news.az, Azerbaijan
Dec 5 2009
Moscow respects Azerbaijan’s multi-directional policy – analyst
Sat 05 December 2009 | 06:52 GMT Text size:
Dmitry Polikanov News.Az interviews Dmitry Polikanov, vice president
of the Russian Centre for Political Studies.
Could you comment on reports that the Canadian delegation has blocked
the adoption of all documents at the upcoming NATO-Russia Council
meeting?
Unfortunately, not everyone is completely free of the stereotypes of
the `cold war’. There are some countries within NATO that do not want
rapprochement between Russia and the alliance for clear, pragmatic
reasons. Any confrontation always requires additional budgets, an
opportunity to derive political dividends, mobilize public opinion.
Nevertheless, Russia and NATO are cooperating in areas and on issues
where they cannot do without each other. These include the drug threat
posed by Afghanistan, the security of nuclear arsenals and nuclear
weapons nonproliferation. The optimistic and constructive tone taken
by the alliance’s new secretary general gives hope. I believe that
during the negotiations the sides will stop putting pressure on each
other and start to coordinate the action plan for 2010.
Might post-Soviet countries join NATO in the near future?
I think it highly unlikely, because neither the alliance nor the
post-Soviet countries are ready for this. It does not mean that the
process of their transformation and adaptation to NATO standards will
not continue, though. NATO remains the main tool of military security
in Europe. Even Russia’s initiative for a new agreement on European
security would be just a political solution creating the legal
skeleton of security architecture while the muscles would be NATO’s.
Therefore, in the long-term some CIS states may prefer membership of
the alliance to neutrality and Russia should be ready for this. It
should take this into consideration in its policy and define limits,
create bilateral cooperation mechanisms and interaction through the
Russia-NATO Council, adjust the military doctrine – and not
necessarily by making it tougher – and adjust the parameters of the
armed forces to take into account the new nature of threats and
configuration of borders.
Do you think confrontation (political or other) between the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and NATO is possible in the
Caucasus, considering the similarity of their interests, or is
cooperation between them more likely?
Unfortunately, NATO is not ready for cooperation with the CSTO. The
CSTO has repeatedly proposed cooperation but the alliance does not
shake hands with it. On the one hand, this is logical as the bloc
approach should stay in the past. On the other hand, the CSTO,
especially with the formation of the collective forces, is becoming a
real security structure in the post-Soviet area that cannot be
ignored. Nevertheless, confrontation between the CSTO and NATO in the
South Caucasus is highly unlikely. In the end, Armenia is the only
country that could have such a "split conscience". But Yerevan manages
to combine a high level of trust with Russia and simultaneously to
develop normal and mutually profitable cooperation with NATO. Thus, if
it comes to confrontation, it will occur along the traditional
Russia-NATO line. Nevertheless, I want to believe that the countries
have drawn conclusions from the August war in Georgia and will not
allow third countries to interfere and spoil relations between Moscow
and the alliance.
Azerbaijan is actively cooperating with NATO within the framework of
the Partnership for Peace programme and the individual partnership
action plan. At the same time Baku has recently mentioned its
intention to raise this cooperation to the partnership level. Does
this create concern in Moscow?
Moscow respects the multi-directional and balanced policy of
Azerbaijan. Intensive cooperation is perceived quite calmly if it does
not pose a direct threat to Russia, especially because
Russian-Azerbaijani relations and diplomatic cooperation and so on are
developing no less effectively.
The West (the USA and EU) and Turkey have recently shown active
interest in the stabilization of the situation in the South Caucasus,
making different initiatives on this. Doesn’t this make Russia
jealous, as it has historically been the leading force in the country?
There is no sense of jealousy. Russia supported the normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations and spared no efforts to see this process
through. Moreover, Moscow is greatly interested in stabilization of
the situation in the South Caucasus, in reliable and predictable
partners there, in the peaceful resolution of frozen conflicts. This
was behind the attempts to restore dialogue between Armenia and
Azerbaijan on Karabakh. Moreover, Russia is closely cooperating with
Turkey on the settlement of security issues in the region and it
welcomed the Turkish initiative on the creation of the negotiation
platform on security. Certainly, some experts think that the increased
involvement of the United States will distance these countries from
Russia and so on. But this view does not predominate. It is rather an
attempt to view everything within the framework of the old
geopolitical approaches, the view on "pipeline" policy (either oil or
gas). Multilateral approaches, including with the participation of the
EU, may be more effective, especially as they will alleviate concerns
in some South Caucasus countries about the political commitment of
Russia. Long-lasting conflicts in the region can be settled only
through binding interests and in this case, as they say, "two heads
are better than one".
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
