About us   Editorial Board   Advisory Board   Subscribe   Contact us  
 


CAUCASUS UPDATE

In this section, we publish the weekly analysis of the major events taking place in the Caucasus and beyond. The Caucasus Update is written by our Senior Editor Alexander Jackson. Click here to subscribe.

For more than a year, Russia has been floating the concept of a new European security treaty, which would seek to overhaul Euro-Atlantic security with a legally binding document. The Kremlin has been blunt in its assessment that existing organisations – NATO and the OSCE – are redundant and ineffective. On November 29, it finally unveiled a draft version of the strategy, ahead of an OSCE summit and the first meeting of the NATO-Russia Council since the war with Georgia in August 2008 (Kremlin,ru, November 29).

The reaction from the West has been cautious. NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen insisted that “NATO will remain our framework for Euro-Atlantic security” (Bloomberg, December 4). The OSCE summit was also rather uninterested. Although both Brussels and Washington have politely agreed to study the proposal, neither have any intention of seriously debating this with Moscow. The assumption is that the Russian strategy is designed to veto NATO’s expansion and supplant both the Alliance and the OSCE.

NATO’s concern is understandable, given the strategy’s first article: “Any security measures taken by a Party…including in the framework of any international organization, military alliance or coalition, shall be implemented with due regard to security interests of all other Parties.”

In other words, NATO offers of membership – which contains a clause that an attack on one member is considered an attack on another – must take into account Moscow concerns. More bluntly: don’t let Georgia or Ukraine into NATO. Subsequent articles of the Russian strategy make this clear.

Another article which has been flagged up by commentators is the statement that no party must allow its territory to be used for an attack or "any other actions significantly affecting (the) security of any other Party" (AFP, November 29). The ambiguous nature of the term ‘significant’ could leave the door open for Russia to block Washington from deploying Patriot missiles or other ballistic missile defence elements in eastern Europe. Or, indeed, for Russia to veto NATO expansion.

The list of proposed signatories is interesting. The strategy includes the usual formulation of all states ‘from Vancouver to Vladivostok’, thus making it not strictly a ‘European’ security strategy, as well as big organisations such as the EU, OSCE, and NATO. The draft also includes the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Eurasian military bloc dominated by Russia (Eurasia Daily Monitor, December 4). The CSTO’s inclusion suggests that Moscow is trying to bring the bloc to the ‘big table’ of Euro-Atlantic organisations. This is in line with President Medvedev’s earlier attempts to bring the CSTO into line with NATO, despite the poor state of most post-Soviet militaries and continued disputes about the extent of the alliance’s mandate.

Moscow’s intentions with this treaty are obvious. NATO excludes Russia, and so cannot be considered an all-inclusive forum for European security. For Moscow NATO is a Cold War relic, created in opposition to the Soviet Union and still viewed as an attempt to contain Russian influence (even though exasperated NATO officials continue to insist that the Alliance’s priorities lie elsewhere, particularly in Afghanistan).

Although most reaction has been suspicious of the proposal, the Kremlin may actually have a point. It is odd that Euro-Atlantic security is primarily entrusted to an alliance which was founded to defend against Russia, and which Moscow continues to see as a threat. Meanwhile, the OSCE has signally failed in its mission of “bringing comprehensive and co-operative security” to the Euro-Atlantic area, as the Georgia war showed.

Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin made the point in a typically blunt fashion: "Shutting themselves into a little Western house, shuttering the windows, and believing they live in a state of security won't work…Trying to make decisions with such sectarian methods, without taking Russia's interests and opinions into account, won't work."

The OSCE and NATO both acknowledge the need to redraft the architecture of European security, and it seems counter-productive to attempt to do so without including Russia, no matter how unpalatable that may be to some. Moscow’s existence is a fact, and its cooperation is vital, not least in Afghanistan. Keen to demonstrate this, Mr Rogozin warned that Russian cooperation over transit of military supplies to Afghanistan could be jeopardised by a failure to discuss the European security treaty (RFE/RL, December 3).

None of this is to deny that Russia’s proposal is driven by self-interest, or that replacing NATO is desirable – it isn’t. However, Russia’s role in European security needs to be reassessed, as does the failure of both NATO and the OSCE to prevent the existence of conflicts. Europe and the US could rebuff the draft treaty by offering to open serious NATO membership consultations with Moscow, or by re-engineering the OSCE to be more effective in addressing regional security issues. This would put the Kremlin on the back foot and test how serious it is about overhauling Euro-Atlantic stability.

A suspicious attitude also clouds the fact that Russia is, at least, making the effort to work with Europe and the US on security issues. Approaching the subject through a legal avenue is better than threatening to point nuclear missiles at Poland or using gas supplies to blackmail the EU, as Russia has done over the last year or two.

We should acknowledge that, by even trying to start a discussion on the European security treaty, the Kremlin has begun moving back to a process of engagement and dialogue. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Moscow’s policies, this is essential.



The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

by Rick on Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:27 pm
I once read about a Russia-NATO head pops up a picture of two boxers before a fight. Both make horrible faces and threatening to pull each other eye on the ass. Usually ends up only as empty threats. Do not get me wrong, I'm all for peace in the world, but the NATO-Russia relations approaches to the transfusion of a sieve. Parties will nominate each other unacceptable and impossible conditions, thus demonstrating that the dialogue took place, the progress achieved. Until the oil runs out ...

Best regards, RcSt
classifieds [claz.org"]
craigslist search [claz.org"]
classified ads [claz.org"]


PREVIOUS ISSUES

  Caspian Compromise Backfires for Russia and Iran, CU Issue 83, November 24, 2010
  Turkey in a Tight Spot on Missile Defense, CU Issue 82, November 11, 2010
  The OSCE and Kyrgyzstan’s Election, CU Issue 81, October 30, 2010
  Unblocking the US-Azerbaijan Relationship, CU Issue 80, October 07, 2010
  Nabucco Pipeline: Quo Vadis?, CU Issue 79, September 30, 2010
  Russia tightens its grip in the South Caucasus, CU Issue 78, August 23, 2010
  Armenian Politics: Rigidity Versus Flexibility, CU Issue 77, August 10, 2010
  Russia and Georgia: Ready To Talk?, CU Issue 76, July 21, 2010
  Can the US walk and chew gum at the same time?, CU Issue 75, July 9, 2010
  The Kyrgyzstan Crisis – A Qualified Success for Turkish Diplomacy?, CU Issue 74, June 24, 2010
  Brussels downgrades the Caucasus, CU Issue 73, June 07, 2010
  NATO’s New Strategic Concept and the Caspian Region, CU Issue 72, June 01, 2010
  Joe Biden and European Security, CU Issue 71, May 13, 2010
  Behind the US-Azerbaijan row, CU Issue 70, May 6, 2010
  Turkey and Iran: The risks of failure, CU Issue 69, April 30, 2010
  Kazakhstan, the OSCE, and the crisis in Kyrgyzstan, CU Issue 68, April 19, 2010
  The Implications of the Moscow Bombings, CU Issue 67, April 12, 2010
  Iran Manoeuvres for a role in Karabakh, CU Issue 66, April 5, 2010
  The EU and Abkhazia: Between a rock and a hard place, CU Issue 65, March 16, 2010
  Fallout from the US ‘Genocide’ vote, CU Issue 64, March 9, 2010
  Ukraine's elections and future of GUAM, CU Issue 63, February 10, 2010
  Less Democracy, More Security: Kazakhstan and the OSCE, CU Issue 62, January 18, 2010
  Tackling the North Caucasus Insurgency: Development or Rhetoric?, CU Issue 61, January 11, 2010
  The Caspian Region in 2010, CU Issue 60, January 4, 2010
  The Caspian Region in 2010, CU Issue 59, December 31, 2009
  The Turkmenistan-China Pipeline Changes the Energy Balance, CU Issue 58, December 21, 2009
  Russia’s European Security Treaty, CU Issue 57, December 7, 2009
  The ‘Kidnapping War’ in Georgia and its Implications, CU Issue 56, December 3, 2009
  Azerbaijan Shifts its Energy Priorities, CU Issue 55, November 23, 2009
  The South Caucasian States and Afghanistan, CU Issue 54, November 11, 2009
  Is Turkey turning East?, CU Issue 53, November 2, 2009
  What is Russia’s Gameplan for Iran?, CU Issue 52, October 26, 2009
  Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan: Where Next?, CU Issue 51, October 19, 2009
  The Armenians of Georgia: A New Flashpoint in the Caucasus?, CU Issue 50, October 12, 2009
  Turkey’s EU Membership: Will The ‘Armenian Opening’ Help?, CU Issue 49, October 5, 2009
  The Missile Defence Shift: Implications for the Caucasus, CU Issue 48, September 22, 2009
  Rising Tensions in the Black Sea , CU Issue 47, September 14, 2009
  Armenia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan: The Clock Is Ticking, CU Issue 46, September 7, 2009
  The Battle of the Bases in Central Asia, CU Issue 45, August 31, 2009
  Russia, Israel, and the S-300s, CU Issue 44, August 24, 2009
  The motivations behind Turkey's 'Kurdish Initiative', CU Issue 43, August 17, 2009
  The Implications of the Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan Dispute, CU Issue 42, August 10, 2009
  What has changed since the August war?, CU Issue 41, August 3, 2009
  The Internal Dynamics of Armenia’s Karabakh Policy, CU Issue 40, July 20, 2009
  Gazprom’s Baku Triumph, CU Issue 39, July 06, 2009
  Ingushetia: The New Chechnya?, CU Issue 38, June 29, 2009
  Georgias Economy - A Matter for Diplomats, CU Issue 37, June 22, 2009
  ‘Progress’ In The Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process, CU Issue 36, June 08, 2009
  Iran's Azerbaijanis and the presidential election, CU Issue 35, June 01, 2009
  Nabucco and South Stream - The Race Heats Up, CU Issue 34, May 25, 2009
  China and Central Asia, CU Issue 33, May 19, 2009
  Russia, Georgia, and NATO - A Bad Week, CU Issue 32, May 11, 2009
  The Obama Administration’s Emerging Caucasus Policy, CU Issue 31, April 27, 2009
  Integration and Division in the Caspian Sea, CU Issue 30, April 20, 2009
  The Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement - Implications for the South Caucasus, CU Issue 29, April 13, 2009
  Turkey's local elections and Armenian issue, CU Issue 28, April 6, 2009
  Is There Life Left In The Nabucco Project?, CU Issue 27, March 30, 2009
  Problems and Prospects for Russian Military Reform, CU Issue 26, March 23, 2009
  Russia and Georgia: Not back to war, CU Issue 25, March 16, 2009
  Armenia: Heading towards crisis?, CU Issue 24, March 9, 2009
  Drug trafficking in the Caucasus, CU Issue 23, February 23, 2009
  Russian-led military block: A real counterweight to NATO?, CU Issue 22, February 16, 2009
  Are the International Missions in Georgia still relevant?, CU Issue 21, February 9, 2009
  Israel and Azerbaijan: Baku’s Balancing Act, CU Issue 20, February 2, 2009
  The North Caucasus in 2009: A Bleak Forecast, CU Issue 19, January 26, 2009
  The Military Balance in Nagorno-Karabakh, CU Issue 18, January 19, 2009
  Russia, Iran, and Barack Obama in 2009, Part II, CU Issue 17, January 12, 2009
  Looking forward to 2009 in the Caucasus and beyond, Part I, CU Issue 16, January 5, 2009
  The opportunities and the risks of NATO’s new supply routes, CU Issue 15, December 22, 2008
  The Black Sea Ambitions of Armenia, CU Issue 14, December 15, 2008
  Another Small Step for Nabucco, CU Issue 13, December 8, 2008
  Will Saakashvili survive politically?, CU Issue 12, December 1, 2008
  The latest fashion: conflict mediation, CU Issue 11, November 24, 2008
  The Baku Energy Summit, CU Issue 10, November 17, 2008
  Obama and the Caucasus, CU Issue 9, November 10, 2008
  Kazakhstan's oil options, CU Issue 8, November 3, 2008
  Is the Minsk Group being sidelined?, CU Issue 7, October 27, 2008
  Gas and oil developments in the Caspian region, CU Issue 6, October 20, 2008
  Where next for the Georgian peace process?, CU Issue 5, October 8, 2008
  Unrest in the North Caucasus, CU Issue 4, September 29, 2008
  Saakashvili's future, CU Issue 3, September 22, 2008
  Iran after the Georgian War, CU Issue 2, September 15, 2008
  Football diplomacy, CU Issue 1, September 8, 2008
       
 
  © 2006-2010 CRIA
  All rights reserved

Editorial Board
Advisory Board
Our Authors

Back Issues
Caucasus Update
Current Issue

Contact Us
Subscribe
Join us on Facebook