NATO leader visits South Caucasus
ISN, Switzerland
Oct 9 2004
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer visited the three South
Caucasus countries in early November to signal the alliance’s
commitment to the region and to encourage leaders to take advantage
of Individual Partnership Plans (IPAPs).
By Vladimir Socor for The Jamestown Foundation (09/11/04)
On 3-5 November, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
visited, for the first time in this capacity, the three South
Caucasus countries. He conferred with the head of state, the defense
minister, the military leadership, and other top officials in each of
the three capitals. The visit’s goal was twofold: to signal that
NATO’s Partnership program is rapidly moving its focus towards this
region, as decided at the alliance’s summit in Istanbul in June; and
to encourage the three countries to take advantage of Individual
Partnership Plans (IPAPs). Ambassador Robert Simmons, newly appointed
as the NATO Secretary-General’s Special Representative for the South
Caucasus and Central Asia, accompanied de Hoop Scheffer on the visit.
NATO views IPAPs as the instrument that allows willing partners to
develop individualized relationships with NATO, focusing on military
reform, establishment of effective state institutions, and certain
basic democratization goals. IPAPs are two-year programs, with their
implementation assessed at periodic review conferences. IPAP can
potentially serve as an avenue towards membership for countries that
aspire to that status; the alliance’s motto in this regard being that
it would go as far as the country chooses to go, subject to IPAP
performance.
Georgia’s NATO hopes
Georgia became the first South Caucasus country to have its IPAP
approved by NATO. Originally submitted ahead of the Istanbul summit
for promulgation there, the document was ultimately accepted by the
North Atlantic Council in Brussels on 29 October. In the joint news
conference with de Hoop Scheffer in Tbilisi, President Mikhail
Saakashvili reaffirmed Georgia’s goal to join NATO as a full member
before the end of Saakashvili’s second and final presidential term –
a goal he had first announced during his recent visit to the Baltic
states. Without dampening Saakashvili’s optimism, de Hoop Scheffer
tempered it with realism by remarking that a long winding road leads
towards full membership. He stated openly for the first time that
Georgian membership was possible, and noted “an enormous drive on the
part of the Georgian government and people to fulfill that ambition”.
Remarks by both sides during the visit indicated that NATO’s liaison
officer for the South Caucasus would be stationed at the Defense
Ministry in Tbilisi. The NATO leader chose a cautious, non-specific
wording to remind Russia of its obligations to fulfill the 1999
Istanbul Commitments regarding Georgia. He expressed his “hope” in a
bilateral Russian-Georgian “solution” to the problem of Russian
troops and bases, rather than calling for an internationally assisted
withdrawal of those forces from Georgia. Georgia is already behaving
as a de facto ally, with platoon-size units serving under NATO
command in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and company-size units with the
US-led coalition in Iraq, where Georgia is now augmenting its
contingent to 300 troops and has offered to increase it further to
850. Georgia is balancing its security consumer’s role with that of a
security provider in both the NATO and the ad hoc coalition context.
In Azerbaijan
In Azerbaijan, final preparations for NATO approval of that country’s
IPAP topped the agenda of de Hoop Scheffer’s visit. Deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov, who handles Azerbaijan-NATO relations, noted
that procedural issues had held up IPAP’s promulgation since the
Istanbul summit. The document also includes a concept for developing
Azerbaijani rapid-deployment units for service with NATO’s Response
Force. As could be expected, de Hoop Scheffer faced persistent public
questioning in Baku about NATO’s position on the Armenia-Azerbaijan
conflict and a possible NATO role in conflict-settlement. His answers
indirectly confirmed NATO’s reluctance to take a position or play a
role. He advised Azerbaijan that it was perhaps time to “turn a page”
in its approach to Karabakh conflict-settlement. For his part, Azimov
held out the possibility of NATO contributing peacekeeping troops to
an international contingent, if one were deployed in the conflict
zone under an international organization’s mandate. The familiar
small group of Karabakh Liberation Organization militants staged a
vociferous picket during de Hoop Scheffer’s visit, protesting
preventively against Armenian participation in an upcoming NATO
Parliamentary Assembly seminar in Baku. The police rounded up a few
of the protestors only after they had finished their demonstration.
Milli Majlis Chairman Murtuz Aleskerov declared that Armenians could
be allowed to participate in this seminar because they are civilian,
rather than military. In September, Azerbaijan’s leaders, including
Aleskerov, had ruled out the participation of a few Armenian military
officers in NATO’s Cooperative Best Effort 2004 large-scale staff
exercise in Baku, thereby leaving NATO no choice but to cancel this
annual event. Azerbaijan’s NATO aspirations suffered an unnecessary
setback as a result of political advisers overruling the foreign
policy professionals on this matter and giving in to a handful of
militants. Inclusiveness is a bedrock principle of NATO’s Partnership
programs. Further setbacks may ensue if political advisers insist
that Azerbaijan, rather than NATO, should determine what kind of
personnel may or may not participate in NATO exercises in Azerbaijan.
In Armenia
In Armenia, de Hoop Scheffer underscored the significance of that
country’s recent decision to draft an IPAP with NATO and to appoint
an envoy to the alliance. Implicitly acknowledging the national
tradition of close links with Russia, he noted in an address to
Yerevan University faculty and students that Armenia may develop its
NATO partnership without damaging its relations with Russia, and that
any residual mistrust towards NATO was a Soviet propaganda legacy.
Armenia could prove that a country can maintain close relations with
Russia while becoming an active NATO Partner, he concluded. One
pro-NATO politician, Hovhanes Hovhanissian of the Liberal Progressive
Party, commented that good relations with Russia need not mean being
“Russia’s vassal”, local media reported. At every stop during the
visit, de Hoop Scheffer made the point that NATO does not compete
with any country or organization (that is, Russia and the CIS
Collective Security Treaty Organization, of which Armenia is a
member) in the region. He underscored that NATO has no intentions,
plans, or interest in establishing military bases in the South
Caucasus, nor would this meet the interests of the region’s
countries.
–Boundary_(ID_g+hc6ziAuWMrT89+dHrn2g)–