Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig – Diplomatic Juggling Among Superpowers
A ménage à trois is not only relevant to interpersonal relations; it can be just as sticky to maintain in international relations. Imagine, then, how hard it must be to sustain a ménage a quatre in international diplomacy! Israel is trying to do just that – so far largely successfully.
There are three world superpowers, national giants bestriding the world: the U.S., China, and Russia. Israel has relations with all three, but at different levels of intensity. To continue the personal relations simile, America is Israel’s “wife,” while China and Russia are mistresses. Keeping the wife happy with the other two somewhat satisfied takes a lot of diplomatic footwork, especially when the three are not on the best of terms (to put it mildly).
Not much needs to be added regarding the excellent relationship Israel has with the U.S., despite their infrequent contretemps (which marriage doesn’t have a shouting match on occasion?). This might not be a marriage made in heaven, but it’s just about as good as it gets on Earth.
If this was normal matrimony with no one else involved, not too much effort would be needed to keep it “heavenly.” However, life is more complicated than that – as is the world.
Israel has a relationship with Russia that can best be described as “civil,” in no small part due to President Putin’s clear philo-Semitism and the million former Soviet citizens now living in Israel. Nevertheless, Israel has to tread lightly, given that Russia supports (or at least is a titular ally of) Israel’s two greatest enemies: Iran and Syria – not to mention the unfortunate fact that Russia and the U.S. are slowly moving back to a frigid (if not yet Cold War) relationship.
Luckily for Israel, the U.S. understands Israel’s need to maintain good relations with Russia, precisely because of the situation on its northern border. For instance, Israel does not much worry about Syria’s military threat, but it is very concerned about Iran’s infiltration into Syria as a base for attacking Israel. Given that Russia is heavily involved in Syria, Israel’s ongoing communication with Russia is of critical importance – so that the Russians don’t think Israel is attacking their “advisers” on Syrian soil (when it is actually bombing Iranian targets in Syria), and Israel can be sure that it doesn’t mistakenly attack Russian “advisers.” As for the major areas of potential Russian/American conflict (e.g., the Ukraine), Israel has stayed decidedly neutral or non-committal, something that the U.S. understands and is willing to swallow.
Israel’s relationship with China, however, is far more fraught from an American perspective – for two main reasons. First, China has a lot more to offer Israel economically e.g., the new Haifa port the Chinese will be managing for Israel for the next 25 years. This does not sit well with the Americans, given that U.S. military vessels sometimes dock in Haifa.
Second, and potentially far more problematic for Israel’s relationship with the U.S., is the growing strategic tension between these two world superpowers. From telecommunications (Huawei 5G) to human rights violations (Moslem Uighurs), the world is watching anxiously from the side as a new, dangerous Cold War seems to be emerging. Thus, the U.S. expects its junior ally Israel to side with it whenever an issue demands international involvement, as occurred recently with the U.N. statement expressing worry about Chinese treatment of its Uighur minority – a statement that Israel circumspectly did not sign, with an Israeli diplomatic official explaining that Jerusalem has “other interests that it has to balance” in addition to its concern over human rights in Xinjiang. If U.S./China tensions continue to increase, and certainly if (God forbid) they turn into a “Hot War,” Israel will face a stark choice that will have significant domestic, economic consequences.
Complicating the situation even more is the historically interesting (and almost unique) fact that today all three of these world superpower governments have clear pro-Israel, non-anti-Semitic policies. As noted, Putin is actually philo-Semitic; China never had any anti-Semitic sentiments (very few Jews lived there over the millennia); the U.S. government, of course, has been pro-Israel for at least the past fifty-plus years, notwithstanding some residual anti-Semitism in the country.
Such a relatively pro-Israeli stance on the part of the world’s superpowers has broader implications for Israel’s standing in the Middle East. It is not coincidental that the Abraham Accords were recently formulated and signed, the same time that Israel is in all the superpowers’ good graces. Indeed, some Arab nations see making peace with Israel as a way to get Washington’s ear (e.g., Sudan), or improving its already peaceful relationship with Israel as a way to improve its standing with the U.S. Administration (e.g., Egypt).
Clausewitz opined that “war is a mere continuation of policy by other means.” Israel is finding that the opposite is true as well: Diplomatic acumen is a continuation of war by other (more peaceful) means.
