Tweet
THE EXPANSION OF NATO AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
David Stepanyan
Vestnik Kavkaza
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/29850.html
Aug 6 2012
Russia
"Turkey and Russia are against the intervention to Syria; only the
Syrians are responsible for the fate of President Bashar al-Assad",
the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said recently.
Meanwhile, given that Syria is the only ally of Iran, which is
the part of the infamous "axis of evil", according to American
"adepts of democracy", the fall of Assad will inevitably entail the
"democratization" of IRI, which will be carried out by NATO fighters,
dropping tons of bombs on the heads of Iranians. The operation against
Iran is bound to affect Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, because the
notorious fighters with their deadly cargo will be expected to take
off from the territory of these countries.
However, the current leadership of NATO and its experts and analysts
persistently deny the interest of NATO in the South Caucasus, based
on the fact that none of the countries of the region is a member
of the alliance. However, it does not interfere with NATO and the
U.S. high officials who consistently visit the three countries. In the
case of Georgia, which is eager to enter the alliance, everything is
more or less clear; but there are some problems with the interest of
NATO in Azerbaijan and Armenia with their unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Besides, the prospects of Tbilisi for joining NATO are quite
vague, and this fact is associated primarily with the processes that
occur in Georgia. In addition, not all NATO member countries are
willing to take this step after the war of August 2008.
Plans for the expansion of NATO to the East, together with serious
problems with its own identity and the constant economic crisis in
Europe, are surprising.
According to Anna Shelest, the lead researcher of the National
Institute of Strategic Studies under the President of Ukraine,
the alliance has not taken a single effort towards eliminating the
dividing lines in the South Caucasus. In response to the calls for
help to eliminate these lines sounding mostly from Baku and Tbilisi
NATO officials claim that the removal of the dividing line is not an
objective of the alliance, referring to the fact that the countries of
this region are not its members. Each of the countries of the South
Caucasus today has its own objectives, both in security and in the
field of security sector reform; in fact, the three countries are at
different levels of reforming this sector, and after the collapse of
the Soviet Union they were in totally different conditions. Thus,
at this stage, taking into account the complex relations between
Armenia and Azerbaijan and Turkey, the establishment of a common
security system in the South Caucasus is absolutely unreal. However,
one must possess a considerable degree of optimism to assume that NATO
would somehow respond to the possible aggravation of the situation
in the South Caucasus region, particularly in the conflict zone. The
maximum that can be expected is political statements. And certainly
the reaction of Brussels will not be more active than during the
Russian-Georgian conflict. NATO has never intervened in the peace
process in Nagorno-Karabakh, because there are the OSCE Minsk Group
and the EU which are engaged in it.
Meanwhile, in the opinion of Dimitrios Triantafilu, the Director of
the Center for International and European Studies of the University
Kadeer Khaz (Istanbul), the opinion of NATO and its position regarding
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict depends a lot on developing its relations
with Russia.
Sergei Markedonov, a visiting expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (Washington), agrees with him and claims that
NATO's interest in the South Caucasus is specific and limited. NATO is
interested in the South Caucasus and neighboring countries, according
to him, above all, in the context of Afghanistan and of 2014, i. e. of
the scheduled withdrawal of the ISAF troops, and in the case of
Azerbaijan ~V because of the presence of lobby, since one third of
the supplies to Afghanistan passes through the territory of Azerbaijan.
Georgia has provided more military personnel for operations in
Afghanistan than all other NATO partners. As for Armenia, it is
also a factor considered by NATO, which needs to keep abreast in the
light of the Iranian perspective and the development of the Middle
East process. At the same time, Brussels takes into account the
opinion of Moscow on the proposed membership of Georgia in NATO,
otherwise Georgia would have been a member of the alliance, but
would not have received a MAP. As for Armenia, Yerevan clearly
does not feel the need to enhance cooperation with NATO. There
were Armenian troops in Kosovo, they were also in Afghanistan, the
expansion of this contingent is also possible. Thus, the point is
not only the position of a strategic partner of Yerevan, that is, of
Moscow. First of all, the pragmatic interest in the case of Armenia
and Azerbaijan is necessary in order to increase such cooperation;
this interest comes down to the issue of the side NATO will takein
the Karabakh settlement. It makes Brussels to diversify its steps and
to be delicate in maneuvering between the interests of Armenia and
Azerbaijan, especially considering that one third of NATO exports to
Afghanistan goes through the territory of Azerbaijan. Taking into
account the turbulence in the Middle East and the Iranian issue
Azerbaijan is considered by NATO to be a secular Muslim state. In
the Islamic world, there are few such countries. At the same time,
there is not any clear choice in favor of the position of Azerbaijan
in Brussels, despite the fact that relations with Azerbaijan are very
valuable for NATO, given the length of its border with Iran.
In his turn, Sergei Konoplyov, director of the programs for the
US-Russia and US-Ukraine relations and for the Black Sea Security of
Kennedy School of Harvard University, believes that at present one can
only speculate on the issue of the upcoming NATO strike on Iran. In
his opinion, there are not any grounds for a military strike on Iran,
at least on the part of NATO as a universal organization. The expert
does not see any statements and indicators according to which NATO has
at least tentative plans of operation in Iran. Iran, in his opinion,
is not like Libya, and the operation here can lead to unpredictable
results, and the U.S., which is the largest military and financial
contributor of NATO, is still involved in two wars, and the Congress
cut a significant amount of the Pentagon spending. Therefore, the
funds for conducting several operations at once are not enough.
Ingo Mannteufel, the head of the department of Eastern Europe and the
chief editor of the Russian edition of Deutsche Welle, also expressed
his views on the relations between NATO and Russia; he believes that
stagnation will dominate in these relations in the coming months. The
reasons for it, in his view, are very simple: the presidential
elections will be held in the U.S. in November. Therefore, neither
the United States nor Russia expects the status quo to change. Russian
President Vladimir Putin also made it clear by refusing to participate
in the Summits of the United States and thus demonstrating the
intention to wait the election of a president in the U. S., and
to re-discuss the issue on the basis of this information. However,
Mannteufel believes that there will not be any aggravation in these
relations in the coming months, because neither the U.S. nor the
European members of NATO or Russia are interested in it. At the same
time, he has noted that he currently does not see the positive dynamics
which would allow speculating about the future development in the
relationship between NATO and Russia. The major problem in relations
between Russia and NATO is a distrust of each other, which affects
both sides. Meanwhile, the creation of a transit center of NATO in
Ulyanovsk in order to withdraw the NATO forces from Afghanistan, which
is, above all, a profitable bargain for Russia, could theoretically
increase the chances of building trust between NATO and Russia.
From: Baghdasarian
David Stepanyan
Vestnik Kavkaza
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/29850.html
Aug 6 2012
Russia
"Turkey and Russia are against the intervention to Syria; only the
Syrians are responsible for the fate of President Bashar al-Assad",
the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said recently.
Meanwhile, given that Syria is the only ally of Iran, which is
the part of the infamous "axis of evil", according to American
"adepts of democracy", the fall of Assad will inevitably entail the
"democratization" of IRI, which will be carried out by NATO fighters,
dropping tons of bombs on the heads of Iranians. The operation against
Iran is bound to affect Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, because the
notorious fighters with their deadly cargo will be expected to take
off from the territory of these countries.
However, the current leadership of NATO and its experts and analysts
persistently deny the interest of NATO in the South Caucasus, based
on the fact that none of the countries of the region is a member
of the alliance. However, it does not interfere with NATO and the
U.S. high officials who consistently visit the three countries. In the
case of Georgia, which is eager to enter the alliance, everything is
more or less clear; but there are some problems with the interest of
NATO in Azerbaijan and Armenia with their unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Besides, the prospects of Tbilisi for joining NATO are quite
vague, and this fact is associated primarily with the processes that
occur in Georgia. In addition, not all NATO member countries are
willing to take this step after the war of August 2008.
Plans for the expansion of NATO to the East, together with serious
problems with its own identity and the constant economic crisis in
Europe, are surprising.
According to Anna Shelest, the lead researcher of the National
Institute of Strategic Studies under the President of Ukraine,
the alliance has not taken a single effort towards eliminating the
dividing lines in the South Caucasus. In response to the calls for
help to eliminate these lines sounding mostly from Baku and Tbilisi
NATO officials claim that the removal of the dividing line is not an
objective of the alliance, referring to the fact that the countries of
this region are not its members. Each of the countries of the South
Caucasus today has its own objectives, both in security and in the
field of security sector reform; in fact, the three countries are at
different levels of reforming this sector, and after the collapse of
the Soviet Union they were in totally different conditions. Thus,
at this stage, taking into account the complex relations between
Armenia and Azerbaijan and Turkey, the establishment of a common
security system in the South Caucasus is absolutely unreal. However,
one must possess a considerable degree of optimism to assume that NATO
would somehow respond to the possible aggravation of the situation
in the South Caucasus region, particularly in the conflict zone. The
maximum that can be expected is political statements. And certainly
the reaction of Brussels will not be more active than during the
Russian-Georgian conflict. NATO has never intervened in the peace
process in Nagorno-Karabakh, because there are the OSCE Minsk Group
and the EU which are engaged in it.
Meanwhile, in the opinion of Dimitrios Triantafilu, the Director of
the Center for International and European Studies of the University
Kadeer Khaz (Istanbul), the opinion of NATO and its position regarding
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict depends a lot on developing its relations
with Russia.
Sergei Markedonov, a visiting expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (Washington), agrees with him and claims that
NATO's interest in the South Caucasus is specific and limited. NATO is
interested in the South Caucasus and neighboring countries, according
to him, above all, in the context of Afghanistan and of 2014, i. e. of
the scheduled withdrawal of the ISAF troops, and in the case of
Azerbaijan ~V because of the presence of lobby, since one third of
the supplies to Afghanistan passes through the territory of Azerbaijan.
Georgia has provided more military personnel for operations in
Afghanistan than all other NATO partners. As for Armenia, it is
also a factor considered by NATO, which needs to keep abreast in the
light of the Iranian perspective and the development of the Middle
East process. At the same time, Brussels takes into account the
opinion of Moscow on the proposed membership of Georgia in NATO,
otherwise Georgia would have been a member of the alliance, but
would not have received a MAP. As for Armenia, Yerevan clearly
does not feel the need to enhance cooperation with NATO. There
were Armenian troops in Kosovo, they were also in Afghanistan, the
expansion of this contingent is also possible. Thus, the point is
not only the position of a strategic partner of Yerevan, that is, of
Moscow. First of all, the pragmatic interest in the case of Armenia
and Azerbaijan is necessary in order to increase such cooperation;
this interest comes down to the issue of the side NATO will takein
the Karabakh settlement. It makes Brussels to diversify its steps and
to be delicate in maneuvering between the interests of Armenia and
Azerbaijan, especially considering that one third of NATO exports to
Afghanistan goes through the territory of Azerbaijan. Taking into
account the turbulence in the Middle East and the Iranian issue
Azerbaijan is considered by NATO to be a secular Muslim state. In
the Islamic world, there are few such countries. At the same time,
there is not any clear choice in favor of the position of Azerbaijan
in Brussels, despite the fact that relations with Azerbaijan are very
valuable for NATO, given the length of its border with Iran.
In his turn, Sergei Konoplyov, director of the programs for the
US-Russia and US-Ukraine relations and for the Black Sea Security of
Kennedy School of Harvard University, believes that at present one can
only speculate on the issue of the upcoming NATO strike on Iran. In
his opinion, there are not any grounds for a military strike on Iran,
at least on the part of NATO as a universal organization. The expert
does not see any statements and indicators according to which NATO has
at least tentative plans of operation in Iran. Iran, in his opinion,
is not like Libya, and the operation here can lead to unpredictable
results, and the U.S., which is the largest military and financial
contributor of NATO, is still involved in two wars, and the Congress
cut a significant amount of the Pentagon spending. Therefore, the
funds for conducting several operations at once are not enough.
Ingo Mannteufel, the head of the department of Eastern Europe and the
chief editor of the Russian edition of Deutsche Welle, also expressed
his views on the relations between NATO and Russia; he believes that
stagnation will dominate in these relations in the coming months. The
reasons for it, in his view, are very simple: the presidential
elections will be held in the U.S. in November. Therefore, neither
the United States nor Russia expects the status quo to change. Russian
President Vladimir Putin also made it clear by refusing to participate
in the Summits of the United States and thus demonstrating the
intention to wait the election of a president in the U. S., and
to re-discuss the issue on the basis of this information. However,
Mannteufel believes that there will not be any aggravation in these
relations in the coming months, because neither the U.S. nor the
European members of NATO or Russia are interested in it. At the same
time, he has noted that he currently does not see the positive dynamics
which would allow speculating about the future development in the
relationship between NATO and Russia. The major problem in relations
between Russia and NATO is a distrust of each other, which affects
both sides. Meanwhile, the creation of a transit center of NATO in
Ulyanovsk in order to withdraw the NATO forces from Afghanistan, which
is, above all, a profitable bargain for Russia, could theoretically
increase the chances of building trust between NATO and Russia.
From: Baghdasarian