news.az, Azerbaijan
Feb 20 2010
EU tries to help in resolving the NK conflict
Sat 20 February 2010 | 08:26 GMT Text size:
Volkhart Vincentz News.Az interviews Volkhart Vincentz, researcher on
convergence processes in Central and Eastern Europe, the Institute for
Eastern European Studies in Regensburg.
Azerbaijani authorities say that Karabakh conflict is a threat not
only for region of Caucasus but for all Europe. Do you agree with
that? And if it is so why EU is not active in stabilization situation
in the region?
Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict belongs to the set of frozen conflicts
that are of much concern also in Europe. The Georgian war shows that
these conflicts can rapidly turn into a military conflict, which
affects not only the region but also Europe. Therefore the EU tries to
help in resolving the NK conflict.
However, there are many players who take interest in the adversaries
of the conflict. Russia or e.g. Turkey with its special relations to
Armenia are interested parties. The EU has still severe problems in
formulating a united foreign and security policy because of
conflicting views of its 27 members. With the conclusion of the Lisbon
Treaty the situation might improve and more initiative in the NK
conflict might arise from it in future.
Azerbaijan began to export its gas to Russia in 2010. Is this
cooperation threat for Nabucco project?
Russia tries to secure its influence on potential energy deliveries
from the CIS to EU by purchasing on long-term basis energy from the
CIS partners. The EU tries with the Nabucco pipeline to diversify its
energy supply. In economic terms the Nabucco pipeline is about more
competition that will be introduced among the suppliers of European
energy. As long as Russia has a dominant position as a supplier it can
charge monopoly prices from the purchaser (EU) and offer low prices to
CIS suppliers because they have not other way (pipeline outside
Russia) to transport their energy. Thus, the new pipeline can help
both parties by limiting the Russian market power.
The EU can get a more diversified, i.e. more secure supply and the
other CIS countries have an additional distribution channel without
Russia as middlemen. In their own interest all parties involved will
use the higher competition to benefit by reducing the profit margin of
the middleman. I am sure that the countries will take these
considerations into account by formulating contracts about their
energy sales to Russia.
Don’t you think that there is not much understanding yet from Russia’s
side in its approaches to contacts of its neighbors with the West?
There are many legitimate or less legitimate reasons for Russia’s
concern about its near abroad intensifying their relations to the
West. It is plausible that the extension of NATO raises security
concerns in Russia. Preserving its role of a major European energy
supplier is another area in which Russia seeks support from countries
of the GUS. Further, it cannot be in the interest of Russia that trade
flows are diverted to the West on the expense of its own trading
opportunities.
On the other hand, many politicians seem to view Russia as a
superpower and consider it a historical law that Russia is dominating
its surroundings. The `Putin Doctrine’ became evident in Georgia and
is latent in the relations to Ukraine. However, the moral and public
support for Russia from its neighbours and Eastern Europe is low or at
least ambiguous. The Russian soft power is weak. In addition, the
rather declining military strength in the last decades and limited
economic capabilities beyond energy lead to a gap between political
ambitions and reality.
W.W.
News.Az