Tweet
WEST MAY SUPPLANT RUSSIA AS PEACEMAKER: MOSCOW'S INTERMEDIARY MISSION ON CIS TERRITORY IS IN NEED OF REVISION
Nezavisimaya Gazeta website
July 5 2011
Russia
Editorial
[translated from Russian]
Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan arrived in Moscow
yesterday. Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is due
to meet with him. The topic of discussion has not been made public,
but even so, it was obvious to everyone that the conversation will
be about Nagornyy Karabakh, or, following the generally accepted
terminology, the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
Especially seeing that recent high-level talks on this subject in Kazan
were not crowned with success. The Russian and international mass media
even described them as a failure, and numbered them among the Russian
Federation's image losses. But after all, President Dmitriy Medvedev
had assumed the role of mediator and most likely expected a compromise
from Ilkham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan. However, the good relations
of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents with Dmitriy Medvedev was
in no way reflected in the result. Baku and Yerevan did not change
their positions. This week France offered its intermediary services to
the parties to the conflict. That country's Foreign Ministry stated
that the French have not only the desire to help, but also specific
proposals. What these are precisely is so far not being disclosed.
Another disappointment in the peacemaking field overtook Moscow
in June, when representatives of Chisinau and Tiraspol were unable
to reach an agreement in the Russian capital. The Dniester region
settlement process, in which, until recently, Russia played the main
role, has not only not moved forward, but to all intents and purposes
has actually gone backward by 20 years. At least in the rhetoric of
the sides, which is just as aggressive as it was before the beginning
of the war in 1992. That war was stopped by Russia, and throughout the
intervening years it has ensured peace in the region. However, today,
all the signs suggest, it cannot offer the sides anything productive.
Its role at this stage consists of security guarantees to the
population of the Dniester Region, which in a referendum in 2006 voted
for integration with the Russian Federation. Moscow cannot promise
Tiraspol anything more. But the European Union, on the other hand, can.
An active position here has been adopted by Germany, which is not only
conducting a political dialogue with the Dniester Region leadership,
but is also working with the local business community. The main
real enticement for the latter is to receive from the EU the same
preferences that have already been granted to Chisinau. This year the
EU increased various export quotas for Moldova by 30 per cent-50 per
cent. Deliveries of Moldovan goods to the European Union have increased
by 63 per cent since January. An autonomous system of preferences
effectively amounting to an asymmetric free trade regime operates
between Moldova and the EU. Moldovan goods reach the European market
without customs barriers. At the same time, Moldovan exports to the
Russian Federation, including of wines and cognacs, have shrunk by
50 per cent. It must be said that this kind of specifics is viewed
highly positively both by the population and by the politicians of
Moldova and the Dniester Region.
The fact that Russia is losing ground in an area of its vital interests
is noted by many people. As is the fact that Europeans are trying - not
without success - to take over its position as the main negotiator. At
the same time, one cannot deny the EU's consistency.
Just take the "Eastern Partnership" programme, in which Ukraine,
Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia participate, and which
Belarus is being invited to join. The Europeans work with everyone
together and with each country separately, believing that thereby
they are safeguarding their own security. And at the same time they
are exporting to their partner countries those same democratic values.
The West's activity in the post-Soviet area is a consequence of the
implementation of its own general security strategy. The presence of
regional hotspots in Europe does not fit into this strategy. Russia,
on the other hand, it would appear, is not partic ularly aggrieved
by the presence of smoldering conflicts along the perimeter of
its own borders. Today, however, it is perfectly obvious that
the political demand of contemporary Europe dictates the swiftest
possible settlement of all volatile situations. This requires the
organizational, financial, personnel, and intellectual reinforcement
of the peacekeeping segment of Russia's foreign policy.
From: A. Papazian
Nezavisimaya Gazeta website
July 5 2011
Russia
Editorial
[translated from Russian]
Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan arrived in Moscow
yesterday. Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is due
to meet with him. The topic of discussion has not been made public,
but even so, it was obvious to everyone that the conversation will
be about Nagornyy Karabakh, or, following the generally accepted
terminology, the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
Especially seeing that recent high-level talks on this subject in Kazan
were not crowned with success. The Russian and international mass media
even described them as a failure, and numbered them among the Russian
Federation's image losses. But after all, President Dmitriy Medvedev
had assumed the role of mediator and most likely expected a compromise
from Ilkham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan. However, the good relations
of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents with Dmitriy Medvedev was
in no way reflected in the result. Baku and Yerevan did not change
their positions. This week France offered its intermediary services to
the parties to the conflict. That country's Foreign Ministry stated
that the French have not only the desire to help, but also specific
proposals. What these are precisely is so far not being disclosed.
Another disappointment in the peacemaking field overtook Moscow
in June, when representatives of Chisinau and Tiraspol were unable
to reach an agreement in the Russian capital. The Dniester region
settlement process, in which, until recently, Russia played the main
role, has not only not moved forward, but to all intents and purposes
has actually gone backward by 20 years. At least in the rhetoric of
the sides, which is just as aggressive as it was before the beginning
of the war in 1992. That war was stopped by Russia, and throughout the
intervening years it has ensured peace in the region. However, today,
all the signs suggest, it cannot offer the sides anything productive.
Its role at this stage consists of security guarantees to the
population of the Dniester Region, which in a referendum in 2006 voted
for integration with the Russian Federation. Moscow cannot promise
Tiraspol anything more. But the European Union, on the other hand, can.
An active position here has been adopted by Germany, which is not only
conducting a political dialogue with the Dniester Region leadership,
but is also working with the local business community. The main
real enticement for the latter is to receive from the EU the same
preferences that have already been granted to Chisinau. This year the
EU increased various export quotas for Moldova by 30 per cent-50 per
cent. Deliveries of Moldovan goods to the European Union have increased
by 63 per cent since January. An autonomous system of preferences
effectively amounting to an asymmetric free trade regime operates
between Moldova and the EU. Moldovan goods reach the European market
without customs barriers. At the same time, Moldovan exports to the
Russian Federation, including of wines and cognacs, have shrunk by
50 per cent. It must be said that this kind of specifics is viewed
highly positively both by the population and by the politicians of
Moldova and the Dniester Region.
The fact that Russia is losing ground in an area of its vital interests
is noted by many people. As is the fact that Europeans are trying - not
without success - to take over its position as the main negotiator. At
the same time, one cannot deny the EU's consistency.
Just take the "Eastern Partnership" programme, in which Ukraine,
Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia participate, and which
Belarus is being invited to join. The Europeans work with everyone
together and with each country separately, believing that thereby
they are safeguarding their own security. And at the same time they
are exporting to their partner countries those same democratic values.
The West's activity in the post-Soviet area is a consequence of the
implementation of its own general security strategy. The presence of
regional hotspots in Europe does not fit into this strategy. Russia,
on the other hand, it would appear, is not partic ularly aggrieved
by the presence of smoldering conflicts along the perimeter of
its own borders. Today, however, it is perfectly obvious that
the political demand of contemporary Europe dictates the swiftest
possible settlement of all volatile situations. This requires the
organizational, financial, personnel, and intellectual reinforcement
of the peacekeeping segment of Russia's foreign policy.
From: A. Papazian