Vitaly Naumkin: The Middle East: Hard Times Coming

Interview

Interview with Vitaly Naumkin, RAS Corresponding Member and Director of RAS Institute of Oriental Studies, on the latest events in the Middle East, missile deployment in Turkey and the settlement of the Syrian crisis.

Interview

Interview with Vitaly Naumkin, RAS Corresponding Member and Director of RAS Institute of Oriental Studies, on the latest events in the Middle East, missile deployment in Turkey and the settlement of the Syrian crisis.

On November 29, the UN General Assembly granted observer status to Palestine. What does it mean for the grantee, the UN decision-taking process, the international community and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular?

Let me begin with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Palestinian observer status will not engender progress in the negotiations between Palestine and Israel, which are still nonexistent. No talks, no settlement.

As I see it, the status gives Palestine two benefits. First, support for Mahmoud Abbas, who has been struggling to reach a compromise with Israel for many years. His efforts have mostly failed, and he is losing ground, and also the support of an increasingly radicalized Palestinian public. Since his initiative passed, his electoral base has been expanding. This is vital for Abbas, since Hamas is getting stronger. Moreover, Hamas held up both Abbas' application and the success achieved by the Palestinian National Authority’s leaders. All that works in his favor.

Second, now Palestine is eligible to apply to international bodies, primarily the International Court of Justice at the Hague, to lodge complaints against Israel on issues such as human rights violation and atrocities. In other words, Palestinians can now lodge a series of suites that would also benefit the PNA and its rapprochement with Hamas, which in turn means greater intimacy between Fatah and Hamas. And that might help a joint government be established.

There is one more point, although perhaps it is somewhat less important. This move was a step forward toward the consolidation of Palestinian sentiment at the popular level. They celebrate this victory, and in that celebration we see their collective consciousness take on a new form. Palestinians are weary of inaction and the absence of a settlement, and this status represents success, fuelling their hopes for statehood. With regard to the Middle East settlement, there have been no real steps taken toward the recognition of Palestine as a state with internationally acknowledged borders, something that would require a peace process.

A couple of words about the Syrian conflict. Do you think that NATO's recent decision to deploy Patriot antiaircraft missiles on Turkey’s border with Syria will help regional stability?

I believe this step to be counterproductive, a view that is supported by Russia's official response: the Foreign Ministry statement. But I would not dramatize the situation. The point is in how the Patriots are targeted. If this is part of a broader move to encircle Russia with systems similar to those already stationed Eastern Europe and Turkey, then this fresh deployment would not greatly worsen the situation. Fundamentally, stationing them on the border carries only minor significance for Russia's security. We are a powerful nation with immense military potential and should somehow counter the threat.

But if the Patriots are intended for use against Iran, it would seem to be a problem. Theoretically, if relations between Iran and the West deteriorate, Turkey's membership of NATO will, to a degree, involve it in action against Iran, which is definitely bad. The deployment already irritates Tehran and its neighbors in the Middle East. As far as Syrian-Turkish relations are concerned, I don't think the missiles will give Turkey a free hand to launch an operation on Syrian soil. That would require international sanctions, and I do not believe Turkey is ready to move. Ankara seems eager to have protection against possible, maybe accidental, strikes from Syria. President Putin was quite correct to say that the strikes that have hit Turkish territory have been unintentional. Russia is not happy about Ankara's preparations but, let me repeat this point, I would be reluctant to overstate them, and I do not believe they have the potential to spoil today’s dynamic economic cooperation between Russia and Turkey.

Source: turtsia.ru

Can you comment on President Putin's visit to Turkey on December 3, and his talks with Premier Erdogan? Can the agreements reached really help deliver a settlement, given that the approaches taken by Moscow and Ankara differ so greatly?

Since I have no insider information about the content of the negotiations or the agreements reached, commenting would be problematic. Judging by media reports and President Putin's statements, the parties have similar positions but differ in their approaches. This is certainly true when it comes to the issue of a truce and national consent within Syria. Turkey sees the solution as toppling Bashar al-Assad, as well as in the provision of further financial support and arms supplies to the opposition. But we insist on halting support for the opposition and driving the sides to the negotiating table. The negotiations should be inclusive, as Assad and his regime must participate. So, differences between Moscow and Ankara certainly remain. To conclude, the Putin-Erdogan talks seem to have shown that the parties will not allow this controversy to spoil their fruitful economic cooperation, as well as cultural and political contacts that are mutually beneficial for both parties.

Do you see a way out of the Syrian conflict?

I am afraid the scenario looks quite grave, it has reached a kind of impasse. Morally, Moscow's approach is impeccable. As has been officially stated, it is about the priority of international law, inclusive dialogue, non-interference in internal affairs, and respect for national sovereignty. Unfortunately, many Western and Eastern partners are of a different opinion. Some bank on Assad’s removal by any means. They also want to arm the opposition to the teeth, pay them through the nose, and continue with policies aimed at devastating the country, i.e. thus ensuring that neither side is able to achieve a military victory, but the developments are unfavorable for the regime. The situation in Damascus is deteriorating and, if this continues, it could become very difficult indeed.

Interviewer: Natalie Evtikhevich, RIAC Program Manager