Russia's solid diplomatic manoeuvering keeps the ground firm under Russian President Vladimir Putin, reports Shohdy Naguib from Moscow Russian Foreign Minister took the spotlight this week, voicing Russia's discontent over US determination to proceed with military action against Iraq, and fielded questions on Russia's bold diplomatic stance in a high-profile BBC interview. Asked about rumours of Russia offering Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein political asylum, Ivanov stressed that his country would not interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. He pointed out that the Iraqi crisis is clearly no longer about disarmament, but the dismantling of the Iraqi regime and installation of a new democratic administration. Ivanov questioned the idea of establishing a new government in Baghdad and the suggestion that it will promote democracy in the Arab world, implying that to do so goes beyond the mandate of a UN Security Council resolution. "Who sanctioned whom to set up democratic regimes in other countries?" he asked. Recalling the Soviet Union's history of installing regimes loyal to Moscow, Ivanov said that the "export of democracy", like the "export of revolution", may come at a "very high price". Appearing poised and upbeat, it was evident that Ivanov was speaking from a position of supreme confidence. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin -- solely empowered by the Russian constitution to decide on crucial foreign policy matters -- has avoided any public statements on the Iraq issue, while privately negotiating with the key players. The former KGB chief recently dismissed attempts by the US administration to link Al-Qa'eda and the Iraqi regime. The scope of the Russian president's diplomatic manoeuvering is indeed inspiring, with Duma speaker Genadij Seleznev flying to Baghdad with a verbal message to Saddam Hussein, and Ivanov travelling to Tehran, expecting to meet President Mohamed Khatami for talks on regional and economic matters. Ivanov will go to Kabul from Tehran. Immediately prior to departure, Ivanov officially announced Russia's intent to veto the new US- backed resolution on Iraq. The future status of the UN Security Council should the US proceed with war without a new resolution is of primary concern to the Russian leadership. High-ranking Russian lawmaker Mikhail Margelov -- chairman of the foreign affairs committee at the Duma and a close aide of Putin -- recently told US congressmen that the integrity of the Security Council must be maintained for the sake of preserving the coalition of nations involved in the US- led "war on terrorism". Russia is apparently serious about its commitment to fighting terrorism, and considering the high value placed on its new strategic partnership with the US, Margelov thinks Russia should not use its Security Council veto, instead keeping its hands free in case the war actually happens. Margelov also suggested that Russia's anti-war stance precludes post-war preparations. "If we don't preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq, the whole region could explode," he warned. Grigori Yavlinskij, a prominent liberal right-wing politician, made similar comments, saying that a modern equivalent of a 'cold war', and not a 'hot war', should be waged against Saddam Hussein. According to the Western media, the possible effects that war and Iraqi occupation may have on the Russian economy are the reasons for Russia's diplomatic manoeuvering. This might be misguided. Asked what Russia had to gain or lose from the war, Yuli Vorontsov -- UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special representative -- said that the promises of the US cannot be relied on. Harking back to the Cold War era, the eventual annulment by the US Senate of the infamous 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment is an example of one such promise. The amendment, which placed barriers on trade with the USSR, was considered an effective tool for achieving the freedom of Russian Jews and other minorities to emigrate. Since Perestroika in the mid-1980s granted this right, the amendment no longer seems relevant, although it continues to be used as a lever in meat and poultry trade squabbles. This "concession" on the part of US senators has been interpreted as part of an "Iraqi bargain". "It is clear that the Americans will not compensate for anything after they win the war," Vorontsov said. "The Russian economists and politicians who believe Washington's promises do so at their own peril. I know the Americans very well; they will let nothing out of their hands. Look at the 1999 events in Kosovo and you'll see that I'm right." In fact, Russia's comprehensive stance on the Iraq issue is based on USSR attempts to put an end to the arms race. It is also consistent with current Russian policy regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the missile defence programmes pursued by consecutive US administrations. Russians, in general, do not want this war to happen. Persistent attempts to find an alternative solution based on cooperation will guarantee President Putin overwhelming popular support. Pursuing a very cautious policy which is firmly based on principle has become a part of the president's image as a man with the guts to handle high stakes. The US is demanding the extradition of some 300 Iraqi diplomats in anticipation of a wave of terrorist attacks worldwide once an Iraqi invasion has begun. A list has been distributed to about 60 countries. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow is preparing to host a busy press centre. The Iraqi ambassador offered words that were no doubt intended to resonate in the Russian consciousness: "We have nowhere to retreat; behind us is Baghdad". The Nazis were stopped at Moscow in 1942 with this very slogan. A new Russian-language information Web site (www.irak.ru) is clearly designed to capitalise on this kind of sentiment. Its project statement reads, "What is happening, and is going to happen to Iraq has much to do with what is taking place in our country."
