Pravda.Ru conducted an interview with
Dr. Alon Ben Meir, a Professor and Senior Fellow at New York
University's Center for Global Affairs and Senior Fellow at the World
Policy Institute. Dr. Ben-Meir is an expert on Middle East politics and
affairs, specializing in international negotiations and conflict
resolution. We spoke to Sr. Alon Ben Meir about the war of sanctions
that the West started against Russia a year ago.
Which objectives have been set and have they been achieved?
There is no question that the main
objective was to pressure President Putin to bring an end to the
incursion of pro-Russian rebels into Eastern Ukraine, where they have
captured significant swaths of territory.
Although recent Western displeasure with Russia began after Russia reunited with Crimea,
the growing opposition to Russia by the US and the EU is related mostly
to the continuing stream of rebels from the Russian side. Certainly the
sanctions in and of themselves did not achieve their main objective (to
pressure Putin to withdraw his support of the rebels). That said, many
officials share the view that the continuing sanctions have inhibited
the Russian government from annexing more Ukrainian territory. The
logical conclusion, as seen in the West, is to impose more sanctions-not
only to the hurt the Russian economy, but to further isolate Russia
until Putin relents, which include strict adherence to the ceasefire and
a show of genuine good-will to bring an end to the conflict. It should
be noted that the US fully appreciates Russia's collaborative role in other areas, such as the negotiations with Iran, and as a result the US prefers a political solution without humiliating Putin.
Some experts believe that the
reason of economic crisis in Russia are not about the Western sanctions,
but the decrease in oil price. What do you think?
It is doubtless that while Western sanctions
continue to tax the Russian economy, the fall in oil prices has further
aggravated Russia's economic crisis. Needless to say, being that
Russia's main export is oil and gas (which represent roughly 70 percent
of its foreign trade), the fact that Russia did not diversify its
exports to include thousands of house-hold commodities and equipment
means the economic crisis would not have been as severe as it is. It was
obvious to many in the West that Russia's "oil foreign policy" was
always risky, and its heavy reliance on energy exports was and still is
unsustainable. This explains why the drop in oil prices has had a
greater impact on Russia than other oil-producing nations, even Iran.
It should be emphasized that because of
new discoveries of oil and gas in the Americas, the Middle East, North
Africa, and elsewhere (which made the US, for example, a net exporter), it is unlikely the price of oil and gas will increase in the foreseeable future $10 --15 more a barrel than the current price,
unless a major conflagration erupts in the Middle East or in Europe.
That is, the likelihood that the price of oil remains depressed will
certainly have a major impact on policy makers everywhere, especially in
the large oil-producing countries like Russia, to carefully reassess
their domestic economic development programs, trade, and foreign
relations.
Is it an organized act by the US
and Saudi Arabia? If it is so, then Obama deliberately endangered the
shale miracle in the US, didn't he?
Personally, I believe that if the US and Saudi Arabia had "conspired" to drop oil prices, it would have been directed more toward Iran rather than Russia,
as the US is seeking greater leverage in the ongoing negotiations over
Iran's nuclear program. As such, a substantial reduction in the price of
oil would make the lifting of sanctions on Iran all the more critical.
The logic is that the greater the economic pain, the greater the
flexibility Tehran will have to show.
Thus, from what I know, Russia is not the target and there is no conspiracy. The reason why Saudi Arabia
kept the price of oil down is largely motivated by its fear of Iran's
regional ambition to become the region's hegemon, especially if it were
to become a nuclear power. Furthermore, the Saudis believe that should
Iran end up acquiring nuclear weapons, it will be in a position to
intimidate Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States in its battle between the
Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq and elsewhere.
Saudi Arabia has huge foreign currency
reserves (estimated at one trillion) and unlike Iran, the Saudis will
not suffer economically in spite of the fact that the Saudis stand to
lose billions of dollars.
So, what is needed for the oil price starting to rise at last? Tyler Durden believes
that it is Putin who should surrender Bashar al-Assad, who does not
give permission for gas pipeline installation from Qatar to Europe.
Do you agree?
No country wants to see the entire
collapse of oil prices only to crush Russia. Thus, the entire issue
regarding permission to build a pipeline is secondary given the upheaval
in the region, especially in Syria and Iraq-so the notion of a pipeline
is off the charts. One thing that can be extremely helpful to ease the
tension between the US and Russia is a full cooperation to end the civil
war in Syria by persuading Assad to change policies. Putin can play a
major role in this regard-Obama understands Russian interests in Syria
and has qualms with Putin in this regard. In fact, the feeling in
Washington is that ending the conflict in Syria and Iraq will benefit
Russia, and Moscow could emerge a real winner if Putin decides to play a
constructive role and fully cooperate in diffusing the civil war in Syria.
To be sure, many in the government here understand the indispensable importance of Russia
in resolving many of the raging conflicts; they also admit that many
mistakes have happened, especially the lack of sensitivity in dealing
early on with the Ukraine crisis. That said, ending the Ukrainian
conflict became sine qua non to resolving other conflicting issues.
Will Putin go the length of it?
In my view, this process depends on 1) a
satisfactory solution to the negotiations between Iran and the US, 2)
agreeing and adhering to a ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine and beginning
the process of withdrawing rebel forces, and 3) getting Putin to
cooperate more on Syria.
No one in the West sees a peaceful
solution in Ukraine necessarily as a setback for Russia because Crimea
became a part of Russia, and everyone understands this is irreversible.
The US does appreciate Russian cooperation in the ongoing talks between
Iran and the P5+1, and any help Russia can render in the search for a
resolution to the Syrian crisis will ultimately benefit Russia, because
degrading and eventually destroying ISIS will also serve Russia's best
interests.
The continuation of the war against
ISIS, however, could also further instigate severe disturbance in the
Caucasus, to Russia's detriment.
Pravda.Ru
No comments:
Post a Comment