UN Syria Resolution – Proof of Russian Diplomats’ Professionalism

Interview

On the night of September 28, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Syria. Irina Zvyagelskaya, Professor of Oriental Studies at the MGIMO University and senior researcher at the Centre for Arabic and Islamic Studies, talks about whether the resolution approved was in line with the Russian interests and prospects for settlement in Syria, and what changes we can expect in Iran under its new leader.

Interview

On the night of September 28, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Syria. Irina Zvyagelskaya, Professor of Oriental Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the RF MFA (MGIMO) and senior researcher at the Centre for Arabic and Islamic Studies, talks about whether the resolution approved was in line with the Russian interests and prospects for settlement in Syria, and what changes we can expect in Iran under its new leader.

What do you think about the UN Security Council Resolution on Syria? Can it be counted as a Russian diplomatic triumph?

The resolution on Syria has indeed showcased Russian diplomats’ professionalism. It is also a victory for all those who want to see the military threat level reduced. Both Russia and the US have demonstrated readiness to compromise and overcome differences, which is particularly vital, given the mutual grievances and misunderstandings on a whole range of other issues. This resolution will help Syria to rid itself of chemical weapons, while the great powers’ joint experience will be instrumental going forward in convening and holding the Geneva Conference on Syria.

What do you think about the short-term prospects for the resolution of the Syrian crisis?

I am not too optimistic about the short-term prospects. It is unfortunate that the conflicting parties, and in particular the opposition, are not prepared to sit down at the negotiating table and resolve their conflict by political means. The opposition is heavily fragmented, and its more radical, extremist part has already announced that they will not negotiate. This means that it is still a moot question as to who, in fact, represents the opposition.

The Syrian conflict has already expanded beyond being just a civil war, and has acquired both regional and international dimensions. Its regional dimension is particularly intricate. The negotiations should now involve Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states, together with Turkey, although their positions are quite distinctly different, if not polar opposites. These sharply contrasting contradictions in position are due to the fact that regional players tend to view the conflict in Syria as existential.

Photo: Irina Zvyagelskaya

At the international level, the major powers also support different approaches to the Syrian conflict. Whereas it was always believed that the key thing was reaching an agreement between Russia and the United States, it is now clear that this will not be sufficient. It may be good enough to launch the settlement process, but more players will have to be brought in at a later stage. Moreover, the process itself can be expected to be rather fragile. Bearing all these considerations in mind, it is, sadly, unlikely that the Syrian conflict will be resolved any time soon.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in his speech, admitted that the Holocaust is a historical fact. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has referred to the Iranian leader’s statement as “cynical and hypocritical.” Should this be interpreted as meaning that Israel is not interested in improving its relations with Iran? Is it possible for the two countries to become closer under a new Iranian president?

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reaction is a reflection of Israel’s phobias and mistrust of Iran. Israel is convinced that the new president’s statement is nothing but a change in tactics while Iran’s strategic goals remain the same. It may be, under the present circumstances, counterproductive and unseemly for a national leader to resort to the kind of anti-Israeli and anti-humanistic rhetoric that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seemed so fond of.

Israel views Iran as its enemy, and is particularly concerned by Iran’s nuclear program. Although Rouhani announced it was purely peaceful, there are doubts about this, and not only in Israel. The Israeli leadership does not rule out a strike on Iran should it come close to producing nuclear weapons. And it becomes even more crucial to resume talks on the Iranian nuclear program to see whether Iran will be ready to compromise. The other concern for Israel is Iran’s support in the Middle East for entities and regimes hostile to Israel, including, first and foremost, Hezbollah and Hamas. The link between Iran and the Syrian regime which is instrumental to Iran’s support to Hezbollah is also perceived as a threat in Israel.

Do you expect much change in Iran under Hassan Rouhani?

Photo: REUTERS/Feisal Omar
Somali men parade as members of al Shabaab
in the capital Mogadishu

Although it is often said that Iran’s supreme leadership has not changed, even under one and the same leader policies can be different. Let me give you one straightforward example: the transition that the Bolshevik government made from military communism to the “New Economic Policy.” That policy was a totally different course pursued by the same government. It appears that Iran today is trying to address some intrinsically important issues such as taking the country out of its isolation, seeing sanctions lifted, etc. With these objectives in mind, they may be prepared to accept some fairly serious compromises. I would argue that the international community must leverage this opportunity to bolster the positive developments in Iran.

What is, in your opinion, the face of modern terrorism? Do we see a new spiral of global terrorist activity in the context of the recent Islamic attack on the Kenyan shopping centre?

I do not think international terrorism ever disappeared. The recent events in Kenya seem to suggest that Al-Qaeda-related entities have become even more audacious, and that they continue to expand their area of action. It has long been known that they have been present in Syria and other Arab countries, fuelling instability. The terrorist attack in Kenya is yet another reminder of how dangerous and unpredictable such organizations can be.

Today there exists a wide range of different terrorist organizations: some have an exclusively local agenda, and they are essentially part of a national movement, such as Hamas or Lebanese Hezbollah. This, of course, in no way justifies their terrorist methods and the permanent threat that they pose to peaceful civilians.

The purpose of international terror organisations, by comparison, seems exclusively destructive. They sponsor and carry out terror acts all across the world, and while in Kenya they have at least presented some demands, there are, quite often, none. It is all about intimidating the world community, intimidating people. With the fragility of our high-tech civilization today, they have every opportunity to do it. We are not insured, unfortunately, against new attacks, they are extremely difficult to predict and prevent, and it is not obvious where the threat will come from. I do believe that the key threat to modernity is the activity of non-traditional, non-state actors rather than a war between nations. They are totally irresponsible and would use any means available to destabilize the situation and create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

Interviewed by Nikolay Markotkin, RIAC Programme Coordinator