The State Hermitage Museum: Information

The View from the Hermitage. Who won in Iraq?
An article in the newspaper St Petersburgskie Vedomosti
27 December 2006 (Nr 243)

In today's talk about Iraq, two personalities are frequently mentioned. On the one hand, there is Saddam Hussein, and on the other - the new U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. I saw them both in the Hermitage when I took them around the museum. To be sure, there was a large interval of time between those events.

Hussein came when he was still the second in command in Iraq. At that time his name was surrounded by revolutionary legends. For a young specialist in Arabic studies like me then and for those who accompanied him, he represented a romantic figure. It was interesting to walk around the Hermitage with him and to talk about Iraq and the revolution. But of all the VIPs to whom I have showed the Hermitage, he was the only one whom absolutely nothing in the museum could move. He was focused on his own concerns, talked only about them and perceived nothing around him.

At about the same time, I recall, the Prime Minister of Yemen, A. Ariani arrived. He was dressed in traditional clothing and it seemed to me he would feel awkward in the museum. But he looked around with interest and it was evident that this man appreciated art.

Hussein produced the impression of a man who is blinkered, and evidently this is a peculiarity of his character. Judging by the facts, this peculiarity turned into absolute certainty in the correctness of his own actions. He was convinced that he would defeat everyone when he went into Kuwait. This demonstrates a primitive calculation and primitive calculations are dangerous.

Now the resistance in Iraq is led by Hussein's closest assistant, Izzat Ibrahim. There was a time I saw him in Baghdad in one of those famous bookstores where you can find old books and order old publications. Suddenly a ‘rustle' passed through the store, automatic weapons appeared and it became clear that someone important had entered. Iraq's number three in power, Izzat Ibrahim, entered wearing gray attire. He sat down and became absorbed in books. During my stay in Baghdad, I spoke to people and I already had an idea of that bloody regime. Here was its other side - secular, learned, expressing an interest in books, in Arab nationalism and in the Arab nation. Now a man who combined in himself both aspects of the regime has in one way or another come to lead the resistance and even wage war.

Another man on whom Iraq's future depends is Robert Gates. It happened that during the period of Perestroika I received two directors of the CIA in the Hermitage within a short interval of time. When Robert Gates visited us, he produced the impression of some kind of university professor. An intellectual turned intelligence agent, a specialist on Russia, a man who appears mild-mannered and who understands everything. It was interesting to take him around the museum. He liked everything. I recall that his entourage was surprising. A man in a raincoat got out of the car together with the head of the CIA. As director of the museum, I said firmly that one had to remove outer clothing before entering. He replied: "Professor, I cannot. This is our communications link." He threw open his coat and revealed the equipment he was wearing. And so the "communications link" went along with us through the museum.

The intellectual intelligence officer Robert Gates has become Secretary of Defense of the USA and I hope he will approach the situation which has arisen in the Near East with realism.

Now it is worth while sorting out who has won in the Iraqi war. In my view, there are several victors. Firstly, however strange it may sound, Saddam Hussein won the war. Let's recall the enigmatic situation at the beginning of the war. He withdrew his army, his people and he himself fled, but he established an armed resistance which continues to fight actively. Saddam left but the resistance remained. This is a plan which will bring victory in the struggle against the Americans. A confirmation of this is the fact that the Government of Iraq has decided to take back into service the soldiers and officers of Hussein's army.

Of course, the USA also can claim victory. They carried out all their tasks. The first task was to destroy Iraq. As an instrument it had ceased to be necessary to the Americans in the Near East. It had stopped being a counterweight to Iran and, on the contrary, had become a strong counterweight to Israel. The USA destroyed Iraq. A country which was created artificially from various provinces of a caliphate joined together after a revolution can easily fall apart. And now it will take gigantic efforts to restore Iraq, and they will scarcely be crowned with success.

Of course, the Americans have established their control over Iraqi oil. You can say as much as you like that they have no need of this. But in fact in this way they will try to regulate the price of oil. Finally, the Americans have installed their troops in the center of the Near East. Now they can arrive at any location there within an hour. The problem of the military threat to Israel has been solved.

In evaluating the results of the war in Iraq, it seems to me that many people have forgotten that the Iraqi Shiites have also carried out their tasks. It is customary to say that the crafty Americans launched a military action and drew everyone there. They provoked Saddam to attack Iran and Kuwait. I remind you that the information that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons came from Shiite sources. The Shiites immediately took advantage of the situation created by the Americans entering Iraq. They created a powerful Shiite bastion in Iraq. Just next door are the Shiites of Iran, who actively pull the strings of political life. You can say the same about the Shiites of Lebanon and Palestine. Possibly the Shiites won more than anyone else, because it seems it is precisely they who will call the shots in the Near East.

One has to define precisely the peculiarities of the psychology in Shiite teachings. This is one of the currents of Islam. From the standpoint of European understanding, the Shiites are the current of Islam that learned something from the church organization of Christianity. The Sunnis believe there is no intermediary between God and man, and that there was the prophet Mohammed who brought the Koran, which must be studied and by which one must live. The Shiites, on the contrary, say that intermediaries do exist. These are the Shiite imams, who are to a certain degree theologians, and whom we might even call clergy. They fulfill the link between god and man. These intermediaries constitute the political system, which is reminiscent of the system of control in the Communist Party. There is the notion of rule by theologians. There is the highest theologian, who is elected, and he takes final decisions on strategic questions. He always insists on his views and can even chase out the president and prime minister. He examines all issues from the standpoint of ideology, which in the given instance means from the standpoint of religion. It reminds us very much of the CPSU, with one difference: whereas the Party owned everything, the Shiite clergy sits to one side and directs the process.

Now new political constructs are being created in the Near East. This concerns in particular Iraq, a country where changes in regime always have been bloody. But civil wars are also going on in Lebanon and in Palestine. King Abdullah of Jordan, one of the best peacemakers in the Near East, has warned about this. In his evaluation of the situation surrounding the Holy Land, Palestine and Israel, he very correctly observed once in Davos that two peoples, the Jews and the Arabs, are committing mutual suicide. In place of secular and moderate regimes, hard-line fundamentalists are striving to take power. Also in Davos, the former head of intelligence of Saudi Arabia gave what I think is a proper characterization of fundamentalists as a sect, with the psychological features of sectarianism - from charismatic leaders to mindless extremism. I think that in all the instances mentioned above, the application of more universal parallels and definitions would enable people to correctly understand the situation. These are universal matters, not just local matters. And the situation is terrifying.

I think we should address ourselves to the Near East and to our cultural mission. After these decades, while people in the Near East still remember Russian influence; while there are still people who speak Russian and look hopefully to Russia and to Russian culture. There are ways by which we can calmly make a return to this land. For example, an exhibition of young artists from a number of different countries was just held in Cairo. There were representatives coming from America, Australia and everywhere in between. Only Russia did not take part. I was invited to be honorary chairman of the biennale together with one of Egypt's oldest artists. This was done not just to mark the presence of an Arabic scholar or director of Russia's largest museum, but in a show of regard for our country. This demonstrates the feelings of the friends Russia has.

At about this time, the fortieth anniversary of the opening of the Russian cultural center in Cairo was celebrated. A lot of people were there whom we had seen in the past. They shared reminiscences about the cultural presence of our country. The same feelings arise in Kuwait, where we have long had scientific and cultural links that we intend to further develop, including in the area of exhibitions. The same occurs in Abu-Dhabi, where we perhaps will participate in museum and exhibition projects.

The Near East is ready for a Russian cultural offensive and influence. We have to think this over seriously. One has to remember that our cultural exports are always successful. People need this. There is a firm basis for it and for the time being there is still a living memory of Russian culture laid down during the time of the friendship of many countries of the Near East with Russia.