Posted on November 5, 2009 - by Venik

Britain and Russia must be partners | Adrian Pabst

Miliband has a chance to better bilateral relations, which will have long-term benefits for the UK and for Europe

Reset or repair? David Miliband’s much-anticipated visit to Moscow, the first of a British foreign secretary in over five years, has not produced a major breakthrough in bilateral relations between the UK and Russia.

But there is a now a unique chance to do more than just mending fences. Britain has the opportunity to press the “reset” button and gradually turn enhanced co-operation into a strategic partnership, much like President Obama has sought to do since talks with his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, in the Kremlin in early July.

In Britain’s case, the main obstacle to better ties with Russia is the well-documented case of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent with British citizenship who died of a massive dose of the radioactive isotope polonium 210 in London in November 2006 – an event that plunged UK-Russian relations to unprecedented depths since the end of the cold war. This was compounded by last summer’s extreme tensions with Moscow over the war in Georgia’s breakaway region of South Ossetia, when both the Labour government and the Conservative opposition accused the Kremlin of invading a sovereign country.

But on neither account should Britain continue to limit co-operation with Russia to areas of immediate national interest such as trade, Afghanistan or Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The case of Andrei Lugovoi, the prime suspect in Litvinenko’s brutal murder, is deadlocked. London insists on his extradition, which is banned by Russia’s constitution. Moscow offers a trial according to Russian law, a procedure that is unlikely to be either free or fair.

Rightly or wrongly, any compromise will have to be political, perhaps involving a special trial in a third country where all available evidence will have to be submitted from both sides. In any case, only closer co-operation will create an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust that is indispensable to a proper solution. Meanwhile, geopolitics, like life, must continue.

And now that an independent commission has established that it was the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, who launched a premeditated attack on South Ossetia and its civilians, it’s time for the UK to drop the silly rhetoric about Russia’s unilateral aggression and invasion. David Cameron’s repeated support for Saakashvili is a serious error of judgment that does little to strengthen the foreign policy credentials of Britain’s PM-in-waiting.

Belatedly, Miliband is seeking to redress the UK’s lopsided Ostpolitik. In his far-reaching foreign policy speech last Monday, he stressed the need to improve Anglo-Russian relations and voiced his strong support for “hard-headed engagement across the full range of our shared interest”, citing European security, energy and trade.

Miliband’s talks in Moscow with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, have helped repair bilateral relations and promote concrete co-operation in these and other areas. But something more ambitious, like a genuine strategic partnership, is necessary in order to complement Obama’s new era of multilateral engagement and reinvigorate the stagnating relations between the EU and Russia. More than pragmatism is at stake.

Without renewed British involvement, Obama’s strategy of critical engagement with Russia could unravel over Iran, North Korea or Afghanistan. By working more closely with Moscow, London could help forge a new pan-Atlantic approach vis-a-vis Tehran and Pyongyang, combining the threat of sanctions with positive incentives to suspend nuclear enrichment such as civilian energy co-operation and perhaps even conditional security guarantees.

On Afghanistan, the UK should promote a stronger Russian involvement in pacifying the border regions and bringing the Muslim countries of central Asia on board. Concretely, Moscow’s military and political help is crucial in securing Afghanistan’s northern borders and thereby preventing the spread of terrorism and drugs. This is also in Moscow’s wider interest, as soaring drug consumption is the main reason for Russia’s looming HIV epidemic.

Likewise, without proper British leadership, the EU will continue to be divided along the lines of “old” and “new Europe”. Since Britain is far less dependent on Russian energy supplies than Germany or Italy, it could and should take a leading role in mediating between western European interests and eastern European fears about a resurgent Russia. Neither taking sides nor remaining at Europe’s margins is an option for a country such as Britain which, according to Miliband, seeks to be a “global player of weight and power“.

All this will require a robust debate on the limits of the existing frameworks, institutions and organisations. These include the EU-Russia partnership and co-operation agreement, the Nato-Russia Council and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation – Moscow’s alliance of convenience with China and central Asia. That is why Britain, Europe’s most important military power, is uniquely positioned to discuss the Russian president’s proposal for a new treaty on European security.

By involving the UK in Obama’s project of multilateral multi-polarity, Miliband can help shape a foreign policy legacy that the Tories won’t be able to undo without causing a major rift with Washington. Critical engagement coupled with gradual steps towards a genuine partnership with Russia is in Britain’s and Europe’s long-term strategic interest.

Original article

Popularity: 1% [?]

Related posts:

1. Russia could sway Iran’s nuclear ambitions | Adrian Pabst
2. Kirill is not the Kremlin’s man | Adrian Pabst
3. Elliot Wilson meets Juliana Slaschova, president of Mikhailov & Partners and PR to Russia’s oligarchs
4. Britain fluffed the German question. Now Britain is Europe’s great puzzle | Timothy Garton Ash
5. Mikhail Khodorkovsky: ‘Russia’s democratic future lies with Britain’