Carter's New Diplomacy

No matter how one views the goals of Russia's action in Chechnya (I personally think Moscow had every right to use force in this situation), one thing is now perfectly clear: The country has gotten itself into a position in which victory is impossible. Moreover, in the wake of President Boris Yeltsin's address Tuesday, the situation has reached the point where the only possible topic for negotiation is surrender terms. In such a situation, when there is no apparent escape, one begins somewhat desperately to look around for someone capable of devising an acceptable solution.


Naturally, one thinks of that deus ex machina of contemporary U.S. diplomacy, a man who only appears on the scene when all possibilities for dialogue have been exhausted and continued bloodshed seems inevitable: the indefatigable Jimmy Carter, a man who has done considerably more for the world and for his country than has the entire U.S. State Department. As a result of his negotiations with the former military leaders of Haiti and with North Korea's dictator Kim Il Sung, two dangerous predicaments were pulled back from the very brink of open violence. For his latest trick, Carter has managed -- at least temporarily -- to bring the long-running warfare in Bosnia-Herzegovina virtually to a halt.


Although many people have criticized Carter's "amateur diplomacy," his results speak for themselves. For those of us in Moscow, the time is ripe to consider what exactly is the secret of the former president -- who had relatively few foreign-policy successes during his years in the White House. In my view, Carter's main secret is that he has found a level on which to operate in conflict situations that official diplomacy inherently excludes.


One important peculiarity of recent international conflicts is that neither the United States nor any of the other great powers has been capable of controlling either the development of crises or the behavior of the participants in these conflicts. Despite all their talk about a "new world order" based on mutual respect and equality, the great powers cannot rid themselves of the notion of their own greatness. In practice, this means that -- even in the pursuit of noble ends, such as the protection of human rights or the rights of ethnic minorities -- the great powers quickly resort to the threat or use of force to intimidate those who disagree with them.


However, the events of the last year show that putting all one's trust in the threat of force is a mistake, to say the least. After all, in order to make the threat convincing, leaders must begin by convincing themselves and their own citizens that such an action is truly in their national interest. And the only way to do this is to paint the recalcitrant party in such black tones that any attempt at dialogue begins to appear like a capitulation to evil. Of course, once one has worked oneself into this state of mind, it becomes impossible to formulate a judicious policy.


In addition, the cost of such actions in terms of the lives of both soldiers and innocent civilians is so high that a country such as the United States, even if it does decide to intervene, is not likely to do so with its full military might. And everyone understands this perfectly well.


So Washington and the other great powers are left perplexed: What comes next, after negotiations come to nothing but escalations of threats and accusations, and there is no real will to make use of force? Without clear military goals, such interventions cannot bring any real results. Instead, we get the kind of situation that we have already seen in Somalia and Bosnia, and that is now unfolding in Chechnya.


And this point, the very brink of disaster, is where Jimmy Carter comes to the aid of American diplomacy.


Carter is not bound to hew the official line that the party across the negotiating table is the very personification of evil. He has become, in effect, a professional "de-demonizer" in the realm of international relations. This 70-year-old idealist has turned out to be more rational than all the world's politicians. He is open to dialogue, and to the working out of compromises. After all, the world's "demons" are not really bent on suicide. They are open to compromises that can allow them to escape from their predicaments with at least their dignity in tact. By providing them with an opportunity to do so, Carter is performing a great service for official diplomacy.


In the cases of the Bosnian Serbs and North Korea, I believe that Russian diplomats might very well have achieved what Carter did. Moreover, judging from statements from Moscow, Russia was prepared to play exactly that kind of role. However, no matter how sad it may be to admit it, the time has not yet come for Russia to play the role of honest broker in international affairs. After all, such a broker, in addition to taking a rational approach, must also have real weight in the eyes of the parties directly involved in the conflict. Clearly Carter has such influence, and Russia's Foreign Ministry does not. When, for example, Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev tried to mediate between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the world community, nothing resulted. No one could take his guarantees seriously.


The explanation for this may lie in the fact that Moscow itself, as the Chechen situation shows, is not always capable of acting rationally. Our politicians have not yet liberated themselves from the tendency to demonize.


Now it would seem that it is not the United States or the world community at large, but Russia in particular that needs the wisdom and detachment of someone like Carter to help it escape from the crisis in Chechnya. If someone with these skills cannot be found in Russia, would it really be completely unthinkable to call on President Carter himself?





Alexander Golz is a Moscow-based journalist. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.