Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A mini-marshall plan for the trans-caucasus

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

  • A mini-marshall plan for the trans-caucasus

    Agency WPS
    What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)
    March 31, 2006 Friday

    A MINI-MARSHALL PLAN FOR THE TRANS-CAUCASUS

    by Vladimir Ivanov

    Different visions for the conflict zones of the South Caucasus; The
    Washington Post recently published an article that accuses Moscow
    of establishing a "shadow empire" in the South Caucasus and calls
    on the West to take action. Russian analysts Stanislav Lekarev and
    Pavel Zolotarev comment on the article and its assumptions.

    On March 11, the Washington Post published an article by Ana Palacio,
    former Spanish foreign minister, and Daniel Twining, Oxford University
    academic and consultant to the Marshall Fund. They set out their
    vision of security problems in the Trans-Caucasus and proposed their
    own scenario for pushing Russia out of that region.

    First of all, the authors accuse Moscow of having imperial ambitions
    and striving to reconstitute the Soviet empire by keeping Russia's
    former Soviet neighbors dependent on Russia in military and political
    terms. However, according to the article, Russia is unable to turn
    these intentions into reality as yet.

    Citing calls by the Georgian and Ukrainian presidents for "a united
    Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Caspian," Palacio and
    Twining maintain that such declarations ought to prompt Europe and
    America to help "people aspiring to freedom in other post-Soviet
    states" rid themselves of Russia's dominion and "the corrupting
    influence of Russian power in regions beyond its borders."

    According to the authors, Moscow has managed to establish some sort of
    "shadow empire" on the territories of former Soviet republics that are
    now sovereign states, and uses its financial and military resources to
    sponsor "frozen conflicts" in the Trans-Dniester region and the South
    Caucasus. Such a policy, according to the authors, poses a serious
    threat to the national security of European Union countries and the
    United States, since they might be drawn into a regional military
    conflict that is very likely to break out.

    Palacio and Twining maintain that the situation taking shape in the
    Trans-Dniester region, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia could have serious
    consequences. The Russian military plays an active role in training
    the armies of the separatist regimes and is very influential in the
    unrecognized states. Their leaders, who support unification with the
    Russian Federation, are Russian citizens and "enjoy the sponsorship of
    powerful criminal elites in Russia, which profit from the unregulated
    smuggling trade - in consumer goods, drugs, weapons and women -
    in the conflict zones."

    Therefore, Palacio and Twining strongly advise Western Europe
    and America to put pressure on Moscow, compelling it to withdraw
    its troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia: this would allegedly
    facilitate preserving Georgia's territorial integrity, following
    multilateral negotiations involving the EU and the United States.
    "Internationalized" peacekeeping forces should be stationed in
    these hot-spots to guarantee stability. The same plan is proposed
    for solving the Trans-Dniester problem, where Ukraine is nominated
    for the role of Moldova's chief assistant.

    Moreover, say Palacio and Twining, "the West should require closure
    of the Russian bases on Armenian territory." They maintain that the
    presence of Russian military contingents in Armenia only exacerbates
    the Nagorno-Karabakh situation and makes it more difficult to
    resolve. The EU and NATO, rather than Russia, are positioned as
    realistic guarantors there. Palacio and Twining maintain that
    the civilized West ought to support a settlement in which Armenia
    returns the occupied territories to Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh
    has autonomy status until a referendum is held.

    In return, the West should ensure a prosperous future for the states
    of the Trans-Caucasus and "put these countries on a path to Europe."
    In the South Caucasus states, for example, some sort of "mini-Marshall
    Plan" is proposed. Then again, proposals for reviving that plan, once
    used to rebuild the countries of Western and Southern Europe after
    World War II, started appearing in the press as far back as the period
    when NATO was bombing Yugoslavia. NATO and the EU, concerned about the
    large number of refugees on the territories of their member states,
    promised to provide help of this kind to the peoples of the Balkans,
    enmeshed in bloody internecine conflicts.

    The Washington Post is a prominent publication that reflects the
    opinion of fairly influential circles in the West. That seems to be
    why its pages have been used to test international public opinion
    about the possibility of using the Balkans scenario for regulating
    conflicts in the South Caucasus.

    Experts take different views of the proposal set out by Ana Palacio
    and Daniel Twining.

    Stanislav Lekarev, former FSB officer, now at the Security, Defense,
    and Law Enforcement Academy:

    It's no coincidence that the Marshall Plan is being mentioned at a
    time when a sequence of color revolutions is taking place across the
    former Soviet Union. It's worth noting that General John Marshall, who
    headed the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then the US State Department, was
    skilled at various methods of causing conflict between his country's
    opponents, in the interests of furthering American policy. All this
    was done beneath the banner of humanitarian actions aimed at fighting
    "evil" and ensuring economic prosperity.

    Using those kind of techniques, General Marshall was an active link
    in realizing many vital US interests in various locations around the
    world. During World War II he took part in many of America's political
    actions aimed at ensuring global dominance for the United States.

    The plan for providing economic aid to Europe was proposed by
    General Marshall in July 1947. This aid was offered to all European
    countries affected by the war. The USSR refused the American money,
    since Soviet leaders regarded the Marshall Plan's basic provisions
    as infringing state sovereignty, and no other country under Soviet
    control was allowed to accept Washington's offer. The Marshall Plan
    was in effect for four years and cost America $13 billion; equivalent
    to $130 billion in 2006 prices. This amounted to 5% of GDP for the
    United States at the time.

    Any such plan now would have to be approved by the US Congress,
    signed by the US President, coordinated with the relevant European
    Union bodies, and set down in the form of legislation according to
    established procedures. In the Marshall Plan era, the United States
    passed a special law on helping European countries.

    The Marshall Plan served as the foundation for establishing NATO as a
    counterweight to the USSR. This was a mechanism for resisting Stalin's
    attempts to extend Moscow's influence across the whole of Europe.

    And a very convenient situation for similar actions has arisen now.
    All kinds of color revolutions and velvet revolutions are under way.
    Such a plan could be a component in safeguarding the political and
    economic interests of Europe and America. Undoubtedly, this does pose
    a certain threat to Russia's national interests. If Russian troops are
    starting to be pushed out of regions where Moscow has traditionally
    exerted political and economic influence, there are obviously
    some far-reaching intentions behind that. We can't rule out the
    possibility that the basic strategy of the US and NATO, which entails
    establishing mobile forces equipped with the very latest weaponry,
    might be extended to the Caucasus. There wouldn't be any American or
    NATO bases there in the full sense of the term, but there might be
    some kind of bridge-heads for deploying groups capable of ensuring
    the achievement of political, economic, and military objectives.

    The Washington Post article is clearly intended to test the
    international community's reaction. American strategy analysts will
    use the results to develop evaluations and proposals.

    Major-General Pavel Zolotarev, deputy director of the United States
    and Canada Insitute:

    Economic reconstruction of the Caucasus region and the implementation
    of a Marshall Plan or any other programs wouldn't necessarily lead
    to NATO bases being established there. That scenario was essentially
    inevitable, and logical, after World War II. But we can't say for
    sure that it would happen now. On the other hand, the proposals to
    shut down Russian military bases and reform the peacekeeping forces
    aren't logically consistent with the European Union's concern about
    the prosperity of the Caucasus.

    The European Union has failed to cope with the problems that have
    existed, still exist, and will continue to exist in the Balkans - in
    Kosovo, where the EU isn't implementing any Marshall Plans. That area
    retains all the negative charateristics of hot-spots: criminality,
    terrorism, trafficking, and all the other negative aspects of such
    locations. But Russia did warn the United States against establishing
    an independent Muslim state in the center of Europe. These days,
    no one talks of rebuilding democratic values there. The West is now
    saying that everyone in the Balkans should be granted independence,
    and the peoples will sort out their own problems. NATO and EU policy
    has failed completely. No one's trying to bring back refugees, no
    talks are under way to preserve the state integrity of what remains
    of Yugoslavia, and many other problems aren't being addressed either.

    And suddenly we're seeing such tender concern for the Caucasus. A
    clear trend is entirely obvious here: NATO and its leader, America,
    obviously still take the same approach to determining political
    dominance areas. This pays no regard to all of Russia's proposals for
    cooperating with the EU and the US in hot-spots across the former
    Soviet Union, or the need to maintain the principle of dividing
    spheres of influence.

    All the same, the United States is taking a more sober-minded approach
    to Russia. Sometimes it even reprimands Saakashvili, who doesn't
    always express himself appropriately. But Europe, unfortunately, is
    too often forced to comply with the wished of NATO's newest members,
    who have anti-Russian attitudes in their blood. This is what seems to
    be behind the statements and proposals in the Washington Post article.

    In principle, it is necessary to invest in the South Caucasus. It is
    necessary to create jobs there and solve all the problems commonly
    encountered by underdeveloped countries worldwide. But I don't think
    Europe is capable of allocating any substantial sums to ensure economic
    prosperity for the Trans-Caucasus. The integration of new member
    states into the EU and NATO involves considerable economic costs -
    not to mention the Balkans. Besides, the Europeans aren't so generous
    as to throw their money away. Any financial aid sent to the problem
    regions is likely to be misspent, and the West is well aware of that.

    Source: Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, No. 9, March 2006, p. 2

    Translated by Daria Smirnova
Working...
X