Price policy for oil has to be determined by all oil-producing nations through existing (OPEC) and new, even broader mechanisms.
2. The Israeli-Arab conяict is another knot, which has to be untied if we really want to see lasting peace and stability in the Middle East.
Russia has been all along for a fair solution of the conяict. It must include return of occupied lands to Arab nations, creation of the Palestinian state and security guarantees for every participant of the conяict, including Israel.
Russia welcomes negotiating process at all levels and directions and is ready to serve as a peace broker and a venue for negotiations. To help the peace process all parties must be constructive, яexible and impartial.
The United States unfortunately is too much committed to support Israel. This commitment has become so much an integral part of American political culture that no US administration will sway from the pro-Israeli policies in the foreseeable future. Because of such deep-rooted commitment Washington continues to periodically succumb to Tel Aviv’s caprices and demands and to back it unreasonable positions.
There is a hope, however, that the new, more open-minded government of Israel will be forthcoming in the peace process. At the same time it is also important for other parties to make adjustments in their postures, to start accommodation with the opponents. From my personal point of view, this thesis applies, among other sides, to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
3. A separate threat in the Middle East derives from the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missile capabilities. Russia considers this tendency as extremely dangerous not only to the regional stability and peace, but to itself. If local states possess WMD and medium to long range missiles, they may theoretically use them against Russia. Likewise, their missiles may яy to various targets (let’s say in Europe or America) over our territory and be attacked there by other belligerent parties.
Consequently, Moscow strongly insists on total elimination and prohibition of WMD in the Middle East. We are interested as well in limiting to the lowest level possible missile capabilities of the regional actors.
It would seem reasonable to start working without any further delay on turning the entire Middle East into a zone free of all WMD. It looks like a long-term and difёcult objective but this fact only increases urgency to act.
Simultaneously enforcement of existing anti-WMD measures should be continued in a reasonable and balanced manner. Some moves in this ёeld aggravate the threats of proliferation and conяicts rather than help to soothe them.
For instance, bombings by the USA and England of Iraq in December 1998 in disregard of position of the United Nations did nothing but intensiёed tensions in the Middle East and made local governments want to have own powerful defense capabilities.
It is not helpful as well when Israeli efforts to acquire WMD and missile capabilities are overlooked. As a result Israeli antagonists may feel compelled to seek similar capabilities. Among them are Syria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others.
Another inconsistency in the drive against WMD and missiles in the Middle East is growing export of conventional arms to this very region. The United States is the Middle East’s primary supplier, providing half of the regional arms purchases in the 1990s. Other big powers are also active. This export in itself promotes arms race, prompting local governments to constantly seek better, more sophisticated and more destructive weapons. Even worse is the fact that certain big powers are very generous with some states (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Turkey) while totally denying weapons to other states (Iran among them). Such selective approach ignites additional jealousy, distrust and fears in the region.
Presence of foreign troops in the area in its turn provides a rationale to seek WMD and missile capabilities for those countries, which have reasons to believe that the foreign might is directed against them (Iran belongs to this group of nations).
4. Contradictions among local states pose separate threats to security and stability. It is noteworthy that Iran has recently improved relations with Gulf states as well as with Iraq. It is also important to achieve reduction of tensions between Iraq and Gulf states, to bridge differences between Turkey and its neighbors. How to do it?
Of course, it’s up to the regional governments to ёnd right solutions. As an outsider I can only suggest that a collective economic organ will be of help. If successful, it can lead to common views and actions in political and security ёelds. Experience of other regions should serve as an example.
In Europe countries, which used to confront each other for centuries, now successfully cooperate in regional institutions such as European Union, OSCE and others. In Southeast Asia former adversaries also work together in ASEAN. Russia has in its turn managed to forge institutional links with former republics of the Soviet Union – now independent states.
5. It is understandable, of course, that rapprochement among Middle Eastern states may be helped or, on the contrary, hindered by policies of outside powers. In this connection it is worthwhile to discuss American policies.
The ofёcial American doctrine divides nations of contemporary world into four categories, and one of these categories are so-called “rouge” states. A “rouge” state is the one, which does not respect democracy, market economy and international law, mistreats its neighbors and, most importantly, does not accept American leadership, challenges it.
In the Middle East, according to American way of thinking, there are four states of the above-mentioned category: Iraq, Iran, Libya and to a lesser degree Syria. The American political and defense doctrines presuppose a relentless struggle against such “rouge” regimes employing every method available, including military one. The USA is ready to continue this struggle till the end, until the opponent is defeated and the “rogue” regime is replaced with the one more to the American likening. In its determination to fall the “rogue” regimes down the United States does not want to be constrained by international law and UN resolutions. It is perfectly prepared to act on its own.
Having framed itself into this set of mind Washington conducts such policy vis-a-vis the above mentioned “rogue” states of the Middle East. Many specialists in the United States see positive trends in foreign and domestic policies of Iran, notice that a new generation of Iranian elites favors cultural diversity and openness to the outside world, especially the West. The American experts emphasize the fact that Iran fastly develops a genuine political system and a stable, effective economy. It is admitted as well that containment of Iran has lacked international support and therefore has been ineffective. And yet, the White House and the US Congress continue the containment policy against Iran.
The United States makes unreasonable demands to Iranian authorities, provoke Gulf states to oppose Iran, direct Israeli-Turkish military partnership against Teheran’s interests etc.
Unrestrained pressure against Iraq is equally counterproductive. Such policies make Housein even more intransigent and security-conscious, increase criticism of the USA and provide fertile soil for extremist movements and terrorism.
6. Now let’s turn to terrorism, extremism and separatism. They pose a rising threat in the Middle East. They heat up controversies among states, create internal problems, threaten lives and property of population.
For Russia it is also a grave problem. Events in Chechnya unfolded back in the early 1990s as separatist in nature. Russian government could not just sit and watch how an integral part of the Federation was being snatched away. No state in the world would tolerate it, and, as a matter of fact, no one does tolerate. By now separatists have proved to be pure terrorists and extremists who even dared to attack other parts of Russia. As a result, our armed forces have to repel the aggressor.
If other states or organizations choose to support the terrorists and extremists in Russia, they simply give “green light” to this dangerous phenomenon everywhere.
7. Social and economic problems in the regional countries