HistoryofTruth.com - Armenian Allegations

Q: How could you characterize the common situation on conflicts in Post-Soviet area? Which of these conflicts has more chances to be resolved?

A: Of course, it is difficult to speak about a common situation in an area that spans two continents with so many ethnic groups, religions, languages, political views, geopolitical and geoeconomic situations. That said, there are two related commonalities across the region. First, for at least a century and a half—in many cases much more—the region was dominated by first the Russian, then the Soviet empires. This sublimated many conflicts, or at least hid them from view, retarded modernization and obliterated any kind of political maturation. Moreover, in a divide-and-conquer strategy, Russians and Soviets actually broadcast the seeds of discord. This led to the second commonality, which is that Russia still meddles in the affairs of people and countries throughout the post-Soviet space. It makes a very volatile situation. So, though there are always local seeds of any conflict, all share these two things. As for conflict resolution, well, that is hard to say. I think westerners use this term too loosely. After all, western Europeans were viciously at each other’s throats until 65 years ago. Conflicts can be managed and ameliorated and in time, resolved. Those that do get better will do so because of a combination of greater western involvement and—and I stress and—growing political will of the people in the regions concerned.

Q: After the war in Georgia in august, 2008 the USA and EU showed the weak reaction on Russian occupation of Georgian territories. Does it mean that America and Europe refuse of the Post-Soviet area?

A: Yes, the reaction of the west—US and EU—was woefully inadequate, not only for the people of Georgia, but also for the west’s own interests. However, I do not think that this signaled that the west is giving up or abandoning the region. Rather, the pitiful western reaction to Russia’s invasion of Georgia—which continues to this day—is a symptom of a fourfold crisis in western leadership. First, emerging from the epic conflict that was the Cold War, westerners are no longer sure that they can or even should lead. Second, and related to the first, so many long-repressed political issues have come to the fore in the western countries. People—and political systems—are simply consumed with domestic affairs. And the world economic downturn has exacerbated this phenomenon. Third, in such a political climate, America plunged itself into two costly and apparently interminable wars. This sapped resources and attention, drained what little popular interest existed in foreign affair and split the alliance. Finally, and most important, the west simply does not get it. It wants to live in a 21st Century post-historical world and it simply does not understand that most of Eurasia lives in an exceedingly 20th Century historical world. Consequently, it missed the geopolitical significance—including missing its own interests—of Russia’s war on Georgia. Moreover, it simply does not understand the ruthless nature of Vladimir Putin or of Putin’s Russia. The upshot is that Russia invades with tanks and the west responds with bits of paper. Russia tears up the papers and occupies another country and the west sweeps it all under the carpet.

Q: Do you believe in possibility of the peaceful settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict till the end of this year?

A: No. I think with hard work and good will there could be progress this year. But it is pointless—even harmful—to set unrealistic goals and expectations.

Q: Iran considers that Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be resolved only with mediatory of the regional countries because they are interested in regional development and prosperity. How could you comment this position?

A: This position is simplistic and, worse, self-serving. What Iranian diplomats mean is that they want westerners, particularly Americans out of the region. Well, that isn’t going to happen because there are western interests in the region. Moreover, the South Caucasus without the US and the EU would simply leave the field open for competition among the three major powers—Russia, Iran and Turkey. Don’t imagine that these countries are benign or without their own interests just because they are regional neighbors. The reality is that western interest in the region is stabilizing. Of course, that does not mean that everything every western country does is good or smart or disinterested. But the region needs more, not less US and EU engagement. By the way, one often hears a similar theme from Turkish diplomats—same answer.

Q: Some Caspian countries consider that the real and reliable security system in this region can be built only by regional states themselves without any participation of non-regional countries. Do you share this opinion?

A: In the long run, real security in the region can come and be sustained only by the people and governments of the region. They must have greater interest in any solutions that emerge than do the outsiders. That said, the region has always been a cauldron of conflict. There are too many animosities and too many interests to imagine that everything can be sorted out without help from outside. Moreover, the outsiders have interests too and these must be reconciled if there is going to be a sustainable security system. As I said before, there is no easy answer, no formula.

Q: At the same time Russia remains in force its proposal to US about common exploitation of Gabala radar station to prevent the possible threat from Iran. Doesn’t this proposal contradict Moscow’s position not to let any non-regional country to the Caspian region? Can US accept the Russia’s offer about Gabala station in the future?

A: Well, I shall leave to the Russians the matter of whether their policies are self-contradicting. Anyway, it is not a serious proposal—it was tossed out as a red herring to divert US missile defense efforts, particularly our cooperation with the Czech Republic and Poland. Gabala is a decrepit, Soviet-era early warning radar. Its location, so close to Iran is deceivingly attractive, which is why Putin used it. However, we do not need an early warning radar so close to Iran; we need a tracking radar in central Europe. Frankly, I do not believe Moscow is interested in real missile defense cooperation, but in the current political environment, it reaps benefits by pretending to be interested.

Q: What kind of threat do you see from Iran and its nuclear program to Iranian neighbors and Azerbaijan in particular?

A: Countries acquire nuclear weapons to achieve geopolitical objectives, and Iran is no exception. The threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon is not so much in its use—although that cannot be excluded—but in further, radical destabilization of the region. (And the region, in this case, stretches from North Africa to Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf well into central Eurasia.) Affected countries will not stand by idly, so the potential for conflict—conflicts—is greatly increased. Needless to say, lighting such a fire above the tinderbox of the South Caucasus would be very dangerous.

Q: Iran and Russia are against the project of Trans-Caspian gas pipeline. At the same time Russia tries to prevent the realization of NABUCCO project. What will be the destiny of these projects?

A: There is a simple logic here. The western countries don’t like to say it too loudly, but they desperately want to develop energy routes that circumvent Russia. Russia unabashedly wants to maintain its quasi-monopoly on Eurasian energy routes. So the game of dueling projects, offers and counteroffers and competing contracts will continue. In reality, Russia has not the money, technology or the energy sources to play this game forever. On the other hand, western countries are unaccustomed to spending money for energy security, but they are gradually realizing that it is no different than spending money on defense, anti-terrorism or for that matter road safety or environmental security. So, the Russian and western trend lines will play out for a few more years, but the result will be that some of these projects—and Nabucco is looking more realistic these days—will be built.

Ambassador David J. Smith is Director of Georgian Security Analysis Center (Tbilisi), and Senior Fellow of Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (Washington).

News.Az