on the right side of history

7/31/2019 On the Right Side of History

1/8

On The Right Side Of HistoryBy Sergei Lavrov (Russian Foreign Minister) Huffington Post

Over the last year or a year and a half, the events unfolding in North Africa andthe Middle East have come to the forefront of the global political agenda. Theyare frequently referred to as the most remarkable episode in the international lifeof the new 21st century. Experts have long spoken about the fragility ofauthoritarian regimes in Arab countries and possible social and political shocks.

However, it was difficult to predict the scale and pace with which the wave ofchange would sweep over the region. Alongside the manifestations of crisis inthe world economy, these events have clearly proved that the process leading tothe emergence of a new international system has entered a zone of turbulence.

The more large-scale social movements appeared in the countries of the region,the more urgent became the issue of what policy should be pursued by externalactors and the entire international community. Numerous expert discussions onthat matter and subsequent practical actions of States and internationalorganizations have outlined two main approaches: either to help the Arabpeoples determine their own future by themselves, or to try to shape a newpolitical reality to one's taste while taking advantage of the softening of statestructures that had long been too rigid. The situation continues to evolve rapidly,which makes it important for those who have the biggest say in the matters of theregion to finally consolidate their efforts rather than continue to pull in differentdirections like the characters of a fable by Ivan Krylov.

Let me sum up the points that I have repeatedly made in relation to the evolvingsituation in the Middle East. First of all, Russia, in common with the majority ofcountries in the world, encourages the aspirations of the Arab peoples for abetter life, democracy and prosperity, and stands ready to support these efforts.This is why we welcomed the Deauville Partnership initiative at the G8 summit inFrance. We firmly oppose the use of violence in the course of currenttransformations in Arab States, especially against civilians. We are well aware ofthe fact that the transformation of a society is a complex and generally longprocess which rarely goes smoothly.

Russia probably knows the true cost of revolutions better than most othercountries. We are fully aware that revolutionary changes are alwaysaccompanied by social and economic setbacks as well as by loss of human lifeand suffering. This is exactly why we support an evolutionary and peaceful wayof enacting long-awaited changes in the Middle East and North Africa.

The point is, what should be done if the showdown between the authorities andthe opposition does assume the form of violent, armed confrontation? The


2/8

answer seems obvious -external actors should do their best to stop thebloodshed and support a compromise involving all parties to the conflict. Whendeciding to support UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and making noobjection to Resolution 1973 on Libya, we believed that these decisions wouldhelp limit the excessive use of force and pave the way for a political settlement.

Unfortunately, the actions undertaken by NATO countries under theseresolutions led to their grave violation and support for one of the parties to thecivil war, with the goal of ousting the existing regime - damaging in the processthe authority of the Security Council.

People versed in politics need not be told that the devil is in the detail, and toughsolutions implying the use of force cannot produce a lasting long-term settlement.And in the current circumstances, when the complexity of international relationshas increased manifold, it becomes obvious that using force to resolve conflictshas no chance of success. Examples are abundant. They include thecomplicated situation in Iraq and the crisis in Afghanistan, which is far from being

over. There are many indications that things are far from being good in Libyaafter the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi. Instability has spread further to theSahara and Sahel region, and the situation in Mali was dramatically aggravated.

Another example is Egypt, which is still far from the safe shore even thoughregime change was not accompanied by large outbreaks of violence and HosniMubarak, who had ruled the country for more than thirty years, left thepresidential palace voluntarily shortly after public protests began. We cannot butbe concerned, among other issues, with the reports of growing religious clashesand abuse of the rights of the Christian minority.

Thus, there are more than enough reasons for taking the most balancedapproach to the Syrian crisis that represents the most acute situation in theregion today. It is clear that after what had happened in Libya it was impossibleto go along with the UN Security Council taking decisions that would not beadequately explicit and would allow those responsible for their implementation toact at their own discretion. Any mandate given on behalf of the entireinternational community should be as clear and precise as possible in order toavoid ambiguity. It is therefore important to understand what is really happeningin Syria and how to help that country to pass though this painful stage of itshistory.

Unfortunately, qualified and honest analysis of developments in Syria and theirpotential consequences is still in short supply. Quite often it is replaced byprimitive images and black-and-white propaganda clichs. For several monthsmajor international media outlets have been reproducing reports about thecorrupt dictatorial regime ruthlessly suppressing the aspiration of its own peopleto freedom and democracy.


3/8

It seems, however, that the authors of those reports did not bother askingthemselves how the government could manage to stay in power without publicsupport for more than a year, despite the extensive sanctions imposed by itsmain economic partners. Why did the majority of people vote for the draftconstitution proposed by the authorities? Why, after all, have most Syrian

soldiers remained loyal to their commanders? If fear is the only explanation, thenwhy did it fail to help other authoritarian rulers?

We have stated many times that Russia is not a defender of the current regime inDamascus and has no political, economic or other reasons for becoming one.We have never been a major trade and economic partner of that country, thegovernment of which has communicated mostly with the capitals of WesternEuropean countries.

It is no less clear to us than to others that the main responsibility for the crisisthat has swept over the country lies with the Syrian government, that has failed to

take the course of reform in due time or draw conclusions from the deep changesunfolding in international relations. This is all true. Yet, there are other facts aswell. Syria is a multi-confessional state: in addition to Sunni and Shia Muslimsthere are Alawites, Orthodox and other Christian confessions, Druzes, andKurds. Over the last few decades of the secular rule of the Ba'ath party, freedomof conscience has been practiced in Syria, and religious minorities fear that if theregime is broken down this tradition may be interrupted.

When we say that these concerns should be heard and addressed, we aresometimes accused of taking positions amounting to an anti-Sunni and, moregenerally, anti-Islamic stance. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Russia,

people of various confessions, most numerous among them being OrthodoxChristians and Muslims, have lived together peacefully for centuries. Our countryhas never waged colonial wars in the Arab world but has on the contrarycontinuously supported the independence of Arab nations and their right toindependent development. And Russia bears no responsibility for theconsequences of colonial rule marked by the changes in social structures thatbrought about the tensions which still persist.

The point I want to make is different. If some members of society are concernedabout potential discrimination on the grounds of religion and national origin, thennecessary guarantees should be provided to those people in accordance withgenerally accepted international humanitarian standards.

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms has traditionally been, andcontinues to be, a major problem for the States of the Middle East, and was oneof the main causes of the "Arab revolutions".

However, Syria has never ranked low on that list, with its level of civil freedomsimmeasurably higher than that of some of the countries who are now trying to


4/8

give lessons in democracy to Damascus. In one of its recent issues, the Frenchmagazine Le Monde Diplomatique presented a chronology of human rightsabuses by a big State in the Middle East, which contained, inter alia, theexecution of 76 death sentences in 2011 alone, including for those accused ofwitchcraft. If we truly wish to promote respect for human rights in the Middle East,

we must state this goal openly. If we proclaim ending the bloodshed as ourprimary concern, we should focus precisely on that; in other words, we mustpress for a ceasefire in the first place, and promote the start of an inclusive all-Syrian dialogue aimed at negotiating a peaceful crisis settlement formula by theSyrians themselves.

Russia has been sending these messages since the first days of unrest in Syria.It was quite clear to us and, I guess, to everyone who has sufficient informationon that country, that pressing for an immediate ousting of Bashar al-Assad,contrary to the aspirations of a considerable segment of Syrian society that stillrelies on this regime for its security and well-being, would mean plunging Syria

into a protracted and bloody civil war. Responsible external actors should helpSyrians avoid that scenario and bring about evolutionary rather thanrevolutionary reform of the Syrian political system through a national dialoguerather than by means of coercion from the outside.

Taking into account today's realities in Syria, reliance on one-sided support forthe opposition, particularly for its most belligerent part, will not lead to peace inthat country anytime soon and will therefore run counter to the goal of protectingthe civilian population. What seems to prevail in that option are attempts to bringabout regime change in Damascus as an element of a larger regional geopoliticalgame. These schemes are undoubtedly targeting Iran, since a large group of

States including the USA and NATO countries, Israel, Turkey and some States ofthe region appear to be interested in weakening that country's regional positions.

The possibility of a military strike against Iran is a much-debated topic today. Ihave repeatedly stressed that such an option would lead to grave, catastrophicconsequences. An attempt to cut the Gordian knot of long-standing problems isdoomed to failure. We may recall in this regard that the US military invasion inIraq was once considered to be a "golden chance" to change the political andeconomic realities of the "greater Middle East" in a quick and decisive manner,thus turning it into a region which would follow the "European pattern" ofdevelopment.

Irrespective of the situation concerning Iran, however, it is evident that fuellingintra-Syrian strife may trigger processes that would affect the situation in the vastterritory surrounding Syria in the most negative way, having a devastating impacton both regional and international security. Risk factors include loss of controlover the Syrian-Israeli border, a worsening of the situation in Lebanon and othercountries in the region, weapons falling into the "wrong hands," including those of


5/8

terrorist organizations, and, perhaps the most dangerous of all, an aggravation ofinter-faith tensions and contradictions inside the Islamic world.

Back in the 1990s in his book "The Clash of Civilisations," Samuel Huntingtonoutlined the trend of the increasing importance of identity based on civilisation

and religion in the age of globalization; he also convincingly demonstrated therelative reduction in the abilities of the historic West to spread its influence. Itwould definitely be an overstatement if we tried to build a model of the moderninternational relations solely on the basis of such assumptions. However, today itis impossible to ignore such a trend. It is caused by an array of different factors,including more transparent national borders, the information revolution which hashighlighted blatant socio-economic inequality, and the growing desire of peopleto preserve their identity in such circumstances and to avoid falling into theendangered species list of history.

The Arab revolutions clearly show a willingness to go back to the roots of

civilisation that reveals itself in broad public support for the parties andmovements acting under the flag of Islam. This trend is apparent not only in theArab world. Let us mention Turkey, which is more actively positioning itself as amajor player in the Islamic space and the surrounding region. Asian states,including Japan, are more boldly declaring their identity.

Such a situation is further proof that the simple (if not simplistic) binaryconstruction of the Cold War period, described in the paradigms of East-West,capitalism-socialism, North-South, is being replaced by a multidimensionalgeopolitical reality that does not allow for the identification of a single dominatingfactor. The global financial and economic crisis drew a line under discussions on

whether one system can dominate in any area whatsoever, be it economy,politics or ideology.

There is no doubt left that within the broad framework that defines thedevelopment of most States and is characterized by democratic governance anda market economy, each country will independently choose its own political andeconomic model with due regard to its own traditions, culture and history. This islikely to result in a greater impact on international affairs of the factor of identitybased on civilisation.

In terms of practical politics, these conclusions can only suggest one thing:attempts to impose one's own set of values are totally futile and may only lead toa dangerous aggravation of tensions between civilisations. This certainly doesnot imply that we must completely renounce influencing each other andpromoting the right image of our country in the international arena.

However, this should be done employing honest, transparent methods that willfoster the export of national culture, education and science while showing full


6/8

respect for the values of other peoples' civilisations as a safeguard for the world'sdiversity and esteem for pluralism in international affairs.

It seems evident that hopes to apply cutting edge information dissemination andcommunications technologies, including social networks, in order to change the

mentality of other peoples, thus creating a new political reality, are bound to failin the long run. The current market for ideas is far too manifold, and virtualmethods would only bring about a virtual reality - provided, of course, that we donot resort to George Orwell's Big Brothermentality, in which case we can give upon the whole idea of democracy, not only in countries that are subjected to suchinfluence but also in those that are exercising it.

Developing a universal scale of values and morals becomes a big political issue.Such a scale could serve as the foundation for a respectful and fruitful dialoguebetween civilisations based on a common interest in reducing the instabilitywhich accompanies the creation of a new international system and aimed at

eventually establishing a solid, efficient, polycentric world order. And here, wecan only ensure success if we rule out black-and-white approaches, whether wetackle exaggerated concern for the rights of sexual minorities or, on the contrary,attempts to elevate to the political level narrow concepts of morale that wouldsatisfy one group and violate the natural rights of other citizens, particularly ofthose who belong to other confessions.

There is a certain limit reached by crises in international relations that cannot beoverstepped without causing damage to global stability. That is why work aimedat putting out regional fires, including intrastate conflicts, should be carried out asconsiderately as possible, with no double standards applied. Using a 'sanctions

bat' leads to dead-end at all times. All parties involved in internal conflicts shouldbe convinced that the international community will form a united front and act inaccordance with strict principles in order to stop violence as soon as possibleand to reach a mutually acceptable solution through comprehensive dialogue.

Russia is guided only by such principles with regard to intrastate crises, whichexplains our position on what is happening in Syria. That is why we have offeredfull and sincere support for the mission of the UN/Arab League Special EnvoyKofi Annan, aimed at finding a mutually acceptable compromise as soon aspossible. UN Security Council Presidential Statements and UN Security CouncilResolutions in this regard reflect the approaches that we have promoted from thevery beginning of the unrest in Syria; these ideas are also reflected in our jointstatement with the League of Arab States adopted on March 10, 2012.

If we were successful in making these approaches work in Syria, they couldbecome a model for international assistance in resolving future crises.

The essence of Kofi Annan's "six principles" is to ensure an end to violenceregardless of where it comes from and to start a Syrian-led political dialogue


7/8

which should address the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the Syrianpeople. It should result in a new political configuration in Syria that will take intoaccount the interests of all groups in its multi-confessional society.

It is necessary to encourage the preparation and implementation of agreements

aimed at settling the conflict without taking sides, to reward those who respectthem and to clearly name those who oppose the peace process. To achieve this,an unbiased monitoring mechanism is needed, and such a mechanism was setup in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 2042 and 2043. Russianmilitary observers are part of the international monitoring team.

Unfortunately, the process of implementing Kofi Annan's plan in Syria isproceeding with great difficulty. The world was appalled by massacres ofunarmed civilians, including the tragedy that happened in the village of Houla onMay 25, 2012 and the subsequent bloody violence in the vicinity of Hama. It isnecessary to clarify who is responsible for this and to punish the perpetrators. No

one has the right to usurp the role of judge and to use these tragic events toachieve their own geopolitical goals. Abandoning such attempts will make itpossible to stop the spiral of violence in Syria.

Those who say that Russia "is saving" Bashar al-Assad are wrong. I would like toreiterate that it is the Syrian people themselves who choose the political systemand leadership of their country. We are not trying to whitewash the multiplemistakes and miscalculations made by Damascus, including the use of forceagainst peaceful demonstrations at the beginning of the crisis.

For us, the issue of who is in power in Syria is not the major one; it is important to

put an end to civilian deaths and to start a political dialogue in a situation wherethe sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country will berespected by all external actors. No violence can be justified. The shelling ofresidential areas by government troops is unacceptable, but it cannot be viewedas an indulgence for terrorist acts in Syrian cities, for murders conducted byinsurgents opposed to the regime, including those of Al-Qaida.

The logic that dictates the need to break the vicious circle of violence hasmanifested itself in the unilateral support that members of the UN SecurityCouncil have given to the Annan Plan. We are upset by the claims and actions ofsome actors involved in the Syrian situation that manifest their stake on thefailure of the Special Envoy's efforts. Among them, are the calls of the SyrianNational Council (SNC) leadership for foreign intervention. It is unclear how suchclaims would help SNC sponsors to unite the Syrian opposition under itsumbrella. We stand for the integration of the Syrian opposition only on theplatform of preparedness for political dialogue with the government - in exactaccordance with the Annan Plan.


8/8

Russia keeps working with the Syrian authorities almost every day urging them tofully comply with the six points proposed by Kofi Annan and to resolutelyabandon their delusion that the internal political crisis in Syria will somehow goaway. We also work with representatives of almost all branches of the Syrianopposition. We are sure that if all our partners work in the same concentrated

manner without any hidden motives or double standards, there is a chance for apeaceful settlement of the situation in Syria. We need to bring all the weight tobear on both the regime and the opposition and make them cease fighting andmeet at the negotiating table. We consider it important to urgently take collectiveeffort to this end and to convene an international conference of the States directlyinvolved in the crisis in Syria. With that goal in mind, we maintain close contactswith Kofi Annan and other partners.

Only by acting in this way we can keep the Middle East from sliding into theabyss of wars and anarchy and thus stay, as it has become fashionable to say,on the right side of history. We are sure that other formulas that involve external

intervention in Syria - ranging from blocking TV channels that do not satisfysomeone, to increasing arms supplies to opposition groups, to airstrikes - will notbring peace either to that country or to the region as a whole. And that meansthat those formulas will not be justified by history.

on the right side of history

Documents