Tweet
Eurasia Review
March 6 2013
`Turkey And Russia To Determine The Future Of The Black Sea Region' - Interview
By JTW -- (March 6, 2013)
By By Colette Beukman
JTW interview with Assoc. Prof. Selçuk Çolakoglu, USAK expert on
Turkish foreign policy
The Black Sea region is one with unequal powerstructures amongst its
states, possible clashing interests and numerous internal disputes.
Since the establishment of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)
in 1992 there has been, among others, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
and the Russo-Georgian war. How do you think the BSEC has influenced
these events, and more generally the security in the region?
The BSEC has been foundedunder the leadership of Turkey and Russia in
1992 as a widerBlack Sea regional organization, covering the Black Sea
coastal states, Balkan states on the West, and South Caucasian states
on the East. During the 1990's there were many transitional problems.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union there were many weak
states-especially the former Soviet republics-and there was also a gap
of security; there were many illicit networks and trans-border crime
organizations.Furthermore, the Black Sea area was aneligible zone for
illegal networks including weapon trafficking, drugtrafficking,
humantrafficking and woman trafficking, especially from former Soviet
countries to European countries. So, in the Black Sea zone there was
need for better cooperation, for political dialogue, conflict
resolution, creating an economic boom in the region, and maybe for
combating some trans-border communal activities.The BSEC creates a
good opportunity to provide all regional countries to get into these
issues, problems, and opportunities together.
This is very important because there are a lot of frozen problems in
the region, not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also the Turkish-Armenian
normalization process, the Georgian-Russian normalization process,
there are several North-Caucasus issues, and the South Ossetia and
Abkhazia problems in Georgia. Besides, some of the coastal states have
problems with each other, for example between Moldova and Russia or
Ukraine and Russia, and there are many other problems and issues in
the Balkans. After 9/11 the BSEC also began to focus on international
terror networks. In that sense the BSEC is providing a unique
environment or asset to get much deeper cooperation and dialogue
between all the related countries. However, the present cooperation
level is not sufficient enough, and BSEC is not very effective because
ofseveral reasons. In 1999 BSEC became a permanent secretariat in
Istanbul which has regular meetingsetc., butthere is a lack of common
perspective between the member countries. On top of that, the wider
Black Sea region lags behind on its potential, and many more things
should be done in the near future. Turkey and Russia should be the
sponsors and the leaders of BSEC, yet the participation of all
regional countries is very important for the future, otherwise there
will be no opportunity to solve the current problems.
What do you believe to be the internal and external threats for the
Black Sea region in the (near) future, and what role do you think the
BSEC can and will play in that?
There are still high risks, especially for illicit networks in the
BSEC zone,because of the lack of unitary police actions or regional
intelligencesharingon the ground. Much more and deeper multilateral
cooperation is needed for combating these organized crimes, and the
BSEC could provide an effective source for that. However, there is
also a lack of common vision for BSEC in general; many countries have
problems with each other, and a mentality change for union policy
rather than zero-sum game in the BSEC regime is needed. Balancing and
re-balancing against each other is not offering a good source of
cooperation for the region. The BSEC should develop and promote a
cooperation moodand a multilateral perspective for all regional
countries. If Turkey and Russia put shoulder to shoulder in the BSEC
region, they will gain benefits for themselves as well as for all
regional countries, and they could manage the regional problems.
How have external organizations like the NATO, the EU, the OSCE and
others influenced security in the Black Sea region?
The OSCE, especially just after the collapse of the communist world,
had the role of confidence-building processes and thenpeace-building
processes in the region. However during the last decade the OSCE has
lost its ground. We can see this especially when we look at the OSCE
deal concerning theNagorno-Karabakhissue; the organization was fully
inefficient in that way. The OSCE focuses on a much broader region,
and it has the problem of losing the ambition for its founders,
especially during the last decade. So in that sense BSEC could be a
much better alternative.
When we look at the EU, it had an enlargement process during the last
decade and it has accepted Bulgaria and Romania as coastal states. It
has also accepted some Balkan countries like Slovenia and now Croatia,
which will be a part of the EU by July 2013. So the EU could be a
source of cooperation, especially in some parts of the BSEC region,
but it won't cover the entire BSEC region since countries like Russia,
Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are out of the agenda of the
enlargement process. Of course the EU could be some leverage for
cooperation between the Black Sea countries, but at the same time the
EU would be a source of problems between EU member states and
non-member states, and there would be competition rather than
cooperation between these members and non-members. There is another
risk for the EU, because since 2008 some EU economies are in crisis,
Greece for example has been in a deep crisis for three years. So the
EU will lose its attention for the eastward enlargement process, and
also draw its final Eastern border for the Union. There is another
issue, as the EU is currently discussing double-track unification,
because some EU members like Germany and France are not happy with the
performance of Bulgaria, Romania and Greece because of their economic
perspective and competitiveness. The EU could not provide a common
perspective for the wider Black Sea region because of its structural
problems in recent years.
The NATO also has an eastward expansion like the EU, and Romania as
well as Bulgaria recently joined it. However the same problem applies
to the NATO as does to the EU;it only covers some parts of the Black
Sea countries. In recent years, NATO caused some cases of
confrontation where NATO countries were on one side and Russia and its
allies on the other. Especially during the Russia-Georgia war in 2008,
there was an escalation between some NATO countries and Russia. The
NATO hascreated confrontation rather than cooperation among the Black
Sea countries.Recently, President Obama declared that the US would
strategically be more Pacific-oriented, in order torebalance China. So
NATO and the US especially have come to lose attention for the Black
Sea and NATO's eastward expansion, and now Ukraine and Georgia are
much more under Russian influence rather than Western influence.
So, non-regional actors, the OSCE, EU and NATO, have all come to lose
their attention for the Black Sea region. The regional countries now
stay alone with their problems. BSEC could give perspective to all
regional countries and there is need for some further steps from now
on. After a confidence-building process, regional countries can try to
solve their problems including Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey-Armenian
normalization, Russia-Georgia relations and some issues in the
Balkans.
Is this what you think should happen, or do you think it is probable
that this will indeed happen?
It should happen but it is also highly possible. The main obstacle is
that there is still a trust gapbetween Russian and Turkish decision
makers,although both countries have huge economic cooperation. After
building some common strategic vision, it will be possible. Because
the EU, NATO and OSCE arenot paying a lot of attention to the Black
Sea region, Turkey and Russia should cooperate in a better and deeper
format, and the BSEC could present a kind of leverage for that.
You have answered this question to a certain extent, but perhaps you
would like to elaborate; how do you view the mutual relationship
between Turkey and NATO on the one hand and Russia and its allies on
the other?
Turkey played a very positive role during the Russia-Georgia war in
2008, and Turkey does not want any kind of escalation in the Black
Sea. According to the Montreux convention third party's warships
cannot move into the Black Sea. Turkey applied this to US warships: At
the time of the war, the US wanted to send warships to Georgian ports,
howeverAnkara did not allow them to pass through the Turkish straits
and prevented any potential escalation to the Black Sea zone. Besides,
Turkey did not allow new basements, especially from NATO countries,
for the ports of Bulgaria and Romania, so Turkey showed its
willingness to cooperate with Russia. The characteristics of bilateral
relations between Turkey and Russia are currently very positive,
despite some disagreements on various international issues, one clear
example being Syria. However, there is a mood of cooperation between
Moscow and Ankara, so they have the capacity for a much deeper
cooperation for the Black Sea zone. In the recent past Russia usually
felt some threat from the enlargement processes of the EU and NATO,
but now there is no risk for escalation of Western institutions on the
one side and Russia on the other. So now the region is open for
further multilateral cooperation.
So you are positive about the future of the region?
There are many reasons to feel so, as I've explained some major
arguments in favor of the region's prospective future above. Therefore
we have solid grounds concerning the contemporary political and
security context around the Black Sea basin for us to be hopeful.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/06032013-turkey-and-russia-to-determine-the-future-of-the-black-sea-region-interview/
March 6 2013
`Turkey And Russia To Determine The Future Of The Black Sea Region' - Interview
By JTW -- (March 6, 2013)
By By Colette Beukman
JTW interview with Assoc. Prof. Selçuk Çolakoglu, USAK expert on
Turkish foreign policy
The Black Sea region is one with unequal powerstructures amongst its
states, possible clashing interests and numerous internal disputes.
Since the establishment of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)
in 1992 there has been, among others, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
and the Russo-Georgian war. How do you think the BSEC has influenced
these events, and more generally the security in the region?
The BSEC has been foundedunder the leadership of Turkey and Russia in
1992 as a widerBlack Sea regional organization, covering the Black Sea
coastal states, Balkan states on the West, and South Caucasian states
on the East. During the 1990's there were many transitional problems.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union there were many weak
states-especially the former Soviet republics-and there was also a gap
of security; there were many illicit networks and trans-border crime
organizations.Furthermore, the Black Sea area was aneligible zone for
illegal networks including weapon trafficking, drugtrafficking,
humantrafficking and woman trafficking, especially from former Soviet
countries to European countries. So, in the Black Sea zone there was
need for better cooperation, for political dialogue, conflict
resolution, creating an economic boom in the region, and maybe for
combating some trans-border communal activities.The BSEC creates a
good opportunity to provide all regional countries to get into these
issues, problems, and opportunities together.
This is very important because there are a lot of frozen problems in
the region, not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also the Turkish-Armenian
normalization process, the Georgian-Russian normalization process,
there are several North-Caucasus issues, and the South Ossetia and
Abkhazia problems in Georgia. Besides, some of the coastal states have
problems with each other, for example between Moldova and Russia or
Ukraine and Russia, and there are many other problems and issues in
the Balkans. After 9/11 the BSEC also began to focus on international
terror networks. In that sense the BSEC is providing a unique
environment or asset to get much deeper cooperation and dialogue
between all the related countries. However, the present cooperation
level is not sufficient enough, and BSEC is not very effective because
ofseveral reasons. In 1999 BSEC became a permanent secretariat in
Istanbul which has regular meetingsetc., butthere is a lack of common
perspective between the member countries. On top of that, the wider
Black Sea region lags behind on its potential, and many more things
should be done in the near future. Turkey and Russia should be the
sponsors and the leaders of BSEC, yet the participation of all
regional countries is very important for the future, otherwise there
will be no opportunity to solve the current problems.
What do you believe to be the internal and external threats for the
Black Sea region in the (near) future, and what role do you think the
BSEC can and will play in that?
There are still high risks, especially for illicit networks in the
BSEC zone,because of the lack of unitary police actions or regional
intelligencesharingon the ground. Much more and deeper multilateral
cooperation is needed for combating these organized crimes, and the
BSEC could provide an effective source for that. However, there is
also a lack of common vision for BSEC in general; many countries have
problems with each other, and a mentality change for union policy
rather than zero-sum game in the BSEC regime is needed. Balancing and
re-balancing against each other is not offering a good source of
cooperation for the region. The BSEC should develop and promote a
cooperation moodand a multilateral perspective for all regional
countries. If Turkey and Russia put shoulder to shoulder in the BSEC
region, they will gain benefits for themselves as well as for all
regional countries, and they could manage the regional problems.
How have external organizations like the NATO, the EU, the OSCE and
others influenced security in the Black Sea region?
The OSCE, especially just after the collapse of the communist world,
had the role of confidence-building processes and thenpeace-building
processes in the region. However during the last decade the OSCE has
lost its ground. We can see this especially when we look at the OSCE
deal concerning theNagorno-Karabakhissue; the organization was fully
inefficient in that way. The OSCE focuses on a much broader region,
and it has the problem of losing the ambition for its founders,
especially during the last decade. So in that sense BSEC could be a
much better alternative.
When we look at the EU, it had an enlargement process during the last
decade and it has accepted Bulgaria and Romania as coastal states. It
has also accepted some Balkan countries like Slovenia and now Croatia,
which will be a part of the EU by July 2013. So the EU could be a
source of cooperation, especially in some parts of the BSEC region,
but it won't cover the entire BSEC region since countries like Russia,
Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are out of the agenda of the
enlargement process. Of course the EU could be some leverage for
cooperation between the Black Sea countries, but at the same time the
EU would be a source of problems between EU member states and
non-member states, and there would be competition rather than
cooperation between these members and non-members. There is another
risk for the EU, because since 2008 some EU economies are in crisis,
Greece for example has been in a deep crisis for three years. So the
EU will lose its attention for the eastward enlargement process, and
also draw its final Eastern border for the Union. There is another
issue, as the EU is currently discussing double-track unification,
because some EU members like Germany and France are not happy with the
performance of Bulgaria, Romania and Greece because of their economic
perspective and competitiveness. The EU could not provide a common
perspective for the wider Black Sea region because of its structural
problems in recent years.
The NATO also has an eastward expansion like the EU, and Romania as
well as Bulgaria recently joined it. However the same problem applies
to the NATO as does to the EU;it only covers some parts of the Black
Sea countries. In recent years, NATO caused some cases of
confrontation where NATO countries were on one side and Russia and its
allies on the other. Especially during the Russia-Georgia war in 2008,
there was an escalation between some NATO countries and Russia. The
NATO hascreated confrontation rather than cooperation among the Black
Sea countries.Recently, President Obama declared that the US would
strategically be more Pacific-oriented, in order torebalance China. So
NATO and the US especially have come to lose attention for the Black
Sea and NATO's eastward expansion, and now Ukraine and Georgia are
much more under Russian influence rather than Western influence.
So, non-regional actors, the OSCE, EU and NATO, have all come to lose
their attention for the Black Sea region. The regional countries now
stay alone with their problems. BSEC could give perspective to all
regional countries and there is need for some further steps from now
on. After a confidence-building process, regional countries can try to
solve their problems including Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey-Armenian
normalization, Russia-Georgia relations and some issues in the
Balkans.
Is this what you think should happen, or do you think it is probable
that this will indeed happen?
It should happen but it is also highly possible. The main obstacle is
that there is still a trust gapbetween Russian and Turkish decision
makers,although both countries have huge economic cooperation. After
building some common strategic vision, it will be possible. Because
the EU, NATO and OSCE arenot paying a lot of attention to the Black
Sea region, Turkey and Russia should cooperate in a better and deeper
format, and the BSEC could present a kind of leverage for that.
You have answered this question to a certain extent, but perhaps you
would like to elaborate; how do you view the mutual relationship
between Turkey and NATO on the one hand and Russia and its allies on
the other?
Turkey played a very positive role during the Russia-Georgia war in
2008, and Turkey does not want any kind of escalation in the Black
Sea. According to the Montreux convention third party's warships
cannot move into the Black Sea. Turkey applied this to US warships: At
the time of the war, the US wanted to send warships to Georgian ports,
howeverAnkara did not allow them to pass through the Turkish straits
and prevented any potential escalation to the Black Sea zone. Besides,
Turkey did not allow new basements, especially from NATO countries,
for the ports of Bulgaria and Romania, so Turkey showed its
willingness to cooperate with Russia. The characteristics of bilateral
relations between Turkey and Russia are currently very positive,
despite some disagreements on various international issues, one clear
example being Syria. However, there is a mood of cooperation between
Moscow and Ankara, so they have the capacity for a much deeper
cooperation for the Black Sea zone. In the recent past Russia usually
felt some threat from the enlargement processes of the EU and NATO,
but now there is no risk for escalation of Western institutions on the
one side and Russia on the other. So now the region is open for
further multilateral cooperation.
So you are positive about the future of the region?
There are many reasons to feel so, as I've explained some major
arguments in favor of the region's prospective future above. Therefore
we have solid grounds concerning the contemporary political and
security context around the Black Sea basin for us to be hopeful.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/06032013-turkey-and-russia-to-determine-the-future-of-the-black-sea-region-interview/