{
"authors": [
"Judy Dempsey"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Russia"
],
"topics": []
}
Source: Getty
At the annual security conference in Munich, Russia’s foreign minister stunned the conference by saying that Moscow was not on the side of President Bashar al-Assad.
Source: New York Times
Hardly a word.
This was despite the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was expected this weekend to try to persuade her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, to support more sanctions against the Islamic Republic, but behind the scenes.
But what hit the top of the agenda here was Syria.
In her speech to the conference, Mrs. Clinton said she was trying to win wide support from the international community for the U.N. proposal, initiated by the Arab League, to end the violent crackdown by President Bashar al-Assad’s security forces and arrange a transition of power.Hours later, Russia and China vetoed that proposal. But before that happened, Mr. Lavrov delivered a rather polemical speech. The question and answer period was dominated by Syria.
Why, asked participants, wouldn’t Russia support the Arab League proposals? Why was Russia still supplying arms to the Syrian regime? Why was Russia supporting President Assad?
Mr. Lavrov took the questions in his stride. The veteran diplomat said from early on Russia had supported calls by the Syrian people for change.
But while it was all very well to ask the security forces to stop the violence and return to their barracks, he said, what about asking the armed groups who were causing mayhem to disarm? They were not being criticized at all, Mr. Lavrov said.
As for Russia supporting the Assad regime, Mr. Lavrov denied that. “We are not friends or allies of Assad,” he said — despite Moscow’s decades-long political and military support of Damascus.
“Whether we sold weapons to Syria did not change the balance in the Middle East. Whatever we sell to Syria does not affect the international balance,” Mr. Lavrov said.
Senator John McCain was having none of it. “It’s time to stop the talking. It’s time to demand Assad’s departure, and now,” he said. The audience applauded.
After the Russian and Chinese veto, Mrs. Clinton held a press conference. She said she had spoken to Mr. Lavrov.
Then, she asked, “Are we going to be complicit in the violence and bloodshed in Syria?”
Reports circulated Saturday night that Mr. Lavrov would head to Damascus next week for talks.
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
An Israeli response to Iran’s October 1 attack is imminent. The key question is of its intensity and potential fallout, both within Iran, in terms of nuclear security policy changes, and across the broader region. The coming days are likely to reshape West Asia irreversibly.
Gaddam Dharmendra
For India, the equation is pretty simple: better diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran would let New Delhi deal more smoothly with both countries. A decline in the relationship adversely affects Indian interests.
Rudra Chaudhuri
With contributors from various Central Asian nations and beyond, this issue of Seminar provides a selection of perspectives about the past, present, and future trajectory of Central Asia, and the growing role of external actors, particularly India, China, Russia, and the EU in this evolving and dynamic space.
Rhea Menon, Sharanya Rajiv, 64592
The rise of China as an economic powerhouse in Asia, along with rapid globalization, has brought Central Asia back in the limelight as a bridge connecting the established markets of the West with the emerging markets of the East.
Rhea Menon, Sharanya Rajiv
The recent developments around the Strait of Hormuz have once again highlighted the importance of maritime chokepoints and their connection to regional geopolitics.
Darshana M. Baruah