Publications

On March 19, 2010, the Quartet, established in 2002 in Madrid as a mediating body whose decisions carry advisory status, met in Moscow. Present at the meeting were the foreign ministers of Russia, the United States, and the European Union, as well as the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Quartet’s envoy to the Middle East. The present meeting was the first time the Quartet met in a special session rather than as ancillary to international conferences; it took place at Russia’s behest.

At the present meeting, the Quartet reached a resolution that includes the following fundamental positions: a complete freeze on all Israeli activity in the settlements; the start of proximity talks shorly thereafter; a restart of direct talks within four months; and the establishment of a Palestinian state within 24 months.

The Quartet declared its commitment to use all means to encourage the cooperation of the parties involved with its decision. Furthermore, it was reported that the Quartet supports an international conference in Moscow on the Middle East peace process, at the appropriate time and in the context of direct talks. For now, it is safe to assume that such a conference would actually assemble in Moscow as the opening event of the direct talks should this scenario unfold.

However, the recent Quartet gathering in Moscow generated an additional drama that given its significance, overshadowed – at least for the participants – the matter of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The matter concerns discussions between the United States and Russia on central issues of importance where the two powers hold differing views. The meeting under discussion was used to clarify these issues further, including:

• The talks to formulate a new treaty on the reduction of strategic weapons. The previous treaty expired in December 2009, but Russia is dragging its feet over the talks, clearly in order to link the talks’ conclusion to the cancellation of the American intention to deploy interception missiles in Bulgaria and Romania (after the Americans already capitulated on deploying them in Poland and the Czech Republic as a gesture to the Russians).
• The disagreement between Russia and the United States about tightening sanctions against Iran. The issue has not only not been resolved; it has worsened, with Vladimir Putin himself, upon the arrival of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Moscow, announcing, Russia’s intention of operating the reactor in Bushehr, built with Russian assistance, this coming summer. This announcement was deemed unusual, both in its timing and in its severity.

Only a few months ago a round of talks initiated by President Obama took place between the United States and Russia to improve the bilateral relations (the “reset” policy). It appears that the sides achieved a number of understandings. In exchange for Russia’s willingness to cooperate with the United States on the Iranian issue, including tightening the sanctions, the United States rewarded Russia with a number of significant concessions, including ceding the stationing of interception missiles in Eastern Europe and the recognition of Russia’s special status in the region of the former Soviet Union. However, it now seems that the United States did not fully cede on the point of stationing the missile, rather just changed the location to a more southerly one. Moreover, it continues to view Ukraine and Georgia as potential candidates for NATO membership at some point in the future. Thus while in most of the bilateral fields there is constructive cooperation, these points and apparently others are behind Russia’s lack of satisfaction.

The United States currently finds itself looking to exit the whole set of problems packaged together by the Russians into single linkage: the talks on strategic weapons, the Iranian issue, and Russia’s role in the Middle East peace process. There is no doubt that this time, the Russians have demonstrated admirable finesse. It appears that once the appropriate solutions are found, Russia will have succeeded in emerging holding the upper hand. Among Russia’s achievements will likely be an agreement to boost Russia’s status in the Middle East, with the conference to be convened in Moscow only one of the elements toward this enhancement.

It is unclear whether Russia believes in the implementation of the Quartet’s resolutions; it apparently does not believe in a quick and easy solution for the Middle East. However, it does believe in taking advantage of the dynamics of the political process to leverage its goals on the international arena, and is acting on that impulse with remarkable skill.