|
|
|
|
|
|
18.07.07
|
Why Now?
|
|
|
By Shaun Walker
|
The Russian response to Britain’s decision to expel four Russian diplomats, both in official statements and in the media, comprised a mixture of anger and confusion. Why, it was repeatedly asked, did Britain take such a drastic escalatory step, when it knew that it would certainly not secure the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi, and would probably suffer reciprocated expulsions? Why was Britain punishing Russia for adhering to the letter of its own constitution? Was it all part of a wider anti-Russian feeling in Britain and the West? Was the “evil hand” of Boris Berezovsky behind this? Is it that Gordon Brown, having finally got his hands on the prime-ministership, and not content with an Islamic threat in his first days in office, wants to come out all guns blazing and declare a new, tougher foreign policy?
Analysts in London have suggested that none of these reasons, all of which have found currency in Moscow in the past two days, were behind the timing of the British Government’s decision to expel. At the Foreign Policy Centre, a think tank set up in the early days of the New Labour government in Britain and seen as influential on foreign policy under Tony Blair, doubts were expressed that the decision had anything to do with the new British leader stamping his authority on the Russia question. “I don’t think this signifies anything major about Gordon Brown’s foreign policy,” said Alex Bigham, the think tank’s communications officer. “This is a decision that could just as easily have been taken by Tony Blair and [former foreign secretary] Margaret Beckett.”
Bobo Lo, head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House in London, agreed. “People think it’s because Gordon Brown wants to show he’s tough,” said the analyst. “But believe it or not, the reasons – whether you agree with them or not – are motivated by moral and legal concerns. I don’t think people in Moscow – especially in the Russian government – understand the degree of outrage here.”
“It’s not so much that Russia didn’t agree to extradite Lugovoi – I don’t think anyone in London really expected that they would,” said Lo. “The problem is that the Russian government treated the affair with contempt and was totally unrepentant. Had the Kremlin handled it better, we wouldn’t have got to this state.”
“I think it’s entirely right we’re getting tough with Russia,” said Bigham of the Foreign Policy Centre. “They’ve not been playing by the rules of international law. The more pressure we can put on them the better.”
In Moscow, different reasons were being given for the escalation. Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of research at the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a Moscow-based think tank, put Britain’s moves down to more conspiratorial motives. “I think that the British move was deliberately meant to increase tension, and the main goal was to have an effect on Russian-Western relations as a whole, and to convince their partners in the EU that they should reconsider their position on Russia.” Suslov said this would help engineer a rapprochement of Europe and the United States, which would allow Britain a greater role on the international stage as a bridge between the two. “When relations between the EU and the United States are better, Britain becomes more influential. Britain is very interested in brining this about, and thinks it’s possible to do so on an anti-Russian basis.” As such, said Suslov, the timing of the incident, just after the CFE treaty announcement from Moscow, was hardly surprising – Britain hoped to capitalize on fear and suspicion of Russia in European capitals.
But, Suslov added, despite Britain’s calls for Europe to back it in the dispute with Russia, this is unlikely to happen. “The only countries in which there is appetite for this are some of the new EU countries – the Baltic states and Poland – there is no desire in Western European capitals.” And, while not everyone might agree with his analysis of British motives, his conclusions about European backing seem to be sound.
Angela Merkel seemed to be less than whole hearted in backing Britain when she shared a platform with Gordon Brown on the day the measures were announced, and since then the Portuguese foreign minister, as the representative of the EU’s rotating presidency, issued a statement saying that the matter is “bilateral” between Britain and Russia. Britain is keen for Europe to get behind its drive to get tougher with Russia, while the Russian foreign ministry statement yesterday urged Europe to use “common sense” and not get involved in the dispute. For now, it seems that Europe is listening to Moscow more than London, but more will become clear when EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels next Monday.
“This is a limited bilateral issue, and will have minimal impact on Kosovo, the CFE treaty, Iran or anything else,” said Bobo Lo. “Moscow will be careful not to unite Europeans behind the UK, and this is the reason it has delayed its response – it wants to contrast British precipitousness with Russian sense of balance and caution.” |
| The source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The virtual community for English-speaking expats and Russians
