MOSCOW: When Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov issued a barely veiled threat Friday to use Russia’s veto power against a new UN Security Council resolution, he flashed what might be Moscow’s biggest bargaining chip in the high-stakes discussions over Iraq.
“The word ‘veto’ must have been pronounced in order to use its threat and get certain concessions from the Americans,” said Liliya F. Shevtsova, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center.
The comments came after President Vladimir V. Putin’s chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin, held three days of talks in Washington, D.C., this week that are widely believed to have focused on how Moscow might benefit from giving greater diplomatic support to the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
Those top-level but secretive discussions — described by US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher as “very, very good” — came after months of high-pressure diplomacy, including subtle bargaining over issues such as repayment of Iraq’s debt to Moscow and future oil contracts.
“There is clearly a connection between Ivanov’s statement and Voloshin’s mission,” Shevtsova said.
Speaking at a news conference in Beijing on Friday, Ivanov said: “Russia has the right of veto at the UN Security Council, and, if it is required in the interests of international stability, it may use this right.”
US officials, however, say they don’t expect a Russian veto. Washington, D.C., vigorously has been pressing the argument that Russia’s economic interests lie with friendship with the new Iraqi government that would be installed after any successful US- led war.
“The arguments that we’ve made on economic grounds to the Russians are not anything like quid pro quos,” a senior Bush administration official said, speaking on condition he not be further identified. “What we’ve said is that if you are concerned with recouping your $8 billion in debts and if you’re interested in economic opportunities in liberated Iraq, it will be helpful if you were part of the prevailing coalition. I think that’s only common sense.”
This “common sense,” however, constitutes a veiled threat of its own: If Russia vetoes the Security Council resolution that sets the stage for disarming Iraq by force, it might not get the money that Iraq owes Moscow and might find itself frozen out of oil contracts both old and new.
“Our principle is that the oil assets and other assets of Iraq would be turned over to the reconstituted Iraqi government as soon as we can do that, and what the new Iraqi government does I suppose will be their decision,” the US official said. “But I don’t see why anybody would be surprised that a new government in Iraq would look favourably on the people that helped it get there.
“And I think from an economic point of view, it’s hard to argue with the proposition that an Iraq whose oil supplies are fully integrated into the international economy is a lot more likely to be able to service its debts than an Iraq that’s a pariah state.”
Voloshin went to Washington, D.C., to seek “guarantees of our interests in Iraq,” said Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst with good Kremlin connections. “But this is a delicate thing.” He cited a contract between Iraq and Russian oil giant Lukoil as an example.
“How can we get assurance that guarantees remain valid once promises are given?” Markov said. “How should a guarantee be reflected? Should we expect Bush to stamp his presidential seal onto the Lukoil contract with Iraq?”
Markov expressed skepticism that Washington would honour any promises concerning Iraqi oil if such promises were made.
“Only very idealistic people in Russia can believe that when it comes to dividing the control over Iraqi oil resources, Bush will listen to Putin rather than to his friends from Texan oil companies,” he said. “The Americans are not giving us any guarantees yet, anyway.”
Instead, Voloshin mainly discussed potential payoffs in other areas, Markov said. “For example, he might talk about uranium- related markets, about markets for spent nuclear fuel, about acceptance of the Russian military-industrial complex into NATO arms markets, about a change in US policy toward pipeline-laying consortiums,” he said.
“I am sure that Voloshin also spoke about oil companies’ interests and guarantees for them too,” Markov said. “But at this stage, I don’t see the way Bush can really give us any practical guarantees on this issue. There is no mechanism for this yet.”
In a more political vein that some view as part of the Iraq bargaining, the State Department said Friday that it has designated three Chechen rebel groups as “terrorist organizations,” a step Moscow has been urging. It named the three as Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs, the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment and the Islamic International Brigade.
US officials said the three groups took part in the mass hostage-taking at a Moscow theatre in October, when 129 captives died, nearly all from a sleeping gas used by Russian forces before storming the building. The State Department also said the groups have Al Qaeda ties. Russia, which has fought two wars in Chechnya in the past decade, is still pressing for additional organizations to be added to the list.
Shevtsova said it’s a bit late for Russia to be haggling over economic and political benefits in return for support on the resolution, because a war is extremely likely and Russia won’t want to go against the winners.
“The point of no return has been passed,” she said. “The train that Russia should end up on has already started off. And now Russia should be thinking not about getting dividends, or bargaining with the US, but about getting on that train and finding a seat.” —Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times