Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
May 27, 2005, Friday
ANDREI ISHCHUK: RUSSIA MUST PROTECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE POST-SOVIET
ZONE
SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, May 27, 2005, p. 5
by Sergei Sokolov
The first sector of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline went into
operation on May 25. The capacity of the pipeline is 50 million tons
of oil. The new facility greatly changes the geopolitical arrangement
of forces in the vast region spanning Central Asia, the Caucasus, and
the Caspian Sea. Russia could easily transport all this oil. Why
haven’t things worked out that way? What problems in relations with
our neighbors have our leaders failed to solve so far? Here is an
interview with Andrei Ishchuk, deputy chairman of the Federation
Council CIS affairs committee.
Andrei Ishchuk: America has skillfully promoted its own interests
again. Russia does not need the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. It
isn’t hard to guess that redistribution of oil flows will weaken
Russian influence.
It may be added that the territory where Moscow’s influence is
weakening is extremely unstable. Relations between Azerbaijan and
Armenia leave much to be desired. Georgia is constantly trying to
play a more active role in regional affairs. In fact, Kazakhstan
alone stands to benefit from all this. Its leaders expertly promote a
resolute but non-confrontational policy with regard to
neighbor-states.
The decision to build the pipeline was made in 1994, and Russian
leaders had ample time to channel the developments in the direction
they needed. They failed. As a result, we end with total American
control along a substantial part of Russia’s state borders. This
control will inevitably evolve into interference in the internal
affairs of oil exporters and transit countries, including Georgia.
No wonder the problem of Russian bases in Georgia is the talk of the
day now. America intends to deploy its own military contingents where
the Russian military is stationed nowadays. The US Administration is
prepared to spend $100 million on defense of the Caspian zone.
Question: Would you say that Russian-Georgian relations have entered
a impasse?
Andrei Ishchuk: We’ve been neighbors and friends for too long. The
things we have in common outweigh our differences. It would be the
height of folly to sever long-established commercial, transport, and
cultural relations. That would primarily hurt Georgia itself.
Question: How and when the problem of withdrawal of the bases will be
solved?
Andrei Ishchuk: Official Moscow made it plain more than once that the
withdrawal was not going to follow the Georgian or American scenario.
Everything is to be settled at talks. A lot of details have to be
sorted out – financial, organizational, political. I don’t think that
the Georgian people does not have problems more pressing than
withdrawal of Russian bases. It has, and the problems are pressing
indeed. Unemployment, for example. I doubt that Tbilisi’s partners
across the ocean are eager to create jobs for Georgians.
Question: Is Russia eager to do so?
Andrei Ishchuk: Georgia has enough means of attracting Russian
investors, including corporations. Georgia lacks raw materials. It
lacks electricity generating capacities. Its transport capacities are
extremely limited and technically obsolete. I don’t doubt that
Russian energy companies, railroads, and industrialists in general
have much to offer Tbilisi.
Question: How do you think our relations with the Baltic states will
develop?
Andrei Ishchuk: I’m convinced that no matter how hard some Baltic
politicians strive to sever all contacts with Russia, they are doomed
to fail. The territorial claims which the Baltic states produce every
now and then are absolutely groundless. Escalating these issues could
destabilize the situation. We have not forgotten about ancestral
Russian lands and territories, but we respect international law. That
is something I cannot say about the leaders of Latvia. They demand
recognition of “occupation” as applied to a substantial part of their
history; they are prepared to write off the past of a whole
generation. The next instant, however, they come up with territorial
claims. That’s a policy of double standards, pure and simple. Russia
should respond to it appropriately. Fortunately, we have ample means
and resources for that.
Question: But the West has ample resources as well.
Andrei Ishchuk: It is time we recognized that Russia’s geostrategic
interests differ from the West’s. That’s normal. No matter what
politicians from across the Atlantic might be saying, splitting
Russia from Europe is their number one objective and priority. They
seek to take over raw materials, resources, pipelines, and transport
systems. Over there, they do not want a united Europe, let alone a
Europe in partnership with Russia. All this has to be remembered and
taken into consideration. Russia must protect its interests in the
post-Soviet zone and do everything possible to promote them. Among
other things, it needs a more expansive and energetic policy in the
matter of oil markets. Oil production is great, but marketing,
technologies, logistics should not be ignored either. Thinking in
terms of progress is what is needed. Unfortunately, we’ve only been
responding to the situation instead of trying to shape it to our
satisfaction.
Question: Do you think we should expect more color revolutions?
Andrei Ishchuk: The chances of color revolutions being exported are
indeed high. The policy of the West in Eastern Europe is restricted
to containment or even isolation of Russia. We should face that, and
take it in our stride, while always remembering that this policy is
unacceptable to us. Isolation of Russia would be an effective means
of making the Russian authorities predictable, of taking over. We
need a firm but consistent policy to respond to this strategy, not a
policy of confrontation.
We are not entirely without leverages, you know. I’m talking about
joint parliamentary commissions, establishment of Russian education
centers in post-Soviet countries, propaganda of the Russian language.
If we want a stable and predictable world, we should do something to
help it come into being. Whoever possesses strategic thinking always
gets the upper hand, nowadays. I repeat again, we need a policy of
expansion into world oil markets. Let us be active instead of sitting
tight and calculating losses.
In the meantime, we should always remember that the countries
surrounding Russia are sovereign states. Their peoples themselves
choose their own way of life. It is an entirely different matter if
what is actually chosen is indeed the people’s own choice.
Thoughtless attempt to rock the boat, particularly in Central Asia,
may lead to escalation of international conflicts, and that is
something nobody – even the United States and Europe – needs.
Question: And yet, what happened in Ukraine and Georgia sets an
example for others. Nearby Belarus, for example.
Andrei Ishchuk: I believe that the people of Belarus are wise enough
to tell cause from effect. America’s interest in Belarus is entirely
understandable. This is the last territory between Russia and Western
Europe which the US Administration does not control yet. It would be
quite naive to think that Western investment will follow color
revolutions to Belarus. Investment will come sooner – it’s already
coming in, actually – from Russia. That goes for oil and gas transit
as well.
As for Ukraine, I dare say that the revolutionary euphoria there is
about to fade away. Life goes on. The government of Ukraine has to
start thinking about how to make life in the country acceptable and
not about how to lure the people into the streets. So far, it has not
been very successful. Prices soar, inflation is getting out of hand.
Official Kiev doesn’t even have a clear foreign policy – other than
being willing and eager to make friends with the United States. Well,
the Ukrainians can be friends with whomever they want, but it won’t
do to forget that Ukraine shares a border with Russia. Along the
Black Sea, too. Russia will not permit the Black Sea to be used in
the interests of the West alone.
Translated by A. Ignatkin