Tweet
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
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