Tweet
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
July 2, 2004, Friday
CIS SUMMIT IN ISTANBUL
SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, July 2, 2004, p. 5
by Arkady Dubnov
Seven CIS presidents attending a NATO summit is something truly
unprecedented. This was truly the first time that such an impressive
delegation of leaders from the post-Soviet zone attended a summit of
NATO. But the presidents of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan were absent.
As for Vladimir Putin, much has been said already about his motives for
turning down the invitation to Istanbul. Given the situation, his
presence at the summit would have signified the Kremlin's silent
approval of NATO eastward expansion.
German political scientist Alexander Rahr commented: "In alphabetical
order, the president of Russia would have found himself sitting at the
summit between the representatives of Romania and Slovakia... As far as
Moscow is concerned, equality in the Russia-NATO Council with novices
of the Alliance is difficult to swallow. Half a century ago, Russia
made decisions for all these countries, and even now it considers
itself a world power."
There is no need to explain why president of Belarus was absent. As for
president of Armenia, he could not go to Istanbul, the capital of the
country that sides up Baku in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. With
regard to NATO as such, however, Armenia doesn't sense any
idiosyncrasy. And the Turkmenbashi is the Turkmenbashi. No one in
Istanbul was particularly sorry about his absence.
It is much more interesting to try and gauge the motives of Uzbekistan,
the only GUUAM country whose president was absent from the NATO summit.
Invented as a counterweight to the pro-Moscow CIS Collective Security
Treaty Organization, GUUAM was established by presidents of Georgia,
Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova in 1997. Tashkent joined GUAM (and
transformed it into GUUAM) in 1999, when Islam Karimov attended
celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Alliance in Washington. All
Karimov's colleagues in the bloc dutifully flew to Istanbul but he
opted to stay home. It should be regarded as official Tashkent's
gesture of loyalty to Moscow - quite in line with the policy of
strategic partnership with Russia Uzbekistan is demonstrating these
days. The authorities of Uzbekistan certainly made their point because
even presidents of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan (Moscow's
strategic allies and members of the Organization of the CIS Collective
Security Treaty) attended the NATO summit.
Some observers do not rule out the possibility that there is another
ulterior motive at play here. Tashkent may regard itself as a key
center of another geopolitical axis - the one with Moscow and Beijing.
Unlike the aid that was promised by the West but never materialized,
China's promises of economic assistance look like something that may
really be counted on. Moreover, Beijing doesn't demand economic and
political reforms in return for the aid. Karimov said on two occasions
in the last twelve months (both times in Putin's presence) that the
period of euphoria in connection with economic cooperation with the
West was over.
But let's get back to the CIS leaders who attended the NATO summit. Has
the Alliance lived up to their expectations? Apart from Leonid Kuchma
of Ukraine, they would probably say yes. Kuchma was given to understand
once again that Ukraine's eagerness to join the European Union would be
met halfway only if the upcoming presidential election in Ukraine is
recognized as democratic. Baku and Tbilisi in their turn were reassured
that they would be permitted to approach NATO's threshold even closer.
Mikhail Saakashvili said that Georgia might become a NATO member in
four years. Well, the trend is undeniable. The decision was made in
Istanbul to appoint NATO special envoys to the Caucasus and Central
Asia. Needless to say, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov could
only announce that "we should view this decision as a reality." What
else was there to say?
Observers were amused yesterday to hear of the statement made by Andrei
Kokoshin, chairman of the Duma's CIS affairs committee. Kokoshin warned
CIS countries aspiring to NATO membership that they would "certainly
lose part of their sovereignty" and advised them to stick to Russia
instead, as a "guarantor of this sovereignty."
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
July 2, 2004, Friday
CIS SUMMIT IN ISTANBUL
SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, July 2, 2004, p. 5
by Arkady Dubnov
Seven CIS presidents attending a NATO summit is something truly
unprecedented. This was truly the first time that such an impressive
delegation of leaders from the post-Soviet zone attended a summit of
NATO. But the presidents of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan were absent.
As for Vladimir Putin, much has been said already about his motives for
turning down the invitation to Istanbul. Given the situation, his
presence at the summit would have signified the Kremlin's silent
approval of NATO eastward expansion.
German political scientist Alexander Rahr commented: "In alphabetical
order, the president of Russia would have found himself sitting at the
summit between the representatives of Romania and Slovakia... As far as
Moscow is concerned, equality in the Russia-NATO Council with novices
of the Alliance is difficult to swallow. Half a century ago, Russia
made decisions for all these countries, and even now it considers
itself a world power."
There is no need to explain why president of Belarus was absent. As for
president of Armenia, he could not go to Istanbul, the capital of the
country that sides up Baku in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. With
regard to NATO as such, however, Armenia doesn't sense any
idiosyncrasy. And the Turkmenbashi is the Turkmenbashi. No one in
Istanbul was particularly sorry about his absence.
It is much more interesting to try and gauge the motives of Uzbekistan,
the only GUUAM country whose president was absent from the NATO summit.
Invented as a counterweight to the pro-Moscow CIS Collective Security
Treaty Organization, GUUAM was established by presidents of Georgia,
Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova in 1997. Tashkent joined GUAM (and
transformed it into GUUAM) in 1999, when Islam Karimov attended
celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Alliance in Washington. All
Karimov's colleagues in the bloc dutifully flew to Istanbul but he
opted to stay home. It should be regarded as official Tashkent's
gesture of loyalty to Moscow - quite in line with the policy of
strategic partnership with Russia Uzbekistan is demonstrating these
days. The authorities of Uzbekistan certainly made their point because
even presidents of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan (Moscow's
strategic allies and members of the Organization of the CIS Collective
Security Treaty) attended the NATO summit.
Some observers do not rule out the possibility that there is another
ulterior motive at play here. Tashkent may regard itself as a key
center of another geopolitical axis - the one with Moscow and Beijing.
Unlike the aid that was promised by the West but never materialized,
China's promises of economic assistance look like something that may
really be counted on. Moreover, Beijing doesn't demand economic and
political reforms in return for the aid. Karimov said on two occasions
in the last twelve months (both times in Putin's presence) that the
period of euphoria in connection with economic cooperation with the
West was over.
But let's get back to the CIS leaders who attended the NATO summit. Has
the Alliance lived up to their expectations? Apart from Leonid Kuchma
of Ukraine, they would probably say yes. Kuchma was given to understand
once again that Ukraine's eagerness to join the European Union would be
met halfway only if the upcoming presidential election in Ukraine is
recognized as democratic. Baku and Tbilisi in their turn were reassured
that they would be permitted to approach NATO's threshold even closer.
Mikhail Saakashvili said that Georgia might become a NATO member in
four years. Well, the trend is undeniable. The decision was made in
Istanbul to appoint NATO special envoys to the Caucasus and Central
Asia. Needless to say, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov could
only announce that "we should view this decision as a reality." What
else was there to say?
Observers were amused yesterday to hear of the statement made by Andrei
Kokoshin, chairman of the Duma's CIS affairs committee. Kokoshin warned
CIS countries aspiring to NATO membership that they would "certainly
lose part of their sovereignty" and advised them to stick to Russia
instead, as a "guarantor of this sovereignty."