JULES EVANS, LONDON
ENOUGH GRAND-STANDING BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
The typical criticism of the UK’s Foreign Office is the one eloquently expressed in John Le Carre’s The Constant Gardener - that they are pitiless practitioners of real-politik who care more about stability than idealism, and who only really work to protect the interests of British corporations, rather than British values.
But on Russia, the Foreign Office seems to have erred on the other side. They seem committed to sacrificing our strategic relationship with Russia on the altar of pointless liberal grand-standing.
The rot set in, it seems to me, when the previous ambassador to Moscow, Sir Roderic Lyne, was replaced by the present ambassador, Sir Anthony Brenton. Lyne was well-liked, tactful, amusing (always a great asset in Russia) and - in a word- diplomatic. Brenton was more of an analyst, highly intelligent, but lacking in the social skills and sureness of touch that Lyne possessed.
Brenton made the error of attending the ‘Other Russia’ political rally in 2006. The Other Russia movement was an opposition movement led by Garry Kasparov, which also included Eduard Limonov, a proto-fascist punk. Other countries, such as the US, sent government figures to the opposition conference, but the only ambassador present was the UK’s.
It was a mistake. An ambassador of course keeps touch with the various political factions in a country, but they should never publicly throw in their lot with an opposition, particularly an opposition which had so little popular support in Russia. Garry Kasparov gets an enormous amount of press in the West, but he’s barely even a marginal figure in Russian politics. And the Kremlin was furious with this public support for the opposition. Brenton is being replaced in October, but his time in Moscow has been disastrous for UK-Russian relations.
Then, when Alexander Litvinenko was brutally murdered in London, I was surprised to hear the British government come out and, basically, accuse the Kremlin of the murder, and condemn the Kremlin for failing to extradite Andrei Lugovoi. Miliband, new to the job and all-fired-up, gave the Kremlin an ultimatum which it was never going to accept. He said ‘extradite Lugovoi or else’.
But the Kremlin was never going to extradite Lugovoi - firstly, because the UK almost always refuses Russia’s requests for extradition (including requests to extradite Litvinenko himself) on the grounds that Russia’s judicial system can’t be trusted. So why should Russia cooperate with us? And secondly, why would the FSB, which is incredibly paranoid about MI6 and thinks it rules the world, hand over one of its agents, albeit a somewhat rogue agent, to MI6?
So Miliband was left looking outspoken, weak, and naive.
In the Georgian crisis, there were no good-guys. The Georgian government’s response to fighting with South Ossetians was extremely heavy-handed, with a huge bombardment of Tskhinvali by artillery. A balanced response would have condemned Russia’s involvement in the crisis, while also asserting the need to protect the lives of Ossetian civilians, which the Georgian government does not seem willing to protect.
But Miliband again weighed in with a surprisingly outspoken and one-sided response, which blamed Russia entirely for the conflict. His piece in the Times was such a one-sided polemic that it came as something of a shock to read at the end of it ‘David Miliband is the Foreign Secretary’.
He is now travelling to Ukraine to drum up ‘the widest possible support for a coalition against Russian aggression’. What is the gameplan here? Is this just a coalition ‘against Russia’? What are the coalition’s concrete goals?
His visit, to me, looks like just another example of liberal grandstanding, more unnecessary alienation of Russia, and even potentially alienation of Ukrainians, half of whom speak Russian, and who feel more sympathy with Russia than any British youth stepping off a plane to deliver a speech. Ukraine has deep ties with Russia, and depends on Russian gas, so will never sign up to some vague ‘coalition against Russia’.
President Yushchenko might meet with Miliband and voice support, but Yushchenko is deeply unpopular and on the way out, while prime minister Tymoshenko, the rising power and likely next president, has already said Ukraine wants to keep out of any military conflicts and has conspicuously failed to condemn Russia’s actions in Georgia. I wonder if she will even bother meeting Miliband.
So our foreign minister will again look weak, toothless and naive.
Yes, Ukraine’s government wants to join NATO. But its population doesn’t, so that is unlikely to happen as well. Ukraine is a country which has, at times, looked like it could be split into two, a Russian-speaking and a Ukrainian-speaking part. They are trying to forge a unity out of their young country. The last thing they need is some vain young Brit trying to draw a battle-line through the middle of their country.
Whatever happened to an intelligent, and diplomatic Foreign Office? When did it become so shrill, so driven by the desire to look good domestically rather than achieve anything real globally?
I’m not for a moment claiming that the Russian government is anything other than a KGB kleptocracy which picks fights with small neighbouring countries in order to increase its popularity at home. But there’s no point grand-standing against it. Identify your goals, then identify the best way to achieve them. Simply mouthing off against Russia might feel noble but it’s counter-productive - the regime is very popular, and is likely to be in power for many years to come.
The best way to limit Russian expansionism is to take away the excuse for its expansionism by making sure that former colonies - Georgia, Ukraine, the Baltic countries - respect the rights of Russian citizens living within their borders. If the EU takes a pro-active stance on that, it takes the wind out of Russia’s victimist rhetoric.
Jules Evans, a columnist of Eurasian Home website, London
August 27, 2008
|
