Tweet
OPERATION DEFROST
Translated by A. Ignatkin
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
Source: Novye Izvestia, 13.12.2007, pp. 1, 4
December 17, 2007 Monday
by Rafael Mustafayev (Baku), Irina Maramidze (Tbilisi), Yana Stadilnaya
(Kiev), Artyom Oparin
LATENT CONFLICTS ON THE TERRITORY OF THE COMMONWEALTH ONCE AGAIN BECAME
THE TALK OF THE DAY; The problem of self-proclaimed republics aspiring
for recognition of their sovereignty threatens the Commonwealth with
new wars.
Latent conflicts on the territory of the Commonwealth once again
became the talk of the day throughout the world. Azerbaijani defense
minister openly proclaims inevitability of a war over Nagorno-Karabakh
with Armenia; Georgian Foreign Ministry is upset over what it brands
as "increase of Russian military presence" in Abkhazia; Moldovan
leadership keeps questioning "expediency" of the Russian military in
the restive Trans-Dniester region...
Self-proclaimed republics in the meantime demand recognition of their
sovereignty from the international community. Confrontation between
Russia and the West over the future of Kosovo adds oil to the flame.
Defense Minister Safar Abiyev, the Azerbaijani politician who speaks
his mind and doesn't mince words, promotes a military solution to
the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. The 2008 draft military budget of
Azerbaijan will amount to the unprecedented figure of $1.3 billion.
Recalling how Baku had made laser sights and aviation and navy gear in
the Soviet Union, Azerbaijani Deputy Premier Yagub Ejyubov suggested
transformation into a major arms merchant.
Armenian politicians in their turn seem to rely almost exclusively
on membership of their country in the CIS Collective Security Treaty
Organization and aid from allies (first and foremost, Russia).
Predictably, it makes them considerably more reserves than their
opponents. Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakosjan, for example,
indirectly responded to Abiyev's aggressive rhetoric with a speech on
benefits of "preventive diplomacy." In the meantime, it never occurs
to anyone in Yerevan to withdraw from a single square meter of the
occupied territories.
American diplomat Matthew Bryza, one of the chairmen of the OSCE Minsk
Group wrestling with the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict settlement,
urged Baku and Yerevan the other day to stop bickering and adopt
the plan charted by foreign intermediaries. The plan stands for
withdrawal of the Armenian troops from some occupied territories as
phase one of the process of reconciliation. It is to be followed by
removal of land-mines and return of refugees to their homes. Baku
in the meantime is asked to forget about restoration of control over
Nagorno-Karabakh... Bryza's was a voice in the wilderness.
The situation with conflict areas in Georgia nearby - Abkhazia and
South Ossetia - is no less dramatic. With the presidential campaign
under way in Georgia, officials in Tbilisi and media outlets regularly
bring up the subject of Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia.
The Georgian Foreign Ministry and U.S. Department of State in the
meantime castigate Moscow for the temerity to draw parallels between
Abkhazia and Kosovo. Foreign Minister Gela Bezhuashvili ever warned
the Kremlin that its stand on the matter might "backfire."
Neither does the presidential campaign in Georgia and those involved
in it forget about the possibility of armed provocations in conflict
areas. Political scientist Pata Zakareishvili of the Development and
Cooperation Center does not expect any armed provocations.
Zakareishvili is convinced that the Georgian leadership uses the
subject as a bugaboo the way politicians in Russia speculate on how
Kosovo may set a precedent for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "It is wrong
for Russia to draw parallels between Kosovo and Abkhazia, and wrong
first and foremost for the Abkhazians. Insisting on viewing Kosovo
as a precedent is not going to avail Moscow anything," Zakareishvili
said. "Russia is getting stronger and wealthier.
Granted that it is, it nevertheless has certain weak points. Neither
the United States nor China will defeat Russia but the Caucasus just
might do it. By flirting with Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region,
the Kremlin is playing with fire. These regions are located near
the Russian borders. Should Moscow be so reckless as to question the
territorial integrity of Georgia, Tbilisi will certainly use its clout
with the Caucasus [against Russia - Vremya Novostei. I'm not saying
that Russia should abandon Abkhazia and South Ossetia altogether. It
should demand from the Georgian leadership a solution to the local
problems in a civilized and peaceful manner - the way countries of
the West have been demanding it."
Everyone talks peace and peaceful settlement. The situation in the
Kishinev-Tiraspol conflict area in the meantime is regarded the
less problematic of all. Rank veterans of the 1992 war there that
took almost 1,000 lives on both sides eventually stopped seeing each
other through the prism of ethnic origin - and that's what makes the
situation in the Trans-Dniester region unique.
The last serious attempt to arrange direct negotiations between the
leaders of the sides of the conflict was undertaken in 2006. It
failed. The negotiations were arranged in the traditional 5+2
manner - five intermediaries (OSCE, Russia, Ukraine, United
States, European Union) and two warring sides (Moldova and the
self-proclaimed Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic). Try as they might,
the intermediaries failed in getting Kishinev and Tiraspol reach an
understanding on a single issue.
This diplomatic failure was followed by economic blockade of the
runaway territory by Moldova and Ukraine and by caravans of relief aid
from Russia. Where the Ukrainians are concerned, the latent conflict
between Kishinev and Tiraspol concerns them directly because Ukraine
remains an official intermediary and guarantor.
"As a matter of fact, the part Ukraine has played in this whole
conflict is as important as Russia's," to quote Dmitry Levus, Director
of the Social Studies Center Ukrainian Meridian (Kiev).
Active interaction with Trans-Dniester businesses makes Ukrainian
politicians particularly interested in peaceful settlement.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe arranged a
conference on suspended conflicts in Berlin in November 2007.
"Geography of conflicts" was restricted to what had constituted
the Soviet Union once - neither Kosovo nor North Cyprus were even
mentioned. Eduard Lintner, Chairman of the International Committee of
the Parliamentary Assembly, said the problem of suspended conflicts
was ever in the focus of attention of the Council of Europe. "Truce is
upheld in conflict areas these days, but the problems [that fomented
them in the first place - Vremya Novostei] remain unsolved.
That is why we view them as suspended," a Parliamentary Assembly
official given the floor said.
The conference decided almost unanimously that once the armed conflicts
on the territory of post-Soviet countries had been suspended, Russia
chose the policy of deliberate conservation of the status quo that
impeded conflict settlement. The nearly unanimous decision was the
very suspension of conflicts had been a factor impeding settlement
rather than a means of putting an end to bloodshed.
What will "defrosting" result in then? When involved societies do not
even want communication with each other, much less compromises? When
leaders of the warring sides view the very idea of a compromise as
treason against the state and national interests? When the conflicts
are used as a device to consolidate the masses? "Defrosting" will
inevitably mean renewal of the hostilities and ruination of the
existing parity. In short, it will be much worse than the status quo.
Of course, someone might decide that peace is worth a "little war"
but that's a questionable assumption at best.
Dismissing the patent danger of conflict escalation in
Nagorno-Karabakh, the European Union seems to be interested in it
much more than it is in the problems of Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
and particularly Trans-Dniester region, Nicu Popescu of CEPS (Center
of European Political Studies) said. The European Union is not going
to participate in peacekeeping operations there unless an operation
like that is warranted by an Azerbaijani-Armenian agreement. France,
Russia, and United States in the meantime chair the OSCE Minsk Group
for Nagorno-Karabakh. Neutral as it is, the European Union condemns
the policy of economic blockade of Armenia pursued by Azerbaijan and
Turkey. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia participate in the New European
Neighborhood program the European Union charted for post-Soviet
countries, Middle East, and North Africa. On the other hand, the
EU-Azerbaijan action plan signed within the framework of this program
promotes the principle of territorial integrity but the US-Armenian
one advocates the principle of self-determination. In other words,
Brussels is telling each of its partners whatever this particular
partner would like to hear.
Translated by A. Ignatkin
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
Source: Novye Izvestia, 13.12.2007, pp. 1, 4
December 17, 2007 Monday
by Rafael Mustafayev (Baku), Irina Maramidze (Tbilisi), Yana Stadilnaya
(Kiev), Artyom Oparin
LATENT CONFLICTS ON THE TERRITORY OF THE COMMONWEALTH ONCE AGAIN BECAME
THE TALK OF THE DAY; The problem of self-proclaimed republics aspiring
for recognition of their sovereignty threatens the Commonwealth with
new wars.
Latent conflicts on the territory of the Commonwealth once again
became the talk of the day throughout the world. Azerbaijani defense
minister openly proclaims inevitability of a war over Nagorno-Karabakh
with Armenia; Georgian Foreign Ministry is upset over what it brands
as "increase of Russian military presence" in Abkhazia; Moldovan
leadership keeps questioning "expediency" of the Russian military in
the restive Trans-Dniester region...
Self-proclaimed republics in the meantime demand recognition of their
sovereignty from the international community. Confrontation between
Russia and the West over the future of Kosovo adds oil to the flame.
Defense Minister Safar Abiyev, the Azerbaijani politician who speaks
his mind and doesn't mince words, promotes a military solution to
the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. The 2008 draft military budget of
Azerbaijan will amount to the unprecedented figure of $1.3 billion.
Recalling how Baku had made laser sights and aviation and navy gear in
the Soviet Union, Azerbaijani Deputy Premier Yagub Ejyubov suggested
transformation into a major arms merchant.
Armenian politicians in their turn seem to rely almost exclusively
on membership of their country in the CIS Collective Security Treaty
Organization and aid from allies (first and foremost, Russia).
Predictably, it makes them considerably more reserves than their
opponents. Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakosjan, for example,
indirectly responded to Abiyev's aggressive rhetoric with a speech on
benefits of "preventive diplomacy." In the meantime, it never occurs
to anyone in Yerevan to withdraw from a single square meter of the
occupied territories.
American diplomat Matthew Bryza, one of the chairmen of the OSCE Minsk
Group wrestling with the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict settlement,
urged Baku and Yerevan the other day to stop bickering and adopt
the plan charted by foreign intermediaries. The plan stands for
withdrawal of the Armenian troops from some occupied territories as
phase one of the process of reconciliation. It is to be followed by
removal of land-mines and return of refugees to their homes. Baku
in the meantime is asked to forget about restoration of control over
Nagorno-Karabakh... Bryza's was a voice in the wilderness.
The situation with conflict areas in Georgia nearby - Abkhazia and
South Ossetia - is no less dramatic. With the presidential campaign
under way in Georgia, officials in Tbilisi and media outlets regularly
bring up the subject of Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia.
The Georgian Foreign Ministry and U.S. Department of State in the
meantime castigate Moscow for the temerity to draw parallels between
Abkhazia and Kosovo. Foreign Minister Gela Bezhuashvili ever warned
the Kremlin that its stand on the matter might "backfire."
Neither does the presidential campaign in Georgia and those involved
in it forget about the possibility of armed provocations in conflict
areas. Political scientist Pata Zakareishvili of the Development and
Cooperation Center does not expect any armed provocations.
Zakareishvili is convinced that the Georgian leadership uses the
subject as a bugaboo the way politicians in Russia speculate on how
Kosovo may set a precedent for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "It is wrong
for Russia to draw parallels between Kosovo and Abkhazia, and wrong
first and foremost for the Abkhazians. Insisting on viewing Kosovo
as a precedent is not going to avail Moscow anything," Zakareishvili
said. "Russia is getting stronger and wealthier.
Granted that it is, it nevertheless has certain weak points. Neither
the United States nor China will defeat Russia but the Caucasus just
might do it. By flirting with Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region,
the Kremlin is playing with fire. These regions are located near
the Russian borders. Should Moscow be so reckless as to question the
territorial integrity of Georgia, Tbilisi will certainly use its clout
with the Caucasus [against Russia - Vremya Novostei. I'm not saying
that Russia should abandon Abkhazia and South Ossetia altogether. It
should demand from the Georgian leadership a solution to the local
problems in a civilized and peaceful manner - the way countries of
the West have been demanding it."
Everyone talks peace and peaceful settlement. The situation in the
Kishinev-Tiraspol conflict area in the meantime is regarded the
less problematic of all. Rank veterans of the 1992 war there that
took almost 1,000 lives on both sides eventually stopped seeing each
other through the prism of ethnic origin - and that's what makes the
situation in the Trans-Dniester region unique.
The last serious attempt to arrange direct negotiations between the
leaders of the sides of the conflict was undertaken in 2006. It
failed. The negotiations were arranged in the traditional 5+2
manner - five intermediaries (OSCE, Russia, Ukraine, United
States, European Union) and two warring sides (Moldova and the
self-proclaimed Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic). Try as they might,
the intermediaries failed in getting Kishinev and Tiraspol reach an
understanding on a single issue.
This diplomatic failure was followed by economic blockade of the
runaway territory by Moldova and Ukraine and by caravans of relief aid
from Russia. Where the Ukrainians are concerned, the latent conflict
between Kishinev and Tiraspol concerns them directly because Ukraine
remains an official intermediary and guarantor.
"As a matter of fact, the part Ukraine has played in this whole
conflict is as important as Russia's," to quote Dmitry Levus, Director
of the Social Studies Center Ukrainian Meridian (Kiev).
Active interaction with Trans-Dniester businesses makes Ukrainian
politicians particularly interested in peaceful settlement.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe arranged a
conference on suspended conflicts in Berlin in November 2007.
"Geography of conflicts" was restricted to what had constituted
the Soviet Union once - neither Kosovo nor North Cyprus were even
mentioned. Eduard Lintner, Chairman of the International Committee of
the Parliamentary Assembly, said the problem of suspended conflicts
was ever in the focus of attention of the Council of Europe. "Truce is
upheld in conflict areas these days, but the problems [that fomented
them in the first place - Vremya Novostei] remain unsolved.
That is why we view them as suspended," a Parliamentary Assembly
official given the floor said.
The conference decided almost unanimously that once the armed conflicts
on the territory of post-Soviet countries had been suspended, Russia
chose the policy of deliberate conservation of the status quo that
impeded conflict settlement. The nearly unanimous decision was the
very suspension of conflicts had been a factor impeding settlement
rather than a means of putting an end to bloodshed.
What will "defrosting" result in then? When involved societies do not
even want communication with each other, much less compromises? When
leaders of the warring sides view the very idea of a compromise as
treason against the state and national interests? When the conflicts
are used as a device to consolidate the masses? "Defrosting" will
inevitably mean renewal of the hostilities and ruination of the
existing parity. In short, it will be much worse than the status quo.
Of course, someone might decide that peace is worth a "little war"
but that's a questionable assumption at best.
Dismissing the patent danger of conflict escalation in
Nagorno-Karabakh, the European Union seems to be interested in it
much more than it is in the problems of Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
and particularly Trans-Dniester region, Nicu Popescu of CEPS (Center
of European Political Studies) said. The European Union is not going
to participate in peacekeeping operations there unless an operation
like that is warranted by an Azerbaijani-Armenian agreement. France,
Russia, and United States in the meantime chair the OSCE Minsk Group
for Nagorno-Karabakh. Neutral as it is, the European Union condemns
the policy of economic blockade of Armenia pursued by Azerbaijan and
Turkey. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia participate in the New European
Neighborhood program the European Union charted for post-Soviet
countries, Middle East, and North Africa. On the other hand, the
EU-Azerbaijan action plan signed within the framework of this program
promotes the principle of territorial integrity but the US-Armenian
one advocates the principle of self-determination. In other words,
Brussels is telling each of its partners whatever this particular
partner would like to hear.