr Galeotti said.
Russia’s struggle against Islamism has its roots in the 1979 to 1989 Afghan conflict, in which the Soviet Union ultimately failed to defeat mujaheddin backed by Washington, Riyadh and Islamabad. Shoulder-fired American Stinger rockets came to symbolise the conflict as they blasted Soviet helicopters out of the sky.
Russian troops withdrew in defeat in February 1989 and by the end of 1991 the Soviet Union was no more, with analysts pointing to the Afghan debacle as a primary cause. Out of the war emerged Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, which came to wreak havoc on its former sponsors.
“Afghanistan was a secular government,” said Ali Al Ahmed, the director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington. But the US overthrew it and “replaced it with a religious, dogmatic theocracy that destroyed Afghanistan”.
“They are doing the same thing in Syria. You will see Afghanistan emerging in Syria next door to Israel and it will be a huge, huge problem for the United States” with Lebanon devolving into the equivalent of Pakistan, he said.
The collapse of the Soviet Union opened former Soviet republics in the Caucasus to an Islamic insurgency helped by the US and the Gulf that still troubles Moscow.
“Chechnya is a classic example of what goes wrong when things go out of hand,” said Mr Galeotti. “The West thought they would be politically supporting nationalists, reasonable figures and they wind up creating a situation in which Islamic fundamentalists, terrorists and suicide bombers found a haven.”
In the Balkans, Russia defended its traditional Slavic and Orthodox Christian Serb allies against separatist Croatians and Bosnian Muslims, whom the International Criminal Court accused of hosting an Al Qaeda unit known as El Muhajhed.
Dmitri Simes, a one-time adviser to the former US president Richard Nixon who heads the Center for the National Interest in Washington, said he still hears “a lot of anger” from Russian officials over what “the Clinton administration did in the Balkans”.
He sees a parallel in Syria where Russia is worried about the fate of Christians if Islamists take over.
“They are concerned that Muslim fundamentalists, not just the Muslim Brotherhood, but people more extreme might come to power and it would be destabilising for the region,” Mr Simes said.
Russia might be willing to do a deal to try to ease out Mr Al Assad, which it sees as a liability, if the US would offer something in return, such as an agreement on missile defence, he said.
“If that was made clear to Russian officials perhaps [President Vladimir] Putin would be prepared to deal,” Mr Simes said.
“But he is simply told that his position is morally inferior.”
In the absence of a deal Moscow fears western military intervention to overthrow yet another Russian ally, Mr Simes said.
Moscow is willing to deal because it had “no great sympathy for Assad even before he was in full massacre mode” and is backing away, realising that “a regime like Assad’s is not in the long run sustainable”, said Mr Galeotti.
“If it were clear that regime change were not on the cards, I think Russia would be a lot more willing as allies and interlocutors,” he said. “They are digging their heels in because they feel that the only policy the West is willing to push is regime change.”
Moscow would ideally prefer “a controlled, steady reformist who could in some ways manage the process and not allow Islamic fundamentalists to dominate the narrative”, Mr Galeotti said.
Russia thinks Washington’s motive to remove Mr Al Assad is to weaken Iran at almost any cost, Mr Simes said.
The US does not publicly discuss what it believes Russia’s motives are for backing Syria, leaving the impression that moral deficiency makes it complicit with Damascus.
The closest the US has come to acknowledging Russia’s fear of an Islamist regime in Syria and America’s own apparent tolerance for it came from a cryptic remark by Mrs Clinton in the UN Security Council chamber in March with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov sitting across from her.
“I know there are those who question whether Islamist politics can really be compatible with … democratic and universal principles and rights,” Mrs Clinton said. “Our policy is to focus less on what parties call themselves than on what they choose to do.”
Mr Lavrov did not respond.
Comments are closed.