| If Washington decides to topple Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein,
Moscow will have to agree to a U.S. military strike or risk losing
billions
of dollars it has at stake in Iraq, experts said.
U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday argued for using force
against Iraq
at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, which discussed
Saddam's
refusal to grant UN inspectors unrestricted access to sites suspected
of
building weapons of mass destruction.
Russia's main interest in Iraq is economic and it does not have
to be pinned
to Saddam, experts said. Thus, Russia has no need to antagonize
the United
States over whether he is ousted.
"We have our own economic interests there," said Alexei
Arbatov, deputy
chairman of the State Duma's defense committee.
Regional stability and nonproliferation are also of importance
to Russia, he
said.
Russia's best move would be to seek assurances that whoever succeeds
Saddam
will honor Russia's economic interests, which include the exploration
of
Iraq's oil fields and the arms trade, if UN sanctions against
Baghdad are
lifted, experts said.
Iraqi oil traded in a UN oil-for-food program brings Russian
companies a
windfall of $4 billion per year.
Iraq owes Russia $7 billion to $9 billion in Soviet-era debt,
which Moscow
hopes to one day collect.
And Russia and Iraq have been discussing a five-year economic
cooperation
program worth $40 billion.
Whether Moscow will be able to implement the $40 billion program,
collect the
debt and, possibly, earn hundreds of millions of dollars more
from trading
arms with a sanctions-free Iraq will depend on whether it strikes
a deal with
Washington ahead of a military strike.
So far, no such guarantees have been secured. Russian and U.S.
officials held
a series of private talks in Moscow and Washington this summer
on guarantees
that Russia's economic interests would be honored by whoever succeeds
Saddam,
but no deal has been struck.
The United States should offer such guarantees provided that
the Kremlin
promises not to interfere with Saddam's ouster, said William Wallace
of the
London School of Economics and Political Science. "The U.S.
needs to keep
Russia on its side," he said.
So far, the Kremlin has spoken out strongly against any unilateral
action
against Iraq but has managed to avoid antagonizing the White House.
Foreign
Minister Igor Ivanov and his deputy Vyacheslav Trubnikov have
refused to say
whether Russia would veto a mandate to attack if the United States
submits
one to the UN Security Council.
It remains unclear whether the Bush administration will seek
approval from
the UN Security Council.
Arbatov said Russia should authorize a strike only if Saddam
again refuses to
grant unlimited access to UN inspectors.
Like Russia, Germany and France also oppose any unilateral action
by the
United States. So far, only Britain has publicly sided with the
United States
on a strike. Analysts said Washington would be able to also win
support from
Turkey and Kuwait.
Whether or not Bush seeks the endorsement of the UN Security
Council, Russia
should remain publicly opposed to any unilateral campaign but
avoid acting
like a spoiler, said Alexander Pikayev of the Moscow Carnegie
Center.
Such a policy will not only allow Russia to reap economic benefits
in Iraq, but will also ensure that the United States continues
to limit its criticism of Russia's military operation in Chechnya
and of Moscow's efforts to press Georgia into rounding up Chechen
rebels in the Pankisi Gorge, he said.
| 