MOSCOW. (Leonid Radzikhovsky, a member of the RIA Novosti Expert Council) - It has become almost a tradition for HAMAS to make their annual visit to Moscow.
Of course, there are plenty of ill-wishers who ask: "What riff-raff is Russia going to hobnob with next time?" But if we forget about the insulting tone, the question is appropriate.
Moscow is a most-favored treatment zone for strong political statements. Feeling quite at home, the HAMAS leader explains in Moscow that his movement will not recognize Israel until it "stops the suffering of the Palestinian people." Moscow does not object to this poetic but not very precise settlement formula. At the same time, the Iranian Ambassador warns in Moscow that if the U.S. bombs Iran, Tehran will retaliate this attack all over the world. It is strange that Iranian ambassadors to other countries do not make such statements, for instance, the United States.
In general, all our buddies - Chavez, Assad, Iran, and HAMAS - are a strong irritant for the U.S. Is Russia's sole purpose to wind up the Americans, or does it pursue some other aims? And if so, what aims?
I was recently asked the following question: "Should Russia be guided by world public opinion in its foreign policy?" I replied that it is better to be guided by international law (which allows for different interpretations), and by one's own national interests (which permit even more liberties).
What is world public opinion all about? Who said that it is the opinion of The New York Times editor? Couldn't it be the opinion of those Palestinian women who were dancing with joy after the September 11, 2001 attack, as we all saw on TV? Each country is guided by the public opinion that reflects its own views. Russia has made it clear that it prefers the opinion of the Muslim street rather than Wall Street. Well, every nation has the right to choose its friends, and is responsible for its choice in our multi-polar world.
But, still, what are Russia's foreign policy goals?
This is not an easy question. Do we want to trade with everyone? This is a natural motive, but our weapons are bought by those who are either using them to shoot at Americans, or are threatening to do so. Maybe, it would make sense for us to calculate the losses from such trade, such as potential reduction of scientific and technical cooperation with the United States? There is a simple answer to this question - the scale of this cooperation is small as it is, and was not impressive when our relations were at their best.
What other interests do we have? Obviously, we want to build nuclear stations in Iran. But foreign policy is not limited to lobbying specific trade agreements. Geopolitical considerations should be taken into account as well.
As far as I understand, the gist of our policy is to have strong political and diplomatic positions in the Middle East (a region which is of particular interest to Russia as an energy power), and influence over... What exactly? It is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) that fixes oil prices without giving much thought to the Russian budget.
But there are other, more important considerations - to have strong figures on the global chess board. The United States has a number of them, and we have to settle for leftovers.
This is a long-standing tradition. The Comintern (Communist International) gathered political thugs (in Western opinion), or "fighters for national and social liberation (their own self-definition). Lenin and Stalin were trying to oppose the West all over the globe, first under the slogan of the world revolution, and then under the banner of a superpower.
These games with different terrorists and communists continued until the late 1980s. Attempts to obstruct the Americans (just for the hell of it!) were looking increasingly stupid. Extravagant spending infuriated our internationalist society, but we fought in Angola and Vietnam. What for? Why did the Soviet leaders waste so much money abroad when their own compatriots were leading a miserable existence? There is no answer... Great power policy carried the Soviet Union by force of inertia until it ceased to exist.
In the 1990s this cause came to a halt, which is a source of endless regrets for the Russian patriots. Indeed, how come Russia stopped playing a superpower, and giving money to dictators all over the world? But that's alright. Now that we have heaps of petrodollars, we can again launch into extravagance, and make up for past mistakes.
This is a good thing. True, the current Russian leaders are trying not to go too far - they don't lend money, or send their compatriots to wars. But smiles will not take them far - our friends from HAMAS and Syria are hungry! If their friends don't feed them, what's the point of friendship? The Belarusian experience could teach the Russian leaders a lesson. Can nations be selfless friends? Yes, they can, just as love between a boy and a girl can be platonic, but not for long.
Finally, there is one more "smart idea": to make friends, and then convert friendship into something pragmatic, for instance, sell these friends to the United States, which is willing to use all the figures on the chess board.
On paper, this looks cynical, tempting, and very smart, but in real life nothing comes of it. Even Alexander Lukashenko has failed to sell himself to the West - nobody wants him out of prejudice. Selling one's friendship is even more difficult. No, this won't do. We'll have to keep our friends since we are responsible for those we have tamed. But Moscow has chosen to tame those who sometimes embarrass it beyond measure.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
