Tweet
EU COULD USE 'SOFT POWER' TO SETTLE KARABAKH CONFLICT
news.az
Aug 22, 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Alex Jackson, an expert on politics and security
in the Caspian region and former editor of the Caucasian Review of
Int'l Affairs.
What are the main differences between the Russian and Western
approaches to the independent republics created after the collapse
of the Soviet Union?
Essentially, Russia sees the post-Soviet states as members of its
family, with Russia itself as the head of the family. However this
family is unruly and many of the members have slipped away from
the control of the family head. Some of these family members (like
Georgia) require more tough measures than others (like Kazakhstan)
to bring them into line. Although Russia does not want to actually
control these states directly, it wants them to be aligned with its
interests and policies.
This sense of the former Soviet Union as a family is relevant
for ideological reasons, because many policymakers in Moscow,
particularly Putin, still view the former Soviet states as
historically and culturally part of a greater Russia. It is also
relevant for strategic reasons, as these neighbouring states are
critical to Russia's long-term geopolitical strategy (in terms of
energy, security and politics).
The West tends to view the former Soviet states more as independent
actors, and as partners in their own right. This does not mean
that Europe is necessarily "better" - it is often unfocused and
contradictory in the way it approaches the region. Many regional
states are frustrated by the fact that the EU moves slowly and is
uncoordinated in comparison with Russia.
Do you expect changes in Russia's approach to its neighbours'
rapprochement with Europe?
Changes in Russian foreign policy towards its neighbours depend to
a large extent on two factors: internal and global. The internal
politics of Russia and Russia's economic performance affect
its foreign policy. High oil prices and political competition or
potential instability encourage it to act more assertively towards
its neighbours. The presidential elections next year could encourage
a return to a more confrontational foreign policy if Vladimir Putin
returns to the presidency.
The relationship with the US also has a significant impact on Russian
policy towards its neighbours. Recent years have shown that a stronger
US policy of building influence in the former Soviet Union provokes an
equally strong reaction from Russia. We saw this over missile defence,
Kosovo, NATO enlargement, and the war in Georgia was the most powerful
example. If the "reset" with the US fails, as some commentators are
currently arguing, then this may be reflected in a more aggressive
Russian line towards neighbouring states that it perceives are too
pro-American.
Does the EU see the CIS states as possible EU members?
It is unlikely that any of the current CIS states would be considered
potential EU members anytime soon. Turkey's accession process is a huge
problem for the EU and there is a lot of scepticism over whether it
will get in. This fact, along with the serious political and financial
crisis sweeping Europe, makes it very implausible that the EU would
take on any new member states from the CIS in the near future.
What are the prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh
problem, when the sides still hold opposite positions? What kind of
role can the West play in this process?
Currently there is very little progress on the Karabakh settlement.
Although the presidents have held a number of meetings over the last
year, there has been no progress to show for it and indeed both sides
have engaged in public disputes on many occasions. Russian attempts
to get Armenia and Azerbaijan to sign a plan for a peaceful settlement
have failed so far and international mediators are very frustrated.
However, it is unlikely the peace talks will collapse entirely -
both sides have an interest in the talks continuing. And a return to
war is very unlikely at this stage.
The West has had a limited role so far in settling the Karabakh
conflict. It has generally let Russia take the lead. Although the
US has invested some time and energy, it has no direct strategic
interest. Europe has been even less involved. However, the EU (not
NATO) could have a role to play, using its "soft power" experience
and its record of helping to defuse tensions in the Western Balkans
to encourage both sides to compromise and reach a final settlement.
news.az
Aug 22, 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Alex Jackson, an expert on politics and security
in the Caspian region and former editor of the Caucasian Review of
Int'l Affairs.
What are the main differences between the Russian and Western
approaches to the independent republics created after the collapse
of the Soviet Union?
Essentially, Russia sees the post-Soviet states as members of its
family, with Russia itself as the head of the family. However this
family is unruly and many of the members have slipped away from
the control of the family head. Some of these family members (like
Georgia) require more tough measures than others (like Kazakhstan)
to bring them into line. Although Russia does not want to actually
control these states directly, it wants them to be aligned with its
interests and policies.
This sense of the former Soviet Union as a family is relevant
for ideological reasons, because many policymakers in Moscow,
particularly Putin, still view the former Soviet states as
historically and culturally part of a greater Russia. It is also
relevant for strategic reasons, as these neighbouring states are
critical to Russia's long-term geopolitical strategy (in terms of
energy, security and politics).
The West tends to view the former Soviet states more as independent
actors, and as partners in their own right. This does not mean
that Europe is necessarily "better" - it is often unfocused and
contradictory in the way it approaches the region. Many regional
states are frustrated by the fact that the EU moves slowly and is
uncoordinated in comparison with Russia.
Do you expect changes in Russia's approach to its neighbours'
rapprochement with Europe?
Changes in Russian foreign policy towards its neighbours depend to
a large extent on two factors: internal and global. The internal
politics of Russia and Russia's economic performance affect
its foreign policy. High oil prices and political competition or
potential instability encourage it to act more assertively towards
its neighbours. The presidential elections next year could encourage
a return to a more confrontational foreign policy if Vladimir Putin
returns to the presidency.
The relationship with the US also has a significant impact on Russian
policy towards its neighbours. Recent years have shown that a stronger
US policy of building influence in the former Soviet Union provokes an
equally strong reaction from Russia. We saw this over missile defence,
Kosovo, NATO enlargement, and the war in Georgia was the most powerful
example. If the "reset" with the US fails, as some commentators are
currently arguing, then this may be reflected in a more aggressive
Russian line towards neighbouring states that it perceives are too
pro-American.
Does the EU see the CIS states as possible EU members?
It is unlikely that any of the current CIS states would be considered
potential EU members anytime soon. Turkey's accession process is a huge
problem for the EU and there is a lot of scepticism over whether it
will get in. This fact, along with the serious political and financial
crisis sweeping Europe, makes it very implausible that the EU would
take on any new member states from the CIS in the near future.
What are the prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh
problem, when the sides still hold opposite positions? What kind of
role can the West play in this process?
Currently there is very little progress on the Karabakh settlement.
Although the presidents have held a number of meetings over the last
year, there has been no progress to show for it and indeed both sides
have engaged in public disputes on many occasions. Russian attempts
to get Armenia and Azerbaijan to sign a plan for a peaceful settlement
have failed so far and international mediators are very frustrated.
However, it is unlikely the peace talks will collapse entirely -
both sides have an interest in the talks continuing. And a return to
war is very unlikely at this stage.
The West has had a limited role so far in settling the Karabakh
conflict. It has generally let Russia take the lead. Although the
US has invested some time and energy, it has no direct strategic
interest. Europe has been even less involved. However, the EU (not
NATO) could have a role to play, using its "soft power" experience
and its record of helping to defuse tensions in the Western Balkans
to encourage both sides to compromise and reach a final settlement.