The recent diplomatic scandal between the US and Russia openly coincided with another scandal on the diplomatic front: the Israeli leadership refused to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. Instead of conducting talks with Ivanov, who represents a country co-sponsoring the Middle East peace settlement, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon left for London to, as the BBC writes, 'make peace' with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The aforementioned political scandal between Russia and the US broke this past weekend after the US Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow made several statements which brought a sharp reaction from the Russian Foreign Ministry. Indeed it is difficult to see how Vershbow's statement that the 'US can not look after the Russian Embassy in Iraq as a diplomatic mission, and therefore can not accept responsibility for the security of its employees,' would be heard in Moscow with quiet understanding.
But Vershbow 'presented Moscow with another gift' before Ivanov's departure to the Middle East: Vershbow simply told the media that Washington is hopeful that the 'Russian special services will help with the search for Saddam Hussein and his family.'
Foreign Ministry representative Alexander Yakovenko responded with irritation that the US ambassador 'must know that the high level of Russian-American collaboration depends on reliable channels of dialogue and exchange of information, including confidential information. Therefore, appealing to us through the mass media is inappropriate.'
During the course of his Middle Eastern tour, Ivanov has to meet with the leaders of Jordan, Syria, Libya and Egypt. During all of these meetings he will have to discuss the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the 'road map' to peace.
It seems clear from the unprofessional and tactless statements by Vershbow and the coinciding response of Sharon to Ivanov's visit that this is an open demonstration of a new reality for Russian foreign policy - Russia's role in the Middle East is diminishing.
It is true that such a conclusion about world politics is conditional - neither in Israel nor in the US is there a unified position in relation to their strategic priorities. There exists different centers of power that determine foreign policy decisions. Each of these centers of power has its own vision of national interests and, therefore, its own mission.
For example, Tel-Aviv's hard line in supporting Mahmoud Abbas can be explained by the necessity to demonstrate support for the 'road map.' But this is only Sharon's position and many in Israel disagree with it.
The Israeli government is currently demonstrating a desire to isolate Arafat. Israeli Vice Premier Natan Shcharansky said that 'everyone who is trying to return Arafat to the political arena, to return him his authority as an international political figure, is in essence contributing to the continuation of terror.'
There are other possible answers to Vershbow's statements. The Russian daily newspaper Izvestiya for example does not connect this scandal with the problems of Ivanov's Middle Eastern tour: 'Not long ago US representatives expressed their dissatisfaction that Russian diplomats returned to Baghdad 'to defend their oil companies' interests.' Clearly, a hard fight for Iraq's energy resources continues in spite of the change of power in Baghdad.'
How much this observation is connected with the goals of Ivanov at the present time is an open question. What seems certain, however, as the world order of power shifts and different centers of power within national governments fight for control, nothing can be predetermined.
http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2003/07/21/63370.html
The aforementioned political scandal between Russia and the US broke this past weekend after the US Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow made several statements which brought a sharp reaction from the Russian Foreign Ministry. Indeed it is difficult to see how Vershbow's statement that the 'US can not look after the Russian Embassy in Iraq as a diplomatic mission, and therefore can not accept responsibility for the security of its employees,' would be heard in Moscow with quiet understanding.
But Vershbow 'presented Moscow with another gift' before Ivanov's departure to the Middle East: Vershbow simply told the media that Washington is hopeful that the 'Russian special services will help with the search for Saddam Hussein and his family.'
Foreign Ministry representative Alexander Yakovenko responded with irritation that the US ambassador 'must know that the high level of Russian-American collaboration depends on reliable channels of dialogue and exchange of information, including confidential information. Therefore, appealing to us through the mass media is inappropriate.'
During the course of his Middle Eastern tour, Ivanov has to meet with the leaders of Jordan, Syria, Libya and Egypt. During all of these meetings he will have to discuss the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the 'road map' to peace.
It seems clear from the unprofessional and tactless statements by Vershbow and the coinciding response of Sharon to Ivanov's visit that this is an open demonstration of a new reality for Russian foreign policy - Russia's role in the Middle East is diminishing.
It is true that such a conclusion about world politics is conditional - neither in Israel nor in the US is there a unified position in relation to their strategic priorities. There exists different centers of power that determine foreign policy decisions. Each of these centers of power has its own vision of national interests and, therefore, its own mission.
For example, Tel-Aviv's hard line in supporting Mahmoud Abbas can be explained by the necessity to demonstrate support for the 'road map.' But this is only Sharon's position and many in Israel disagree with it.
The Israeli government is currently demonstrating a desire to isolate Arafat. Israeli Vice Premier Natan Shcharansky said that 'everyone who is trying to return Arafat to the political arena, to return him his authority as an international political figure, is in essence contributing to the continuation of terror.'
There are other possible answers to Vershbow's statements. The Russian daily newspaper Izvestiya for example does not connect this scandal with the problems of Ivanov's Middle Eastern tour: 'Not long ago US representatives expressed their dissatisfaction that Russian diplomats returned to Baghdad 'to defend their oil companies' interests.' Clearly, a hard fight for Iraq's energy resources continues in spite of the change of power in Baghdad.'
How much this observation is connected with the goals of Ivanov at the present time is an open question. What seems certain, however, as the world order of power shifts and different centers of power within national governments fight for control, nothing can be predetermined.
http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2003/07/21/63370.html
