Russia and Israel opting for ‘Eastward’ tilt

May 28, 2014,

UKRAINE, Kiev : A boy thows an egg at an image of Russian President Vladimir Putin depicted as late German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler during a flash mob event in the center of Kiev on May 24, 2014, a day before the presidential elction in Ukraine. Ukraine was counting down today to a presidential election seen as crucial to its very survival after months of turmoil that has driven the country to the brink of civil war. AFP

It may be premature to pronounce that a drastic re-think on foreign policy issues is on the cards in Russia in the wake of the Ukrainian and Crimean crises, but it would be safe to say that Russia is ‘tilting’ its external relations in an ‘Easterly’ direction against the backdrop of these problems. Given the ill consequences to Russia from the West’s decision to clamp economic sanctions on it in the wake of these crises, new accents in Russia’s foreign policy should only be expected.

Proof of these modifications to Russian foreign policy is seen as taking the form of the latter’s decision recently to supply natural gas to China to the tune of $400 billion, following a decade of negotiations, for instance, but we are unlikely to be having in these developments a dramatic re-configuration of Russia’s external relations. A change in Russian foreign policy parameters is certain to come in the face of altered global power realities, but such developments could be expected to be gradual. Right now, change is coming at a highly measured pace and not in spasmodic alterations in policy direction.

There is no substantial basis currently, therefore, to the somewhat popular notion that a new Cold War in ‘East-West’ relations is at hand. No less a political personality than Russian President Vladimir Putin was recently quoted as dismissing this supposition while speaking to sections of the world media. ‘I really would not like to think that this is a beginning of a new Cold War…..I think this is not going to happen’, Putin said.

What the Russian President went on to add is likely to have defused the fears of those anticipating impending drastic changes in Russia’s relations with the West. ‘Those who had been provoking the armed coup in Kiev should have thought, if they were real professionals, about the consequences of their illegal ambitions….hopefully what happened in Ukraine will become a precedent which has its own negative consequences, but still would revive a conscientious attitude to international law and practice of agreeing positions based on each others interests; rather than "methods of any force"’, he explained.

We have some proof in the above observations that it is gradual and not drastic change in Russian foreign policy directions that the world could anticipate. In fact, the pronouncements could be seen as a re-statement of some of the basic tenets of the post-World War Two international political order, ushered in by the UN.

However, the foregoing does not mean that Russia is not making some modifications to its foreign policy parameters. Against the seeming collective weight of the West and its hostile acts, Russia would have no choice but to qualitatively improve its ties with China and the Asia-Pacific region, in particular, where the bulk of world economic power is said to be originating and flourishing. Since Europe receives some 30 percent of its gas requirements from Russia, the China-Russia gas link would be of some concern to the West. However, whether these and other differences between Russia and the West would compel them to come ‘to blows’ with each other is open to question, considering the degree of economic interdependence between the parties.

There seems to be a global consensus of sorts that ‘markets’ mean more than divisive politics of any kind. But it does not follow that the big powers would be shying away from using their military muscle to claim what they see as theirs among the world’s material resources in particular. We are currently seeing this happening, for instance, in the South and East China seas.

None, nevertheless, could blame the more vibrant actors in world politics from ‘looking East’. With the steady weakening of the West in economic terms, these powers are left with no choice but to cultivate steady economic, political and security relations with countries, such as, China and India, who are the states of the future.

There is the case of Israel, which, like Russia, has been steadily cultivating close economic and security ties with China and India. Following a visit to China by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, last May, defence contacts between the countries are said to be on an upward trend. Like relations are said to be developing between Israel and India. The latter and Israel are reportedly cooperating in efforts to counter terror, for example. These developments point to substantive changes in Israel’s foreign policy thinking which is seemingly shifting from the US towards the ‘East’.

However, these changes in foreign policy orientation are bound to present Israel with some challenges. While close ties with China and Russia, for instance, are likely to enable Israel to leverage such relations to defuse its military tensions with some of its Arab neighbours and ensure the stability of its borders to a degree, it would need to perceive that it cannot compromise the task of helping to work out a political solution to the Middle East conflict, while consolidating its ties with the ‘East’.

Israel would do well to focus on the need to work out a two-state solution to the Middle East problem. On this score, the West could be counted on, because the latter has hitherto basically backed this aim which offers the best promise of a negotiated solution. Indeed, the challenge for the ‘East’ too would be to help in working out a just political solution to the Middle East conflict. It should be plain to see that in the absence of the two-state solution, stepped-up economic and security links between Israel and the ‘East’ would be to no or little avail.

East Asia and the ASEAN region are among the pick of the world’s geographical areas, as regards economic dynamism and growth, but it needs to be seen that material well being only would not suffice from the point of view of true development. Democracy and economic growth need to flourish in tandem if social advancement in the true sense is to be achieved. That is, democratic development needs to strike deeper root in the ‘East’. The military take over in Thailand is proof that all is far from well in the ‘East’ in this respect. These developments in Thailand ought to take our minds to the uncompromisable principle that there could be no trade-offs between ‘development’ and democracy. Democracy is integral to ‘development’ and needs to be always conceived as such.