Thursday, April 27, 2017

Issue 6





THE BRETON/GEROL NEWSLETTER


WHITE HOUSE 1, KREMLIN 0


Secretary of State Tillerson and Foreign Minister Lavrov, Moscow, April 11th,

If any Russian politician still harbored some remnants of hope that Donald Trump's ascendance would improve relations between US and Russia, that ended with Rex Tillerson’s April 11th visit to the Russian capital.

It is not the unusually chilly atmosphere of the posh mansion of the Russian Foreign Ministry reception house where the ministers held their meeting and in the Kremlin, where the Russian President, after a long hesitation, received Tillerson for a two-hour long discussion that will be remembered. It will rather be the fact that at no time did the parties show any serious will to compromise on main issues: Syria and Ukraine. It was confirmed by both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as well as by their foreign ministers that never before in modern history the relations between two leading nuclear powers were at such a dangerously low level. Even during the Cuban missile crisis (1962) President Kennedy and Russian leader Khrushchev looked for a compromise and finally found it. Today's ultimatum-like formula several times repeated by Rex Tillerson during his meetings at G-7 in Italy and in Moscow sounded far more threatening; "either you are with us or you are against us". Even more dangerous was the fact that Tillerson's formula was interpreted by Sergey Lavrov as a direct threat.

In many ways the Russian position was even more blunt and stubborn. Moscow continued to categorically deny any possibility that Assad's government used Sarin gas, despite strong evidence and some classified documents that were introduced by the American side such as intercepted conversations between Syrian military command and specialists on chemical weapons. Even China was convinced that Assad crossed the line. Consequently Beijing abstained during the vote at the UN Security Council condemning Syria (Russia used its veto for the 8th time during the last 6 years of the Syrian conflict).

A couple of positive points in the overall grim picture: both sides' realistic assessment that relations between those two nuclear heavy-weights cannot deteriorate any further, agreement to create working groups to determine the exact irritant points in the relationship, while Russia promptly restored the lines of communications between military commands in Syria.

Considering what Russia had hoped to gain by seeing Donald Trump as president, the result of the US State Secretary's visit and the overall anti-Russian tone of the Administration can be interpreted as a huge political setback for Putin's Russia. The unfolding crisis in the Korean peninsula only adds to that tendency.  

--o--

CASUALTIES OF A DIFFERENT ORDER



A crater is seen at the site of an airstrike, after what rescue workers described as a suspected gas attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in rebel-held Idlib, Syria April 4, 2017. © Ammar Abdullah / Reuters
US Ambassador Haley at the special meeting of the Security Council on Syria, April 5th, 2017

Western media and Western governments unreservedly attributed the responsibility for the April 4th use of chemical weapons in Khan Cheikhoun to Syrian government actors. Russia was later on mentioned as complicit, possibly. Contradicting statements from the President of Syria and the President of Russia followed. Since then the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic has stated it could not come to a clear conclusion. The OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) has stated that the results of the analysis of bio-medical samples of seven individuals by certified laboratories indicate that the victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. On April 26th, French authorities claimed they had some evidence about the origin of the Sarin gas found on the scene of the April 4th incident and claimed it led directly to the Assad regime.The OPCW is however not yet sending its experts to Syria, to the chagrin of the Russian authorities. In other words, without receiving a lot of media attention, a vigorous diplomatic and technical debate is still going on.

Given the gravity of the accusations as well the outright denials by the leaders of Syria and Russia, a minimum of circumspection might have been expected before action is taken. In a case like this the international community might also have been expected to achieve a consensus over the need to seek a thorough examination of the facts.

Casualties related to the use of chemical weapons understandably carry a far greater emotional charge. Extreme indignation is a natural reaction. There are some problems with the reaction of the US President.

Trump said “that the video of children suffering from the chemical attack has changed very much his view of Syria and Assad”. Of all the evidence that has been produced thus far, the incriminating video turns out to be the one piece that raised the most questions, unlike the intelligence-based evidence that Secretary of State Tillerson brought to Moscow a week after the incident.

Furthermore, the military response, within 72 hours, was unusually quick for an event of this nature. As noted above, The French government only produced its evidence three weeks after the incident.

The response was spectacular: the early morning launch of cruise missiles was even described as beautiful by one senior US commentator.

The response was targeted, but altogether ineffective. The response, in the form of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles, was clearly directed at the alleged perpetrators’ base, the Syrian Air Force facilities in Shayrat. It was even claimed by some senior US officer as having destroyed the means for Syria to deliver chemical weapons. Planes were, however, flying out of that base the day after the US attack. Ultimately, the military reaction, which was spun as the act of a decisive leader, was not even commensurate with the alleged level of indignation.

The US President’s decision in favour of a military response also contradicted his own previous September 2013 calls for President Obama not to attack Syria.

The indignation over the tragic incident in Khan Cheikhoun will taper off, as is always the case. Despite what Trump said, there will likely be no fundamental change to US policy in relation to the Syria conflict. There are too many other factors in play. We will be left with the confirmation that we have a US President who has a superficial and volatile understanding of world affairs, seems to make decisions on the basis of what he sees on television, and will do what makes him look like a strong leader.


--o--

HISTORY VS PSYCHIATRY

Kim Jung-un saluting participants of the military parade marking the 105th anniversary of his grand-father
Pyongyang, April 15th, 2017


Neglect or ignorance of history seems like an integral part of today's approach to key world events. There is some attraction in discussing the psychopathic behavior of Kim Jong-un; his Chaplinesque look and semi-idiotic smiles, for example. But to those who are familiar with the last year of the Korean War (1950-1953), the current situation is not unusual. Chairman Mao explained in his letter to Joseph Stalin the stubborn behavior of the besieged North Korean leader Kim Il-sung (the grandfather of current Kim): "he is obsessed by petty calculations rather than a strategic approach". At that time it took Mao some serious efforts to force Kim to the negotiating table. China even threatened to cut military aid leaving the North to its own destiny. As the result the armistice agreement was signed in Panmunjom (the Demilitarized Zone which still divides North and South Korea). The current Kim's "petty calculations" are part of the same pattern used by his grandfather: military threats used to secure concessions and economic aid from the West. This time however China has more to lose and it seems like it is applying unseen before political and economic pressure on its stubborn ally. This probably will be the best way to avoid all out war.   

--o--

UKRAINE:  ARE THERE OTHER PIECES TO THIS PUZZLE?


President Porosheko and Belarus President Lukashenko
Kyiv, April 26th, 2017
President Poroshenko and UK Prime Minister Theresa May
London, April 19th, 2017
Preisent Poroshenko and Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen
Copenhagen, April 5th, 2017
At the G-7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Italy on April 11, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asked his counterparts: “Why should U.S. taxpayers be interested in Ukraine?” Later on, this was confirmed by his spokesperson, but described as a “rhetorical” question. A strong impression nevertheless remains. This would be one of the few cases where the Trump administration has been consistent with the Trump campaign’s “America first” mantra.

On April 25th, 2018 USAID budget proposals were made public. The budget for Ukraine would plummet from $570 million to $177 million.

Around April 21st, the rumour surfaced that the Trump administration might appoint a special envoy to communicate directly with Vladislav Surkov, President Putin’s point man on Ukraine. The idea would be to negotiate an end to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, a matter which has been the raison d’ĂȘtre of the “Normandy Four”(France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine) discussions, but in which the US has not been a direct participant.

The coincidence of the Trump administration disinterest in Ukraine and its interest in direct discussions with Moscow offers little to cheer about in Kyiv. This would explain why President Poroshenko has kept a very busy schedule of meeting with his European counterparts, ostensibly working to firm up the support for Ukraine among European allies and neighbours (including Belarus). 

There has now been on April 23rd a phone conversation between Tillerson and Poroshenko. For Poroshenko, the main objective was to set a date for his first meeting with Trump. This was also the occasion for Poroshenko to seek a reiteration of the “nothing on Ukraine without Ukraine” US policy, a reflection of the preoccupations in Kyiv about the approach of the Trump administration. In the immediate aftermath of the deadly incident involving a US member of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, he also took advantage of the moment to re-launch the idea of a UN Peacekeeping Mission for the Donbass.

In the meantime, on the ground in Eastern Ukraine the military stalemate is showing no signs of alteration. The economy and the infrastructure of the rebel regions are increasingly becoming more dependent on Russia. The indeterminate suspension of electrical power supplies to the insurgent-run area of the Lugansk region, as of April 25th, is the most recent example of this.

In all the above-noted existing or proposed conversations, it is difficult to find any sign of a possible political resolution of the conflict. Even the rumoured more regular direct conversations between Presidents Putin and Poroshenko do not seem to bring any result, other than preventing a worsening of the situation.

Whereas the UN Peacekeeping proposal would run the risk of freezing the conflict for many more years, it might be the way for the government in Kyiv to rein in the private militias and give the official army a greater role or, if nothing else, to create embarrassment  in Moscow. Russia has already made clear that peacekeeping arrangements would have to be agreed with the authorities in the rebel regions, an unlikely scenario as Kyiv remains unwilling to have direct exchanges with these authorities.

--o--

PERSONALITY OF THE MONTH

Emmanuel Macron, Facebook photograph
Though the second round of elections in France will take place on May 7th, it can already be stated with a great degree of probability: Emmanuel Macron will become the 5th Republic's 8th president. Of course it is not exactly the same 5th Republic envisioned by General Charles de Gaulle in 1958 when he introduced the most radical political reforms, but it is still a strong presidential system. 

For the first time since 1958 in France and first time ever in Europe voters decisively rejected both mainstream political parties (in France it was Socialists and Republicans) while catapulting two outsiders into the final round.

Emmanuel Macron, born in 1977, is an economist and former investment banker. Until he formed his political movement En Marche! a year ago, he never had political affiliations. At the same time, the outgoing Socialist president, Francois Hollande, publicly threw his support behind the candidacy of Macron going into the second round.

Emmanuel Macron is pro-EU, he supports cultural integration of immigrants and though not overtly against Russia is critical of Putin's steps in Syria and Ukraine.


It has to be noted that Jean-Luc MĂ©lanchon the left-wing candidate and a practicing Marxist who surprisingly collected slightly more than 19 % of popular vote in the first round refused to endorse Macron against Le Pen mainly because his anti-EU stand is very much similar to Marine Le Pen's.

Nevertheless, barring some extraordinary events or cataclysms that are always possible, Macron has a chance to become a successful and a long term president of his currently polarized country.


--o--


BRIEFLY NOTED

KAZAKHSTAN-TURKMENISTAN

Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev and Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, his Turkmenistan counterpart, have signed a strategic partnership treaty on April 18 in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan The treaty is designed to resolve long lasting border disputes between the two countries. In answering questions from the press, Nazarbayev declared that Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan will be the only two countries in Central Asia without border problems. The second phase of the negotiations will deal with agreements combating cross-border money laundering  and the financing of terrorist-related activities in the region. Altogether eight other documents are expected to be signed, including an information sharing treaty between branches of both countries' foreign ministries. 

KAZAKHSTAN

President Nazarbayev has publicly supported the long proclaimed desire of Kazakh intelligentsia and youth to switch the Kazakh language from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. He has now instructed the government to initiate the move. In his article for Kazakh newspaper Egemen Kazakhstan, he outlined that now when all young people are familiar with English the switch would be more natural and beneficial to the country's future. The process will go on for a decade during which the Cyrillic alphabet will be in use as well.

TURKEY-RUSSIA

For the first time since the early 40s representatives of all Kurdish factions will assemble in Moscow. The meeting could be considered as semi-official. It has, however, already raised some eyebrows in Turkey: even the remote possibility of independent Kurdistan is considered by Ankara a national nightmare.

The increasing cooperation between Moscow strategists and Kurdish nationalists will undoubtedly become a serious issue preventing further improvement of relations between Turkey and Russia. Kurdish nationalist factions have begun to attract an array of rather contradictory forces: Russia, US, Israel, Europe and even China. The only player which finds itself excluded from that amalgamation is Turkey, the country that stands to lose the most should independent Kurdistan become a fact.

MONGOLIA

It was proudly announced in Ulaanbaatar, capital of Mongolia, that the country had launched its first satellite (Mongol Sat-1). For that land-locked country this satellite will improve its communication systems and bring it closer to the world community of nations.

RUSSIA

Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister made a controversial visit to the breakaway republic of Abkhazia - one of the two enclaves that separated from Georgia and proclaimed independence in 2008 after a brief war between Russia and Georgia. This visit however was carried out with one intention in mind: to emphasize that while South Ossetia, the other enclave, will probably be soon incorporated into Russia, Abkhazia will remain quasi independent for the time being.

MOLDOVA

On April 3rd President Dodon signed a memorandum on cooperation between Moldova and the Eurasian Economic Union, effectively undermining further ties between his country and Brussels. It came with one condition attached: Moldova insisted that Russia would not extend recognition to the so-called Trans-Dniester republic, the enclave that split from Moldova in the early 1990's after the collapse of the USSR.


--o--

THE AUTHORS

Ilya Gerol, former foreign editor of the Citizen in Ottawa, syndicated columnist in Canadian, US and European media specializing in international affairs. His particular area of expertise includes Russia, Eurasian Economic Union, Eastern and Central Europe.  Ilya Gerol has written several books, one of them, The Manipulators, had become a textbook on relations of media and society.



During his career in the Canadian Foreign Service, Gilles Breton had three assignments at the Canadian Embassy  in Moscow. His first posting there began during the Soviet period, in 1983. His last was from 2008 to 2012 as Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission. He also served as Deputy Director responsible for Canada’s relations with Russia from 2000 to 2008. As an international civil servant, he was Deputy Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw from 1994 to 1997.