First, how dare any of us try to put a moral value on a perfectly acceptable political tool. Relationships between people will always work this way. Why is one diplomacy tool better or worse than any other? To threaten a veto, or offer a bribe, or dangle an unrelated topic as a ramification - all are inherent in politics and in fact human relations. How utterly silly and naive we would be to assume or insist otherwise.
Second:
Quote:
From the Article:
"We wouldn't want to hold the relationship hostage [to Iraq] any more than Russia, but our ability to move forward on some issues -- on WTO accession, on the removal of Jackson-Vanik -- could be affected at least in the short term," the diplomat said. "In no case will the damage be irreparable, but there could be damage.
"The Russians understand that their degree of involvement in post-Saddam arrangements ... will be significantly influenced by the degree to which they are seen as supporting or not obstructing on a resolution of the crisis," he said. "I think they understand there could be negative consequences of a veto with respect to Russia's interests [in Iraq]."
*******
Analysts interpreted Voloshin's trip to Washington, where he met with U.S. President George W. Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior administration officials, as well as Henry Kissinger, as an attempt to seal concrete economic deals in return for Russia's support or abstention on the Security Council.
|
Translation: Russia opposes war but we sure as hell want a cut of the pie.
Third:
Quote:
|
Russian oil majors have held large contracts to develop Iraq's oil patch, which contains the second-largest reserves in the world, and Russia has been Iraq's biggest trading partner under the UN sanctions regime.
|
Translation: Russia wins either way, as it is currently benefitting from Saddam.
Fourth:
Quote:
He said Russia's increasing opposition to the U.S.-backed resolution seemed like a ploy to avoid having a vote altogether." Their preference seems to be for [military] action to come about without a second Security Council resolution," the diplomat said.
But he could not say whether Russia's economic interests in Iraq would still be assured if that was the case. "That depends on how we get to that point. We hope that the Russians, even if they can't support what we're doing, will not actively seek to oppose us."
The diplomat said the chances of a "yes" vote from Russia now appeared to be "pretty slim."
|
Translation: We all know Russia doesn't really care so much about the war as it does about making an unpopular political decision by actually "supporting" the war, so in the end it will simply not vote.
And Fifth:
The article is entirely based on a phone interview with a U.S. diplomat talking to The MOscow Times. The diplomat I'm sure got everything he said from "on high." He used the interview as an opportunity to communicate a U.S. threat to us all. This interview in and of itself is a political move designed to send a message. I'm beginning to wonder just how cagey this administration is. Hard-nose negotiators normally walk away from the table with what they wanted.
