Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

On US-UK Positions At The United Nations On Conflicts In South Cauca

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • On US-UK Positions At The United Nations On Conflicts In South Cauca

    ON US-UK POSITIONS AT THE UNITED NATIONS ON CONFLICTS IN SOUTH CAUCASUS - EXPERT
    Vano Tumanishvili is a freelance journalist

    Regnum, Russia
    Oct 1 2006

    The USA and Great Britain cannot depend on the UN arena in settling
    conflicts in Moldavia and South Caucasus. Both countries, as well as
    Russia, realize in detail different sides of the conflicts and have no
    illusions regarding the availability of political approaches to their
    solution. States-co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group and Great Britain
    have had at their disposal all possible tools of exerting pressure
    and coercion in the process of solving the Nagorno Karabakh problem.

    Problems of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, of course, have not been
    considered within the so much institutionalized mechanism as the
    Minsk group; however, the available mechanisms also seem to be
    quite adequate. Georgian conflicts have long been in the focus of
    the international community. Such organizations as NATO, EU, and
    EC have repeatedly spoken about and took part in the discussion of
    the problems. From the very start of launching the initiative of
    discussing the problems within the UN, especially as a priority,
    especially after the relevant statement of the head of the Russian
    Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov, - not a single leading expert, not a
    single active politician in the West attempted to refute or analyze
    doubts which this initiative aroused.

    According to US and British experts, after such a detailed discussion
    of the issues in the European structures, it is hard to imagine their
    objective and close analysis at the UN that does not have mechanisms
    of executing such a task in a working regime. It is suggested that the
    UN has to create a special structure, a group or a commission for the
    further examination of the issues, which in any case will lead to an
    extended and ineffective bureaucratic process. Most unexpected events
    may unfold in the process, creating quite unpleasant precedents for
    the leading world powers.

    British experts concede that nobody among the British and US expert
    community has anything to do with the said recommendation. They
    contend that after the attempts to force Armenia to accept a conflict
    settlement scheme suggested by the International Crisis Group in winter
    2006 failed, a certain grouping in the government of Great Britain,
    headed by representative of prime minister to South Caucasus Brian
    Fall, as early as in April 2006 proposed an attempt to transfer the
    discussion of the Nagorno Karabakh problem to the UN.

    The idea of discussing conflicts in Moldavia and South Caucasus at
    the UN arose somewhat later. However, it was exactly Brian Fall who
    discussed the initiative with the heads of foreign political offices
    of Georgia and later Azerbaijan (exactly in this succession). Already
    after the discussions, an idea of putting forward the initiative in
    the UN by the GUAM countries broke the surface. Undoubtedly, the key
    factor in putting forward the initiative and involving in it the US
    and Great Britain is a game around the Georgian political theme.

    The Nagorno Karabakh and Transdnestr factors per se play a minor or
    subordinate role. It is necessary thereby to analyze the hierarchy
    of tasks to be solved, by the initiators' design. The idea was also
    discussed with representatives of a number of European countries
    and high-ranking officials at the Council of the European Union and
    the OSCE.

    Great Britain, Poland, and Lithuania have reportedly conducted at
    the European Commission and European Parliament a substantial work on
    the issue of Russia's politics in the Georgian direction. Supposedly,
    the work was rather successful. Energized effort to study the issue
    has been seen at the European Commission and the European Parliament,
    where the working staff received relevant instructions on preparing
    suggestions on the matter.

    Apparently, the suggestions include assessments of Russia's
    policymaking and the situation in the Russian-Georgian relations,
    including the issue of peacekeeping forces in Abkhazia and South
    Ossetia. Most probably, preparation of political initiatives by the
    EU concerning parallel GUAM initiatives at the UN is taking place.

    The task is to ensure political solidarity of the USA and the European
    Union concerning their Russian agenda.

    A principal agreement between Europeans and the US on the matter is
    limited by the terms of individual discussion of each initiative.

    Essentially, Great Britain and countries of Eastern Europe try to
    surpass positions of France and Germany and use the potential of the
    European Union in their anti-Russian activities. British politicians
    count that PACE and OSCE are not effective mechanisms in carrying out
    the eastern politics, since Russia herself uses the arenas to defend
    her own interests.

    Russia tries to use PACE and OSCE for legitimate discussion of a
    number of problems related to her involvement into other countries'
    affairs and maintaining her presence in conflict zones. Thereby,
    the European Union has been chosen, in which Russia has no formal
    influence. In this regard, opinions of experts at the German Schiller
    Institute that holds a rather anti-British position are of interest.

    According to the experts, Great Britain suffers significant problems
    with Russia on issues of oil business.

    Despite good positions in Russia, British capital may face serious
    problems concerning reserve redundancy and access to large oil
    fields. Besides, some particular problems are apparently at issue.

    For example, the US-British tandem is very concerned with the
    Russian-German-French integration in the energy sphere.

    Besides, the US and Great Britain are quite concerned with the
    possibility of "conspiracy" on the part of Russia, Germany, France,
    and, possibly, other European states regarding Ukraine, including
    extending NATO. Hence, Great Britain attempts to get support of
    Eastern European countries in consolidating the EU in the anti-Russian
    direction. Hence, the new scenarios of pressurizing Russia are being
    devised by the British politics.

    These scenarios make exploring the version of the "British Caucasus
    Project" as a global initiative of pressurizing Russia from the
    southern strategic direction a relevant task. It is exactly in the
    context of this version that the GUAM initiative at the UN has to
    be assessed.

    Lowering risks in the mode of maintaining tensions

    Confrontation between Georgia and Russia, and, correspondingly, in the
    conflict zones in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, exceeded the manageable
    level and became a powerful factor of threats and risks in the South
    Caucasus where the US-British energy complex functions. The European
    community failed to reduce the confrontation, its many initiatives
    only proved infeasibility of such efforts.

    The US and UK for quite a long time led the game of suppressing
    conflicts, before construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline
    completed. After the project was completed, both countries attempted
    to exert pressure on Russia to solve problems unrelated to South
    Caucasus. The goals were earlier defined and are elements of US and
    British strategies in Eurasia. For the last months, the two powers
    have been carrying out the policy of inciting controlled confrontation,
    which has become more than dangerous.

    Russia did not concede in any direction, and did not give Georgia
    or any of her partners any signs in the direction of lowering
    confrontation. A decisive move became pertinent in order to transfer
    responsibility for the developments in the region to such a high
    arena as the UN.

    Consequently, internationalization of the conflicts had to
    be maximized, Russia regarded as a party to the conflicts,
    and, if possible, Russia's role as a "party" to these conflicts
    institutionalized. By this, an attempt to simultaneously increase
    pressure on Russia, get control over the confrontation vector,
    and create grounds for furthering the geopolitical and geoeconomic
    expansion in the Caucasus and Caspian region was performed.

    Satisfying ambitions of partner states

    The USA and UK, although successfully ignored interests of their
    partners in the South Caucasus, forcing on them some imitation conflict
    resolution processes, cannot absolutely deprive them of favorable
    expectations about the conflicts' settlement. Apart from hopes given to
    the ruling elites, the elites are in their turn expected to give hopes
    to their people, on which the sustainability of the ruling regimes
    depends. All ruling regimes of the GUAM member countries go through
    a serious political crisis and need a systemic support from abroad.

    Technologies of persuasion

    The US and UK have no recommendations on settling conflicts in Moldavia
    and South Caucasus in the given geopolitical situation.

    Forcing Armenians, Abkhazians, and Ossetians to submit to the states
    concerned will lead either to resuming war or genocide -and what is
    traditionally referred to as humanitarian catastrophe.

    No coercion methods are available in the western community's Caucasus
    policy reserve. For the most part of the history of the conflicts'
    settlement, the US and UK tried to persuade Georgia and Azerbaijan that
    solving the conflicts by political means was impossible and solving
    them by military means - inadmissible. This is a very complex task
    for the countries' western partners, for the process of discussing
    the issues at the UN may become an interesting arena for persuading
    the ruling teams and the peoples of Georgia and Azerbaijan that
    political solutions to the conflicts are unreachable, at least in
    the foreseeable future.

    The US and UK, undoubtedly, have corresponding developed scenarios for
    the discussion of the problems at the UN. Although detailed information
    on the scenarios is so far unavailable, it can be assumed that their
    designers are going to stick to the practice of imitating the process
    of conflicts' settlement.

    Enhancing and consolidating GUAM positions

    The GUAM bloc, despite the number of attempts to make it effective and
    assign to it particular geopolitical functions, has not and cannot
    become effective, for it is a union of weak states, mediums of very
    contradicting and mutually exclusive interests, and does not have a
    strong leader. The US are trying to assign to GUAM some particular
    functions, first of all, of protecting energy communications and
    confronting Russia, which is not very expedient to Ukraine, Moldavia,
    and Azerbaijan.

    Besides, Ukraine, however started to make one-sided statements in
    favor of Georgia and Azerbaijan, makes them timidly, not striving to
    undertake military and political tasks to solve the problems.

    Devising common political tasks for GUAM countries is an important
    objective of the US policymaking. At a closed-door classified
    seminar at the American Institute of Entrepreneurship (Republican and
    rightist US think-tank) held in September 2006, US State Department
    Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky
    (daughter of Ukrainian anti-Soviet nationalist) sketched the US'
    goals for the GUAM. The goals envision, first of all, pulling the bloc
    countries into common for all the member countries political projects,
    first of all, related to creating a new political reality in Eurasia,
    as well as in the security field.

    Paula Dobriansky in her report contended that GUAM member countries
    policymaking has to reflect policymaking of states that belong to
    the democratic world. She argued that Ukraine qualifies to become
    a leader of the said states, taking into account her economic and
    military potential. Hence, the situation in the vast space of Eastern
    Europe and Eurasia depends on the political fate of Ukraine.

    Representative of the National Intelligence Council and Brookings
    Institute Program Director Fiona Hill informed seminar attendants
    that the security situation in the Black and Caspian Sea region was
    far from normal, pendency of old conflicts required taking measures to
    relieving tensions, which was impossible without active participation
    of the international community.

    So far, solving merely individual security issues has not led to
    achieving stability in the region. The possibility of emphasizing
    the roles of the UN and OSCE in relieving tensions was mentioned,
    however, nothing definite was said of settling conflicts as such.

    Chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Frederic Starr pointed
    out that creating GUAM and other regional blocs was incapable of
    solving security issues in the region.

    Anyway, taking decision on the GUAM countries' accession to NATO
    is necessary, upon which premise the US strategy in the region has
    to be built. Any doubts in this regard cause much disappointment in
    the countries of the region. According to Starr, the international
    community has not been sufficiently involved in resolving conflicts
    in the South Caucasus.

    The seminar participants agreed that the need to involve the UN in
    solving the issues has become pertinent. The seminar's objective
    appeared to be affirmation of the idea to transfer the problems of
    the region to the UN arena.

    The problem of expanding NATO

    The US advocate including Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, even if at the
    cost of degrading defense, political, and economic standards accepted
    in the alliance. This became a subject of principal discussion within
    NATO, in which not only the leading European states, but also other
    states of the alliance are involved. France and Germany, although have
    not made the issue one of the priorities of their domestic policies,
    i.e., have not initiated parliamentary or political discussion of
    the problem, unequivocally pronounced their opinion, pointing to
    the negative objectives that can be discerned behind the new stage
    of expansion.

    Despite the UK government and generals' support of the plan in bulk,
    there are serious doubts concerning it in the British establishment,
    including the ruling party politicians. According to assessments of
    British liberal experts, NATO bureaucracy is inspired by the experience
    of the alliance membership by states that to the moment do not meet
    the alliance criteria, are not successful in participation in various
    initiatives, and send military contingents to armed conflict zones.

    That is, the leading NATO states are quite satisfied with the role of
    the new alliance members. The contradictory positions are a source
    of great concern for the US, for there are so far no hopes for a
    successful accession to NATO by the new members. Expanding NATO
    requires new argumentation, including substantiating new threats.

    For the United States, it seems very important to convince the
    international community of the reality of threats posed by Russia,
    first of all, in regional directions. Russia has to appear as a country
    who impedes conflicts resolution, occupies territories of states under
    the pretext of maintaining peacekeeping forces, carries out political
    subversion against ruling regimes, and uses energy resources for
    political means. Besides, of the set goals, withdrawal of peacekeepers
    from Georgia and troops from Moldavia are the priorities. The US and
    UK are striving to unfold at the UN a prolonged propaganda process.

    Absorbing Armenia

    The US regard Armenia as a nation that has not so far chosen its
    geopolitical orientation. According to confessions of US administrators
    and experts, the US influence in Armenia is more significant than in
    Azerbaijan and some other US partner countries.

    Geopolitical blockading of Armenia with the help of the GUAM bloc
    would lead the country to understanding that the western orientation
    has no alternatives.

    The US cannot achieve the goal and re-orient Armenia by exploiting
    the Nagorno Karabakh issue. Therefore, the Nagorno Karabakh problem
    is of no interest to the US from the point of view of geopolitics
    and security. Americans bet on changing the geopolitical situation
    in the South Caucasus.

    The joint initiative of GUAM at the UN looks like multi-goal
    and quite effective from the point of view of creating solidary
    foreign policy. The US set no goals in the direction of Nagorno
    Karabakh problem, since its development would yield no advantages
    strategically. However, from the propaganda point of view, it could
    create some additional arguments for the campaign. The US need to
    solve some tasks on Moldavia and Georgia.

    Conclusion

    According to approximate estimations of British experts, joint
    discussion on the Transdnestr, Abkhazian, South Ossetian, and Nagorno
    Karabakh issues at the UN is impossible, even given that some working
    structure will be created in the course of taking certain decisions.

    The initiative has very unclear outlooks. The US and UK will not
    insist on taking too uncompromised decisions.

    It should not be ruled out that Georgia and Moldavia will insist on
    a decision on the occupation by Russia part of their territories and
    withdrawal or rotation of conflict zones' peacekeeping forces. The
    goal here is to create an utterly unfavorable situation for Russia and
    stage an international condemnation of her policymaking. The states
    of the European Union are likely to support the anti-Russian stance
    of the initiator countries and produce assessments and decisions
    directed against Russia.

    It should be taken into account that projecting of the South Caucasian
    policy is conducted in a very secluded framework - by the staff of
    EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy
    and US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs
    Daniel Fried. That is, the planning is utterly non-participatory
    and non-transparent, and almost unconnected to parliaments and civil
    societies.

    It has also to be taken into account that the UN decisions on conflict
    issues will be taken in the situation of severe confrontation,
    caused by positions of different states on the USA, for example,
    by the Muslim countries' positions. Azerbaijan will apparently try
    to put forward the initiative in an integrated form, by integrating
    conflict issues in one problem. Georgia, undoubtedly, will attempt to
    present her problems individually, on pragmatic grounds. Moldavia will
    attempt not to hurry and take a mainstream of pursuing the initiative.
Working...
X