Foreign Minister Sikorski Strikes Syria Nerve
at Kremlin (Polska, Poland)
This article was written before talk began if removing chemical
weapons from the grasp of the Syrian regime. Columnist Wojciech Rogacin writes of how Polish Foreign Minister Radosław
Sikorski, in an interview with Le Monde on Sept. 4, called on the Kremlin to remove those
weapons, which it had helped Damascus build in the first place. It appears that
while Sikorski suggested the idea, he was just as skeptical
it would happen as Secretary of State Kerry, whose off-the-cuff remark about how
Assad could avert a U.S. strike was so eagerly taken up by Vladimir Putin.
Poland Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski: One of the few people to have suggested that Russia remove Syria's chemical arms before the Kremlin's surprise initiative to do so.
The
temperature must have risen considerably at the Russian Foreign Ministry after Radosław Sikorski was interviewed by France's Le Monde. The head of Polish diplomacy
told the French daily that if Russia genuinely wanted to help resolve the
Syrian situation, it should take responsibility for securing the stockpiles of chemical
weapons in Syria which the Kremlin helped build during the Soviet period.
Hitting
that exposed nerve had to hurt, especially since Sikorski's
statement was published in one of the most respected French newspapers and could
not have gone unnoticed by local political circles. All this just as Putin's
Russia had set in motion its newest diplomatic game, which Kremlin politicians
hope will prove a diplomatic masterstroke. At stake is the preservation of the
status quo in Syria (including preserving Russia's influence in the country and
Russia's open sea military port) and maintaining the Kremlin's standing in the
region, while at the same time weakening the position of the United States by,
among other things, complicating the situation asmuch as possible.
And
by the way - Vladimir Putin is trying to strike a pose of a peace- and justice-loving
statesman, suggesting that even Moscow doesn't rule out bombing Syria if irrefutable
proof of Assad's complicity in the chemical attacks is found and the U.N.
agrees to a military response.
But
it is the Kremlin that will decide whether the proof is irrefutable. Why, might
we ask, did the Kremlin fail to react when for two years, evidence that the
government had been massacring civilians came fast and thick?
Sikorski's words to some extent revealed Moscow's
game to Western readers, which is why the Kremlin reacted so strongly. The closer
the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg got, the tenser became the Kremlin, since
Putin wanted to play his predetermined role as law-abiding great power leader
anxious for the cause of peace.
And
so Poland's foreign minister was criticized first by Russia's foreign ministry,
which attempted to blame Western countries for the presence of chemical
weapons in Syria. Government mouthpiece RossiyskayaGazeta soon came to its aid. In a mocking
tone typical of old Soviet propaganda pieces, the newspaper wrote: "Sikorski must have thought long and hard, and finally came up
with a way of distinguishing himself from the choir of E.U. politicians who,
with every passing day, are waking up to how catastrophic the consequences of
an American attack on Syria without U.N. approval would be for international
relations."
In
fact, Sikorski could have “stood out” even more by
reminding Russia of her quite recent activity “in the cause of peace and
justice” in Syria and the Middle East, such as promising to deliver SS-20 rocket parts
to the Assad regime - and at a moment in which not only the rebels, but Syrian
civilians as well are being continuously shelled by government troops. Or
blocking U.N. sanctions against nuclear arms-building Iran for years, and
contributing to the diplomatic stalemate regarding that country.
