Category: Georgia

  • Turkey Welcomes NATO-Russia Military Cooperation

    Turkey Welcomes NATO-Russia Military Cooperation

    Turkey Welcomes NATO-Russia Military Cooperation

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 125
    June 30, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu attended the informal meeting of OSCE foreign ministers on the Greek island of Corfu on June 27-28. In addition to presenting Ankara’s views on the future of the European security architecture, Davutoglu also discussed Turkey’s bilateral relations on the sidelines of the meeting. The OSCE foreign ministers initiated the “Corfu Process” to discuss concrete steps that might be taken to manage European security challenges, and prepare the way for the next ministerial meeting in December. OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyanni, outlined the new security challenges facing the members. She said that in addition to traditional security issues, new threats and challenges continuously emerge. She added that the participants “concurred that the OSCE is a natural forum to anchor [an open, sustained, wide-ranging and inclusive dialogue on security], because it is the only regional organization bringing together all states from Vancouver to Vladivostok on an equal basis” (www.osce.org, June 28).

    These declarations for improving security cooperation aside, in concrete terms, the meeting served as an important test for whether the divisions created following the Russo-Georgian war could be overcome. The NATO-Russia dialogue received a serious blow due to increased tension after the war. Since then, Russia has expected the West to accept the “new realities” in the region, particularly the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions. Moreover, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has called for a treaty to launch a new Europe-wide security structure.

    Although NATO-Russia relations thawed gradually after Obama’s election, formal military cooperation remained suspended. The NATO-Russia Council met on the margins of the OSCE’s Corfu meeting, which marked the highest level contact since the Georgian war. The outgoing NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer announced that the parties agreed to resume military cooperation, but noted that “fundamental differences of opinion” over Georgia remained. He added that the details of the cooperation will be fleshed out through further meetings. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, stressed that Moscow’s decision to recognize Georgia’s two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia after the war is “irreversible” (www.rferl.org, June 27; www.greeknews.com, June 29).

    Davutoglu attended the OSCE discussions, and held several bilateral meetings with his counterparts and E.U. officials. Davutoglu expressed Turkey’s satisfaction with the resumption of NATO-Russia dialogue and the OSCE’s decision to develop mechanisms to deal with future security threats. He added that maintaining institutional ties is needed for the promotion of effective security cooperation (Cihan, June 29).

    Turkey’s bilateral relations with Armenia and Greece were also on Davutoglu’s agenda. Diplomatic observers speculated on whether Davutoglu would meet the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan. Although former Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met Nalbandyan several times during such multilateral meetings, Davutoglu has not held an official meeting with him since being appointed. He told reporters that he talked briefly with Nalbandyan, but his busy schedule did not allow time for an official meeting. Nonetheless, the Turkish-Armenian normalization process occupied an important part of Davutoglu’s agenda during his other contacts. He met the Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy Rey who is moderating the secret talks between Ankara and Yerevan, which resulted in the announcement of a roadmap for normalization (EDM, April 29). Rey also held a separate meeting with Nalbandyan. Since the announcement of the roadmap, however, Ankara has come under criticism for stalling the process in order to allay Baku’s concerns, and no concrete steps have since been taken towards normalization. Although this long silence raised fears that the dialogue might have prematurely ended, Swiss diplomatic sources reportedly told the Turkish daily Zaman that the parties had reached consensus, and the details of the roadmap might be announced soon (Zaman, June 29).

    Davutoglu also met his Greek counterpart Bakoyanni. Following the meeting, Davutoglu said that they had a very fruitful conversation and that the two sides agreed to “change Turkish-Greek relations from an area of risk into pursuing mutual interests through high-level contacts.” However, he added that differences of opinion between both countries remain deep rooted and cannot be resolved overnight. “It is essential that the parties appreciate each other’s positions and concerns,” he added (www.cnnturk.com, June 28). Greek media interpreted his attitude as maintaining Ankara’s stubborn position, and claimed that no common ground could be reached (Milliyet, June 29). Indeed, despite their ability to break the decades-old security dilemma, several issues continue to bedevil relations between Ankara and Athens, such as the Aegean disputes, Cyprus, concerns over illegal immigrants and the condition of minorities (EDM, June 22).

    Given its policy during the Russia-Georgia war and its flourishing ties with Russia, one might argue that Turkey is one of the few countries that wholeheartedly welcomed the resumption of NATO-Russia cooperation. Though disturbed by the Russian aggression last year, Turkey expressed openly its opposition to punitive NATO measures against Russia, and instead charted an independent course to balance its ties between the West and Moscow. This foreign policy approach even led to charges that Turkey might be drifting away from its traditional alliance commitments, which it vehemently refuted (EDM, August 27, 2008). Moreover, Turkey initiated the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform to bring a permanent solution to regional problems (EDM, September 2, 2008). Now that Russia and Turkey are seeking to mend fences, this new development removes an important source of tension in Ankara’s relations with the West.

    Moreover, in retrospect, Ankara might claim credit for its own policy of balancing and prioritizing its multidimensional security cooperation, during and in the aftermath of the Georgian crisis. Ankara’s new foreign policy approach prioritizes cooperative security to respond to traditional and non-conventional threats to regional and national security, an approach which is also shared by its military leadership (EDM, June 25). However, as the persistence of some disputes with its neighbors illustrate, it provides no magic bullet for the resolution of all disputes.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-welcomes-nato-russia-military-cooperation/
  • Russia Angered At Armenia’s Saakashvili Award

    Russia Angered At Armenia’s Saakashvili Award

    7A84D262 9535 4970 9299 BF2CBD7D1B9C w393 s

     

    June 30, 2009

    Armenian nationalists and members of the Russian parliament are up in arms about Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian’s awarding of the country’s Medal of Honor to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili last week.

    Valeri Bogomolov, a member of the Russian State Duma’s Foreign Relations Committee, called the award “very controversial.” He said countries are free to honor whomever they want, but “it is important to understand that you can’t spit into a well from which you will need to drink on more than one occasion,” Regnum news reports.

    Another senior Duma member, Viktor Ilyukhin, denounced the decision, calling it “unfriendly towards Russia.”

    Saakashvili received the medal at the start of his two-day official visit to Yerevan on June 24. Sarkisian’s office cited his contribution to “strengthening the centuries-old Georgian-Armenian friendship” in bestowing it on him.

    Armenian nationalist activists accuse the Saakashvili government of deliberately neglecting the socioeconomic woes of Georgia’s Javakheti region and violating the rights of its predominantly ethnic-Armenian population.

    Last week, dozens of nationalists gathered to protest the award outside Saakashvili’s hotel but were dispersed by the police.

    Countries in the Caucasus have to be careful choosing their friends. Iran has just recalled its envoy to Azerbaijan, after Israeli President Shimon Peres paid Baku a visit.

    — Armenian Service

    https://www.rferl.org/a/Russia_Angered_At_Armenias_Saakashvili_Award/1766103.html

  • Saakashvili pays tribute to the Armenian Genocide victims

    Saakashvili pays tribute to the Armenian Genocide victims


    25.06.2009 16:25

    Accompanied by Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, Deputy Mayor of Yerevan Kamo Areyan and other officials, the President of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili visited the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial Complex.

    The Georgian delegation paid a tribute of respect to the victims of the Armenian genocide and laid a wreath at the memorial.

    President Saakashvili watered the fir tree he had planted at the Memory Alley during his visit to Armenia a few years ago.

    ! Reproduction on full or in part is prohibited without reference to Public Radio of Armenia

  • Russia-Georgia Tensions Harm Armenia

    Russia-Georgia Tensions Harm Armenia

    Continued closure of Russian-Georgian border crossing leaves Armenia cut off from its most important market.

    By Naira Melkumian in Yerevan (CRS No. 495, 29-May-09)

    The Armenian economy, already reeling from the global financial crisis, has suffered a new blow from Georgia’s refusal to re-open a frontier crossing with Russia – Armenia’s only link with its major ally.

    The Upper Lars border post, where the road between Tbilisi and Vladikavkaz crosses the central Caucasus, was closed unexpectedly by Russia in 2006, a major setback to Armenian exporters.

    Now, Russia has re-opened its side of the frontier but Georgia has declined to allow goods to pass through. Georgia, which fought a brief war with Russia last year, says it wants Swiss mediation before it will trust its northern neighbour.

    That leaves Armenia, which currently has to use a lengthy export route via Bulgaria to reach Russia, cut off from its most important market.

    “We are desperately keen that this road should operate. Russia has assured us that on its side all work has been completed. They gave a high priority to Upper Lars functioning, especially since they have provided the customs points with all modern facilities,” said Armenian prime minister Tigran Sarksian.

    The complex geopolitics of the South Caucasus leave Armenia uniquely dependent on this crossing point. The rest of the Georgian border with Russia is closed, either being too mountainous, or controlled by Abkhazia or South Ossetia, which have had their independence recognised by Russia but not by Georgia.

    Armenia and Azerbaijan meanwhile, have not signed a formal treaty to end their war over the breakaway region of Karabakh, leaving the other half of Russia’s southern border closed to Armenian exporters. At the same time, Armenia lacks diplomatic ties with its other main neighbour Turkey, although relations are thawing and may prove a way out of the impasse.

    “Now the question is one of a political decision, and the problem is Russian-Georgian relations. I hope that soon relations between Georgia and Russian normalise and thaw, which will be good for all countries in the region,” said Armenian transport and communications minister Gurgen Sarksian.

    The Russians blame the Georgians for the crossing point being closed, but the Georgians say they cannot trust the Russians to behave honourably.

    “All negotiations in connection with the opening of the crossing point must take place in the presence of the Swiss, in as far as we cannot rule out provocations from the Russians,” said Georgian foreign minister Grigol Vashadze.

    That position, and the inevitable delays that will accompany it, is not likely to please Armenia, which has already seen its economy slump disastrously this year and has had to call on funding from the International Monetary Fund. The country’s central bank has predicted the economy will contract by 5.8 per cent this year, following a 6.1 per cent decline in the first quarter.

    The mining sector has been particularly hard-hit, and several companies have been forced to shed labourers.

    The stand-off has reminded Armenians that their country’s economy is too dependent on Georgia for its own good. Only in August last year, when the war interrupted Armenia’s export trade, the country lost 600-700 million US dollars.

    At the moment, 70-80 per cent of Armenian exports travel to Russia, leaving the Georgian port of Poti for Bulgaria, then shipped to Novorossiisk on Russia’s southern coast. The whole journey can take eight or ten days, whereas the road through the mountains and Upper Lars is relatively quick.

    “If for a long time our goods go only via ship from Poti, then it will create financial problems, increase the cost of our exports, and if you add the economic crisis to this, then you create a situation that is disadvantageous to Armenia,” said Vardan Aivazian, head of the economic committee of the Armenian parliament.

    The stand-off has also added impetus to talks to open the Armenian border with Turkey. The two countries lack diplomatic relations, and have major differences over whether the Ottoman Empire’s slaughter of Armenians in the First World War constituted genocide, but the two sides agreed a so-called road map last month which could kick-start a normalisation of relations.

    Turkish-Armenian unofficial trade via Georgia almost doubled in 2008 to 270 million dollars, although almost all of this consisted of Turkish textiles, building materials and domestic goods. If the border was opened, these goods could travel directly into Armenia.

    “The opening of the border would legalise the trade, which currently goes on between the two countries via Georgia, and would reduce the high transit fees. Currently, Turkish goods are widely used in Armenia, including foodstuffs and products of light industry,” said Aivazian.

    However, the idea of opening the border between Armenia and Turkey has serious opponents, particularly the nationalist Armenian party Dashnaktsutiun, which fears Turkey could dump its products in Armenia and swamp domestic producers.

    “We have studied the economic policies of Turkey and Armenia, and the protectionist policies which Turkey conducts in defence of its own producers clearly bear witness to the fact that we, with our liberal policy, will not benefit from this,” said Ara Nranian, a member of parliament from the party.

    Naira Melkumian is a freelance journalist.

  • Cooperation and Confrontation between the USA and Russia in Caspian Region

    Cooperation and Confrontation between the USA and Russia in Caspian Region

    New monopolar world system had created new interests which depend on big powers in Caspian region after the collapse of Soviet Union. This situation shared a chaos on governmental system in this area. Big powers created a competition with Caspian Sea status and energy subjects to use their interests. Dominant power of the USA and Russia shared some conflict and cooperation circumstances as interdependent body in their relations. Particularly common threat position establishes cooperational theme. Caspian region which is second big energy sphere is a bridge between Europea and Asia, also it is a main point of the world domination conditions.

     

    Subjects of Confrontation and Hegemony Tools

     

    Big powers need conflict, cooperation and hard-soft balance tools as political subjects to increase their activity in the region. The USA and Russia have enough advantages according to their situation. But confrontation of powers can be transformed to common interest activities so to analyse foreign politics of states can provide to know near future. Today anxieties of the USA’s foreign affairs to Russia are existing as these subjects:

     

    – Monopoly situation of Russia in energy area,

    – Against position of Russia to NATO enlargement,

    – Russian force to Georgia,

    – Possibility of same circumstances to post-Soviet states by Russia,

    – Against position to Western initiatives about Iranian nuclear system.

     

             The USA used soft balance politics to Saudi Arabia and forced in Iraq to control Middle East which is first big oil sphere in the world. The USA supported first energy sharing agreement BTC in 1994 and for saving energy corridor it founded GUAM to be against CIS organisation about the subject of influence to Central Asia. The USA which a country had acted firstly in energy line plans to establish new cooperations to be dominant power in the region. American supported regional organisation GUAM targets new cooperations with West and to solve regional conflicts with Europen initiated projects. Also GUAM organised first military operations which Russia didn’t join. But Russia created a dilemma over the European energy corridor target of this organisation. Russia works to establish alternative energy lines and coordinate near abroad countries to common aims.

             Russia had an advantage to pressure over the post-Soviet states with energy event. Middle Asian countries which have big energy resources provide energy transportation via Russian territory. External projects are American supported issues. Shortly there is a competition that energy is used as a weapon.

     

             The USA interfered Afghanistan after the 11 September terrorist attack by this way the super power took a strategic point in Middle Asia. The USA shared a dangerous position for Russia because of the USA founded military points in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzistan after the Afghanistan intervene. So Russia organised Shangai Cooperation Organisation to build an alternative body against the USA with other regional states. It shares a bandwagoning system for this region which had been established by Russia as a main actor.[1] By this way Russia that is a main state of CIS shared strong resist against the USA with its initiatives.

     

             Bilateral agreements in NATO circle with the USA of Caspian states formed a dependent system to West. In this subject Georgia had been a pro-American arena in this region.[2] On the other hand Azerbaijani and American relations increased after annuling 907. article in the USA that has supporting event to South Caucasus states without Azerbaijan. Russia and Iran speeched as against the USA after opened airspace of Azerbaijan to the USA. Additionally security of BTC is important to the USA. New American forces in Romania and Bulgaria can intervene Caucasus area if there is a problem in Baku Ceyhan pipeline. Also American soldiers in Georgia can be used in emergency circumstances.[3]

            

             Russia said possible intervenes of Collective Security Cooperation of Shangai Cooperation Organisation to NATO’s activities in this region as against the military activation of NATO. Other advantages of Russia are conflict events as without regional cooperations against NATO. Fergana, Osetia, Abkhazia and Karabakh issues give chances to Russian invasion on the region. Because solutions can be producted by Russian mediator situation. Otherwise western initiated organisation GUAM targets that solutions can be existed without Russia. Nobody can guarantee that Russia will not save its interests about regional conflicts in Ukraine-Crimea, Moldova-Transdiester, Azerbaijan-Karabakh as additionally Georgian conflicts. For this moment Russian conflict politics focused on Georgia in South Caucasus area. Abkhazia and Osetia problems are punishments to Georgia by Russia because of Georgian new Western oriented politics.

            

             Bandwagoning countries rejected American activities after 2004. These countries supported Russian decisions against to the USA after this date. European Union continued its enlargement politics in Caspian as paralel to American issues. Caspian states easily can depend on West with some projects like Nabucco. Specially European Union projects TACIS, INOGATE[4] and TRACECA[5] can create influence over the regional countries like other cooperational acts. New resist of Caspian states’ outlook shares itself as internal cooperation and contr-politics of Russia. Also America can take an advantage in Caspian status problem against to Russia.

            

                Obligatory Cooperations in the Region

     

             There is no possible way to fight new movements’ expansion in the region of Russia which is a problem of American foreign affairs. Struggle to terrorism that is in directly Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is a main aim of the USA political issue in Middle Asia. There is a Russian anxiety about results of possible conflict between the USA and Iran. Additionally Russia doesn’t want cooperations of these countries[6];

    – Iran can buy weapons and nuclear technology from the USA,

    – The USA can approve oil and gas transportation via Iran as alternative to Russia in Caspian sphere,

    – The USA won’t need Russian support in struggle against Iran issue.

            

             The USA is a main power about struggle to terrorist movements in this region. Also Russia trusts this power in this subject and main result of that is American military foundation by permission of Russia. There is a new progress to decrease American influence in Manas military point’s closing process. But it can be a start line of enlargement terrorist activations which is Russia’s afraid. There is a different situation in East Europea initiative of the USA about military approach. It shares an interdependent relation among great powers. President Bush again gave his assurance that the proposed American missile shield was not aimed at Russia. NATO summit in Bucharest, Russia scored a partial victory on the question of expanding the alliance. NATO did not invite Ukraine and Georgia, both former Soviet states, onto its Membership Action Plan.[7]

     

             At the present time in which cold war rivalry is waking up, Caspian region is becoming a field of  conflict at the same time a collaboration in view of energy resources and military cooperation to activate grand forces’ sovereignty. Cooperation needs occured by common benefits cause means used to reduce another one’s activity. In this backgroung that power balances are occured outside the states of Middle Asia, bandwagoning countries which got free of being unrelated to others may cause new situations. Of course all the same, political declinations, which work directed by Mackinder’s Heartland Theory, have the ability to form new balances in this region. Athority of the region countries which have rich resources will indicate that the world will being run by how many poles.

     


    [1] Walt, Stephen M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press

    [2] Klare Michael T., “Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service”

    [3] Purtaş Fırat, TÜRKSAM, “Hazar Bölgesinde Rekabetin Yeni Boyutu: Silahlanma Yarışı”

    [4] There are at present 21 countries which have acceded to this agreement with the EU (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgisztan, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and the Republic of Serbia).Thus, all of them have agreed to cooperate towards the establishment of one or several systems of oil and gas pipelines which pass through their territories, while observing the jointly accepted rules embodied in the agreement.

    [5] Saraç Naciye, AZSAM “Tarihi İpek Yolu Yeniden Hayata Döndürülüyor”

    [6] Prof. Dr. Mark Katz, “The Role of Iran and Afghanistan in US-Russian Relations”

    [7] “Bush and Putin’s bittersweet farewell”, 06.04.2008

    Mehmet Fatih OZTARSU

    Baku Qafqaz University

    International Relations

  • Armenia withdraws from NATO drills in Georgia

    Armenia withdraws from NATO drills in Georgia

    MOSCOW, May 5 (Xinhua) — Armenia will not participate in the NATO-led military exercises in Georgia, Russian news agencies reported on Tuesday, citing the Armenian Defense Ministry.

    “Due to the current situation, Armenian troops will not take part in NATO’s exercises in Georgia,” the ministry was quoted by Itar-Tass and RIA Novosti as saying in a statement.

    A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that Russia is satisfied with some countries’ decision to pull out of the drills, Itar-Tass reported.

    The planned exercises, scheduled for May 6 to June 1, have drawn strong opposition from Moscow. About 1,300 soldiers from over a dozen NATO member or ally states were originally scheduled to participate, but Kazakhstan, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova and Serbia have already withdrawn.

    Source: news.xinhuanet.com, 06-05-2009