On May 19, the Valdai Discussion Club presented a report on external influences on the Middle East relations, titled “Crucial Players or Insufficient Powers? The USA, Russia and the EU in the Middle East.”
The report’s author, Igor Istomin, senior lecturer at the MGIMO University's Department of Applied International Political Analysis, summarized the influence of external forces on the Middle East as a sort of asymmetrical triangle of Russian, US and EU interests.
One of the issues mentioned was the social fragmentation of Middle Eastern countries, which has threatened their integrity as states. Whereas before, other states were seen as the chief threat to state security in the Middle East, the new trend is the influence of various social groups, including not only nationalists and liberals, but also Islamists and tribal groups.
Istomin also called for the creation of a regional organization for security dialogue, bringing up the examples of Europe’s OSCE and Asia’s Shangri-La Dialogue and East Asia Forum.
“Every other region of the world has some sort of regional institution, which allow countries that are not even on amicable terms, to regularly maintain dialogue,” he said. “In the Middle East we essentially have no such formats, where regional players can negotiate about the rules, according to which they would compete.”
Istomin summarized his recommendations for Russia and other external players in the Middle East as the creation of informal channels for communication between regional states, and including the chief social groups, except for Islamist organizations.
Mikhail Troitskiy, associate professor at the Department of International Relations and Russia's Foreign Policy of the MGIMO University, offered his criticism of the report. He noted that there is no basis for an OSCE-like structure, as there is no country dominant enough to set the rules that would allow for such on organization, or a significant enough agreement among rivals, in the new context of coalition-building.
He added that seeing the US role as a player, which relies on military force, the EU as a player, which relies on money to solve issues, and Russia, as the player with the ability to talk to all sides, as described by Istomin, was problematic. He noted that this expresses not their strategic solution of issues, but the limits to their abilities, bringing up the example of using military force as an instrument, which could potentially worsen the situation, rather than a panacea, or an example of strategic thinking.
Troitskiy also questioned the need for any Middle East strategy as something that could unite Russia, the EU and US at all, outside of the goal of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, something that has previously united the players over Syria.
During the discussion, former ambassador Andrei Vdovin brought up a personal anecdote, of how perceptions of time and the external goals of peace and stability may not line up in the Middle East. Whereas the goals of external players were to achieve peace in the region, people in the region itself see their predicament as something like Europe in the 17th century, where time and the prospects for peace are measured in decades, rather than shorter terms.
Another issue brought up during the discussion was the issue of states that get relatively little media attention, but nevertheless are important examples of troubled statehood, such as Libya or Yemen.
Istomin concluded by saying that while Russia’s trust in the use of military force has grown since its involvement in the Syrian conflict began, it also meant great risks, and that Russian policy has traditionally been to limit the use of force, and that further cooperation with the EU and US should work to limit such risks.
