On June 15, 2017
Anna Borshchevskaya appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
the Middle East and North Africa to tell the Congress what to do with Russia's
Putin. Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s can only say:
Here we go again!
That was a time when
heads of business associations, such as steel, appliances and electronics, used
to stream endlessly in front of Congressional committees, and whine about the
absence of a level playing field when it comes to competing against foreign
imports … which they claimed were dumped in the American market.
But the truth is
that the world was changing at the time, and while Asia was progressing
industrially, the American manufacturers were too smug to believe they could be
challenged by foreigners. They refused to embrace new technologies, new designs
and new approaches till the moment they realized that the foreigners were
outselling them abroad and in the American market. Instead of doing what was
necessary to catch up with the times, the Americans blamed their regression on
foreigners.
The Congress took
measures to help, but despite all that, manufacturing in America kept falling
behind at a time when several studies were showing that most manufacturers,
especially the auto and steel industries, were losing ground, not because of
foreign dumping – which did not exist – but because the Americans were
inefficient, uncompetitive and lacking the will to modernize.
The Congress stopped
helping when it could do no more, and the critics who were hiding up to now,
finally came out of the woods and told it like it was. They said America's
manufacturers have been spoiled for too long, and now that they met real
competition, they started to cry like babies. The critics called them
crybabies, and this proved to be what the business leaders needed to hear. They
got up, dusted themselves off and modernized. The result was a steel industry
that came back strongly, as did the auto industry.
Well, the same can
now be said about America's foreign policy apparatus because the world –
especially Russia's Putin – is doing to America's foreign policy what the
foreign manufacturers once did to America's industries. And the reality that
should alarm everyone is that so-called experts such as Anna Borshchevskaya are
showing the makers of America's foreign policy – not how to grow-up and compete
in a world that's becoming multi-polar but – how to whine about Putin's foreign
policy successes, seeing him do what's good for his country. And what is
suicidal about the counseling of those experts is that they tell the Congress
and the diplomatic corps how to administer the coup de grace to America.
Here is a sampling
of Borshchevskaya lesson on how to whine about Putin:
“Vladimir Putin
chartered Russia's return to the Middle East. He did so in the context of
zero-sum – for Russia to win, the United States must lose. He wanted to restore
Russia's superpower status, and wanted the United States to recognize Russia as
an equal. He did so by regaining political, diplomatic, and economic influence,
using increased cooperation and diplomatic exchanges. Russia's Foreign Policy
Concept defined Moscow's priorities as 'to restore and strengthen Russia's
positions, particularly economic ones.' Putin visited several Middle Eastern
countries. He also received high-level Middle East officials. For example, he
visited Egypt in 2005, and traveled to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in 2007. Russia's
economic ties with Turkey and Egypt grew”.
And here is a
sampling of Borshchevskaya recommendations on how the foreign policy apparatus
can finish off America in the Middle East:
“US officials should
limit contact with Putin to military deconfliction. Conciliation will backfire.
Putin responds productively only when American officials act from a position of
strength. In Syria, Putin understands his limitations, and a direct
confrontation is not something he seeks. The US cruise missile strikes showed
that in the end Russia could do nothing but complain. Therefore instead of
enticing Putin with incentives, Washington should demonstrate that his embrace
of Assad brings tremendous costs to Russia. Putin's Achilles heel is exposed
when US policymakers reclaim leadership with moral clarity”.
It is clear that Borshchevskaya
sees the face-off between the US and Russia in the Middle East as a conflict
between them, and of interest to them only.
She totally ignores
that the people of the Middle East, whose hearts they both try to win, have a
stake in what the big powers bring to their region. These people want a say in
what's happening to them, not lectures on how to behave to better serve the
interests of America.
So while Putin will
work to win those hearts, America will scheme to establish its upper hand on
the region … and do so no matter how much it will cost the people who live
there. Imagine!