Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is There Time For Political Maneuvers? It Is Time To Decide On A Str

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

  • Is There Time For Political Maneuvers? It Is Time To Decide On A Str

    IS THERE TIME FOR POLITICAL MANEUVERS? IT IS TIME TO DECIDE ON A STRATEGIC WAY
    by Alpay Ahmad

    Zerkalo
    Sept 20 2008
    Azerbaijan

    Probably many people have paid attention to the fact that over
    the recent two to three years each visits of a high-ranking
    representative of the USA as well as visits of the Azerbaijani
    president to Russia, the USA and Iran are analysed first of all in
    the context of determining a strategic way of Azerbaijan: who will
    Azerbaijan link its political future with? With the West, or Russia?

    Azerbaijan on the horns of a dilemma

    The visits of US Vice President Dick Cheney to our country as well
    as Ilham Aliyev's working visit to Moscow at the invitation of the
    Russian president were viewed by political experts as almost the
    last chance of official Baku to decide on its choice. Bearing into
    consideration Dmitriy Medvedev's telephone call to Ilham Aliyev on
    the day of Cheney's visit to Baku and the Azerbaijani president's
    subsequent visit to Russia, one can with overwhelming confidence say
    that the situation is really tense and the Azerbaijani authorities
    are under tough pressure from both sides.

    Does the official Baku really need to depart from its traditional
    balanced foreign policy? Or, is there time for manoeuvres? Our answer
    to these questions boils down to proposal of two strategic ways. We
    believe we have in store three to four years for manoeuvres after
    which Azerbaijan has to decide upon its strategic step.

    Why have three to four years been selected in the capacity of
    determining a final strategic choice for Azerbaijan? Because, this
    term will show how effective and productive are foreign policies
    conducted by Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.

    We should within the limits of our opportunities clarify for ourselves
    such a picture: what will Georgia and Ukraine obtain and lose as a
    result of joining NATO? What will the permanently changing foreign
    policy of Moldova lead? And if she completely stakes on Russia, what
    will be its win and loss? Accession of any country to the North
    Atlantic alliance is being viewed in the context of two values
    (+ geopolitical benefit) and the strengthening of the democratic
    institutions.

    The country obtains a security guarantee against possible aggressions
    and by becoming a member of this organization it completely makes
    its choice in favour of democracy and civil society. A serious
    deviation from a democratic way of development is fraught with
    complication of the relations between a state choosing; imagine a
    way of authoritarianism and a membership of the alliance.

    Georgia's and Ukraine's accession to NATO last signal for Baku

    Georgia has nothing to lose as she has already suffered from the
    Russian aggression and the illegal recognition of its two regions:
    she still hopes that by joining NATO, it will be able to win back
    the occupied lands. For us, it is of great significance that what
    policy NATO will pursue with regard to this issue. After the Russian
    Federation recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as [independent]
    states, a platform for the negotiations between Georgia and Russia for
    determining a status of these regions has also disappeared. (Russia
    will hardly revoke its decision as the West proposes her to do so)

    It is important for us to follow Russia's further policy with regard to
    Georgia since this country's access (most likely together with Ukraine)
    to NATO will serve a last signal for official Baku. Ukraine has no
    a problem of separatism, it strives to fully come out of Moscow's
    sphere of influence by means of reducing maximum energy dependence
    from Moscow and eliminating the military bases in the Black Sea. We
    should say that Ukraine's accession to NATO by virtue of its huge
    territory is interpreted by Russia with more serious threat than
    Georgia's membership of the bloc.

    Therefore, we shall soon witness the next phase of a political crisis
    in this country as well as heavy talks on gas prices exported to
    Ukraine. There is already information in the press that Russia is
    distributing passports among Russians residing in the Crimea. Will
    Ukraine be able to cope with these problems before joining NATO? The
    readiness and ability of [Ukrainian President] Viktor Yushchenko to
    overcome Russia's resistance on this issue will exactly be obvious
    within three to four years.

    Moldova's behaviour in the foreign policy, which has been
    recently making reverences towards Russia, will also show how the
    rapprochement between these countries will end. As known, after the
    Russian aggression against Georgia, President Dmitriy Medvedev called
    Moldavian President V. Voronin and expressed his readiness to intensify
    the process of negotiations for the determination of a final status
    of Dniester. Moscow even expressed its readiness to make corrections
    to the so-called "Kozak plan" stipulating relations between Kishinev
    and Tiraspol on principles of confederation rejected by Voronin under
    duress from the West in 2005. This document should have been signed
    between the conflicting sides in presence of then president of Russia,
    Vladimir Putin.

    One should diligently follow the events in this country. To what
    extend will a new plan for the regulation of the Dniester conflict
    meet Moldova's national interests? What will be a reaction of the
    Moldavian authorities to this plan? How long will the next stage of
    the negotiations continue and will official Moscow take a constructive
    position with regard to the resolution of this problem? Will Moldova
    abandon GUAM (the regional alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan
    and Moldova)?

    Karabakh instead of gas acceptable

    For the next three to four years Azerbaijan may adhere to the following
    foreign policy line by continuing the export of its energy resources
    through the existing oil pipelines, taking part in implementation of
    the NABUCO project as well as developing relations with NATO (so far
    without applying for a membership of the alliance).

    Incidentally, Turkey's Caucasus Security and Stability Platform, though
    formally approved by the Russian leadership, may for a certain period
    be handful for Azerbaijan. Official Baku may take advantage of this
    platform and delay its choice (as well as with a reply to the West)
    in favour of NATO.

    Undoubtedly, this requires kid-glove diplomacy, above all, the West
    should not get an impression that its interests are ignored by our
    government. (It seems to us that a certain interest shown by Russia
    to this initiative is exactly connected with the fact that it lacks
    an idea on the need for Azerbaijan and Georgia to join NATO)

    Azerbaijan may refuse from NABUCO and accept the Russian proposal
    on the purchase of Azerbaijani gas (at 300 dollars for 1,000 cu
    m) provided only if Russia makes real efforts for determining a
    status of Nagornyy Karabakh in the course of the settlement of the
    Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, which to a certain
    degree would meet the national interests of our country.

    Otherwise, Azerbaijan should take a passive position on the regulation
    of the conflict and make an emphasis on development of the energy
    projects in the hope that with huge oil and gas revenues and changes
    in the geopolitical situation in our favour we shall be able win back
    the occupied lands.

    The matter is that currently the Azerbaijani authorities are not
    confident that thanks to Azerbaijan's membership of NATO, it can win
    back the occupied lands. By entering the alliance, our country can
    only obtain a security guarantee against a possible aggression from
    Russia and Iran.

    One cannot rule out a limited intervention of these countries,
    if, for instance, our country decides to partake in the NABUCO
    project. Actually, joining the alliance is the least harm for
    Azerbaijan under the current conditions since as we said above, so far
    there seems that the alliance is not ready to resolve this conflict.

    In a nutshell, within the limits of the proposed time limit, we should
    conduct intensive political dialogue (that is to say, bargaining)
    with Russia, inform official Moscow of our proposals proceeding
    from the national interests of the country and witness their real
    implementation. Official Moscow should have the impression that she
    may lose Azerbaijan for a long time (that is to say, our country may
    finally relinquish its traditional foreign policy course in favour
    of the West)

    The [latest] invitation of the Azerbaijani president to Moscow was
    caused by this circumstance; nevertheless, we should not fully trust
    the intensification of the Russian diplomacy for the settlement of
    the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict: pledges should
    be followed by real steps.

    There is no doubt that official Baku should simultaneously conduct
    similar intensive dialogue with the West in order to understand
    conditions and NATO to take part in the settlement of the problem of
    the occupied lands.

    Our second proposal boils down to the following. If now Azerbaijan
    decides to join NATO, it should get a certain interim security
    guarantee against possible aggression. For example, such a security
    guarantee could be given by the USA, Britain, and Turkey (certainly,
    if Ankara's Caucasus Security and Stability Platform loses its
    significance as predicted by many experts) who have energy interests
    here.

    Such a guarantee would incorporate commitments of the sides in a
    specific document to be signed by the sides. One should not rule
    out that during Dick Cheney's visit to the region, these issues were
    discussed with the presidents of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine.

    P.S. Undoubtedly, one should not forget about the Iranian factor. If
    the USA by the next presidential election decides to hit Iran, official
    Baku has to make its choice hastily. What will it be? It is difficult
    to answer this question now.

    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X