• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
08.11.2006

Rise of the UN role (In the context of Russian-Georgian relations)

   

Gagik Harutyunyan 

Russia’s decision to shift the discussions on relations with Georgia to the UN Security Council was not accepted unanimously in expert community. It is considered that that organization has lost its significance and doesn’t have any essential role in important international problems any more. The fact that 33 resolutions out of 63 adopted by the UN refer to humanitarian kind of problems of the African continent and the rest of it to suchlike problems referring to certain Asian countries and mere organizational decisions on the UN “internal business” has come to prove this standpoint. Such a situation is conditioned not only by imperfection of the UN activity system1, which has in course of time devaluated that organization’s role in the world, but also by the US persuaded strategy towards that organization.

At the same time there is a clear cut tendency of restoring UN authority in international affairs. The decisive role the UN played in settling the last Arabic-Israeli conflict has come to prove it. We have enough grounding to suppose that the UN may have an important role for Russian-Georgian confrontation as well as for the other political developments in South Caucasus.

On the UN activity: after the Cold War was over, the US considered the UN to be a structure restricting its global policy and spared no effort to discredit that organization. John Bolton’s appointment in the post of a UN representative proves the American approach to the subject: that figure is well known with his speeches directed against the UN “ideas” and tenets. The US adopted policy (which is supported by Great Britain “in a passive regime”) possibly tries to resist the other permanent members of the UN. However global domination of the US allows it to pass over the US without bothering about possible consequences (in this sense it is noteworthy the year 2003, when the US occupied Iraq disregarding the UN position). Besides, the US managed to gain certain control over the UN executive structures2, which sometimes causes a situation when the organization more expresses the US interests then its own.

However, now one can notice certain restoration of the UN status. In this sense the processes connected with the last Arabic-Israeli war should be considered to be fundamental. Maybe for the first time over the last years the decision made by the UN Security Council (number 1701) became a realistic basis and mechanism to quit Middle Eastern conflict at least temporarily. In the tactical field it is first of all conditioned by the fact that Israel didn’t manage to gain advantage over Hezbollah, as a certain power balance was established between the conflicting parties and turning to the UN mediation was the only way to break the deadlock. From military standpoint the present situation is the result of the reality that the US has lost a considerable part of its domination in the Middle Eastern territory (and taken more widely in the global international field). Today the Eurasian powers like Iran, China, and Russia efficiently compete with the US, and the leading countries of the continental Europe at least don’t support it.

The present situations of passing from the unipolar system to the multipolar makes the US review its approach to the UN. It is obvious that the strategy based only on military superiority doesn’t work efficiently any more: diplomatic technologies should be implemented, and the UN is one of the most convenient formats for it. In its turn, it makes preconditions for the political problems to be solved through compromises and arrangements, that’s to say, by the methods which seem to e buried in oblivion temporarily. Let’s notice that today a number of problems have accumulated including nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, situation in the Middle East, “frozen conflicts” in the Caucasus and elsewhere, which may be settled only on the bases of international community’s legitimized and agreed decisions.

The above mentioned circumstances and processes, in connection with the rise of the UN role, perhaps made a basis for Moscow to turn to that organization with the problem of Russian-Georgian relations.

Russian-Georgian relations and the UN resolution: Russia peruses a few objectives by including the problems with Georgia into the agenda of the UN Security Council.

Georgia’s policy in the region today expresses only the US interests. It refers not only to making so called “sanitary cordon” around Russia but also to taking energy resources of Caspian Basin under control. The first factor principally doesn’t contradict the interests of the countries of Continental Europe, which have adopted intermediate, and according to some analysts’ terminology egoistic position in North-Atlantic and Eurasian geopolitical projects. However Europe, which lacks energy resources, is too sensitive to processes in the energy field. In this context American-British monopolistic approaches contradict the interests of the European countries as they withdraw the European organizations from Pricaspian energy market. Besides, energy dependence on Russia and considerable European investments in Russian energy projects oblige Europe to be in peace with those countries in developments of the energy field.

Thus, it is not by chance that edited and softened form of “Georgian” resolution suggested to Russia in the UN and rejected by the US in the past again was put on the Security Council’s agenda by Germany’s mediation and was adopted after all.

It’s noteworthy that it happened immediately after the visit of V. Putin at Germany. The UN resolution prolongs the term of the Russian peace keepers mandate till April 2007 and commits Georgia to demilitarize Kodor canyon.

It is probable that “Georgian” (number 1716) resolution was adopted not only thanks to “European factor”. As it is known, compromises were made between the US and Russian-China on the issue of applying sanctions against North Korean nuclear test: Beijing and Moscow were against applying force against Pyongyang and, after all, the adopted resolution (in spite of the rejection by the Korean part) had a more balanced character3. One may suppose (the telephone conversation between Sergei Lavrov and Condoleezza Rise on the eve of the resolution’s almost simultaneous adoption has come to prove it) that the change of the American approach to Georgia is also a result of negotiations on South Korean issue.

Irrespective of the extent the Georgian party will meet the UN decision (agreeing to withdraw military forces from Kodor canyon, Tbilisi is not going to remove so called “Abkhazian government”) it legitimizes the present status of Georgian-Abkhazian (indirectly also Georgian-Ossian) relations, puts legal vetoes against Abkhazian and South Ossian possible annexations4 and somehow justifies and serves moral-political basis for Moscow’s possible retaliatory actions in case of war scenery.

Let’s notice that the announcements made by the Georgian party, that Russia didn’t produce any results from the UN decision, are more of information-psychological character. Maybe the Russian party didn’t succeed to the extent Moscow had planned (in particular, in the edited resolution is lacking the part condemning Tbilisi’s actions). However, one should state as a fact that for the firs time the present Georgian administration didn’t get complete support of the West in its actions against Russia. In that context it is noteworthy M. Sahakashvili’s article-message printed in “Wall Street Journal”, which calls for the west not to support Russia thus stating as a fact the existence of such a support.

Conclusions: military-political developments in South-Caucasus and their diplomatic reflection in the UN have come to prove that a new kind of correlation is being established among the great regional actors (US, Russia, EU). Such a new situation in the region is characterized by the following factors:

  • Global rise of Russia’s role makes the other geopolitical actors to reckon with that power’s interests more then in the past and look for compromising versions.
  • The latest processes in the UN have come to prove that South Caucasian problems and their possible solutions have acquired more global character then before and are being connected with other developments in the region.

1 The projects of carrying out UN reforms and especially expending the number of permanent members (having the right of veto) of the Security Council (SC) have been actively discussed recently. In particular the membership of Germany, India, Brazil, Japan and South African Republic to the Security Council are considered. However, because of contradictions among the SC permanent members, this problem hasn’t been solved up till now.

2 As a rule the UN Secretary General’s post is taken by a west-oriented person. For example, according to some sources, in his time the election of Kofi Annan was contributed by the special services of the US and Great Britain: they were carrying out actions discrediting the other candidates for the post of the Secretary General. It is noteworthy that when Kofi Annan made an attempt to act on his own (especially in connection with the Iraqi problem), immediately information on his being “corrupt” appeared in mass media y, inspection commissions were formed, etc. As a result the secretary softened his position to moot points.

3 See the appendix of the article «Северная Корея взрывает ситуацию».

4 While discussing such developments, one should take into account the fact that thanks to strict discipline of American and British trainers the Georgian army has considerably improved and become more affective.


Return
Another materials of author