Russia's Interest in Iraq Is Not Saddam
By Simon Saradzhyan
Staff Writer If Washington decides to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Moscow will have to agree to a U.S. military strike or risk losing billions of dollars it has at stake in Iraq, experts said.
U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday argued for using force against Iraq at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, which discussed Saddam's refusal to grant UN inspectors unrestricted access to sites suspected of building weapons of mass destruction.
Russia's main interest in Iraq is economic and it does not have to be pinned to Saddam, experts said. Thus, Russia has no need to antagonize the United States over whether he is ousted.
"We have our own economic interests there," said Alexei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the State Duma's defense committee.
Regional stability and nonproliferation are also of importance to Russia, he said.
Russia's best move would be to seek assurances that whoever succeeds Saddam will honor Russia's economic interests, which include the exploration of Iraq's oil fields and the arms trade, if UN sanctions against Baghdad are lifted, experts said.
Iraqi oil traded in a UN oil-for-food program brings Russian companies a windfall of $4 billion per year.
Iraq owes Russia $7 billion to $9 billion in Soviet-era debt, which Moscow hopes to one day collect.
And Russia and Iraq have been discussing a five-year economic cooperation program worth $40 billion.
Whether Moscow will be able to implement the $40 billion program, collect the debt and, possibly, earn hundreds of millions of dollars more from trading arms with a sanctions-free Iraq will depend on whether it strikes a deal with Washington ahead of a military strike.
So far, no such guarantees have been secured. Russian and U.S. officials held a series of private talks in Moscow and Washington this summer on guarantees that Russia's economic interests would be honored by whoever succeeds Saddam, but no deal has been struck.
The United States should offer such guarantees provided that the Kremlin promises not to interfere with Saddam's ouster, said William Wallace of the London School of Economics and Political Science. "The U.S. needs to keep Russia on its side," he said.
So far, the Kremlin has spoken out strongly against any unilateral action against Iraq but has managed to avoid antagonizing the White House. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and his deputy Vyacheslav Trubnikov have refused to say whether Russia would veto a mandate to attack if the United States submits one to the UN Security Council.
It remains unclear whether the Bush administration will seek approval from the UN Security Council.
Arbatov said Russia should authorize a strike only if Saddam again refuses to grant unlimited access to UN inspectors.
Like Russia, Germany and France also oppose any unilateral action by the United States. So far, only Britain has publicly sided with the United States on a strike. Analysts said Washington would be able to also win support from Turkey and Kuwait.
Whether or not Bush seeks the endorsement of the UN Security Council, Russia should remain publicly opposed to any unilateral campaign but avoid acting like a spoiler, said Alexander Pikayev of the Moscow Carnegie Center.
Such a policy will not only allow Russia to reap economic benefits in Iraq, but will also ensure that the United States continues to limit its criticism of Russia's military operation in Chechnya and of Moscow's efforts to press Georgia into rounding up Chechen rebels in the Pankisi Gorge, he said.
themoscowtimes.com |
