• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
17.07.2006

Geopolitical shifts in Eurasia: clarification of orientations

   

Gagik Ter-Harutyunyan 

In the present state of affairs the world’s greatest geopolitical actors began claiming from Post-Soviet countries to make their orientation of foreign policy more precise, as a result of which they faced a difficulty to make a choice: they have already come to multilateral agreements before that, the violation of which would lead to serious problems.

In this situation the Armenian Republic, with growing influence of Russia, was not an exception. In foreign policy it is particularly expressed by Armenia’s tough position towards Karabakh issue, which is perhaps conditioned by some guarantees given by the Russian party (the announcement of Sergay Ivanov made in Baku, where he stressed up “inadmissibility of outward pressure” in case of Nagorny-Karabakh issue has come to prove it, where he didn’t exclude the possibility of introduction of Russian peace-makers into the zone of conflict). It seems that Russia’s position today agree with our interests, however, one should take into account that such a position of Armenia may lead to contradictions with the US: This power state hasn’t yielded its position of a global leader yet and has a number of levers of influence on quite different spheres of international life.

Russia’s rising influence is also obvious in RA home affairs. It seems that the later developments, connected with the party “Orinac Yerkir”, are to some extent conditioned by changes in geopolitical orientations of RA. There is an impression that today’s newly-fledged political unions are also to some extent under the pressure of Russia. These processes may also make problems in relations with the West.

To be better oriented in the variety of above mentioned problems, one should briefly consider military-political situation in the territory of Eurasia and have it as a basis for making an attempt to predict future possible developments.

Developments in the format of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

On June 15 in Shanghai took place the jubilee summit of SCO (the 5th anniversary since the organization has been founded). For about 10 documents were signed with EurAsC, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the secretariat of Asian-Pacific Economic cooperation and other international organizations. A position of SCO General Secretary was established, which is more likely to be taken by the representative of Kazakhstan.

Issues on membership to SCO were also included into the summit’s agenda. Today Afghanistan, Belarus and Sri Lanka want to be granted the status of observers, but Iran and Pakistan have claimed for turning into full members from the category of observer. Let’s notice that there is not any normative document according to which this or that country is granted the membership to the organization and such questions are decided on the basis of consensus among the parties. In this context it is characteristic that still at the meeting of the foreign ministers of SCO countries was pointed out that it is dangerous to enlarge the full members list artificially, as it may change the organization’s orientation. In this connection, the experts point out that for example the US will try to change SCO sphere of activities through Pakistan (if the latter becomes a full member).

In this aspect it may seem that Iran, which now has a status of an observer and the geopolitical orientation of which casts no doubt, had more chances to become SCO full member. However, at the present stage SCO did not hurry to include this country into the organization: this step would turn SCO into an obvious “Anti-American” block, which China and Russia still avoid of. At the same time Iran’s cooperation with SCO countries go stronger. Iran’s president Ahmadinejad came to an important agreement in the field of energy and particularly gas price joint regulation with Russia’s president V. Putin in Shanghai.

It’s worth mentioning the fact that SCO’s format is more advantageous for Russia, which gained additional leverages of influence in the Middle Asian republics. It is known that till recently Kyrghizia was accepted as the “weak part” of the middle Asia (from SCO’s standpoint). But today one can state as a fact that this republic began accepting Russia’s rules of play. It is outwardly expressed by consistent discontent and demands made of the US in connection with fee for allocating the American base in the Republic. It is also characteristic consecutive changes in the field of home policy as a result of which pro-Russian figures take the offices of high ranking officials (including Bakiev’s personnel).

One should state as a fact that SCO has already established itself as a new centre of power, which first of all differs from such kind of structures by its ideological approaches. Today the expression of “Shanghai spirit” has been put into circulation in information field, which supposes respectful attitude to political-cultural issues of the SCO member stets and doesn’t accept the Western imperative attitude based on so called “democracy” and other “universal” values. In this sense SCO may become quite attractive for the other Asian countries.

The US new initiatives

The US has considerably made its strategies directed to Asia more active. It is even expressed quantitatively in diplomatic field: In 2006 the US State Department decided to increase diplomatic staff in Asian countries at the expense of reducing it in Western Europe. Such a change in State Department’s tactics is conditioned by the fact that “the focal point” of global policy and economy gradually moves to Asia and the American government tries to react the fact adequately.

The bill presented by the senator Sam Brownback (the possible candidate for presidency in the coming elections), according to which the US provided aid to Central Asia and South Caucasus should be enlarged, has come to prove it. It was grounded by the necessity to strengthen the US strategic interests, limit Russia’s geopolitical aspirations and neutralize Iran’s influence. In the context of South Caucasus Brownback only takes up Azerbaijan and Georgia (RA is not reminded) and points out the necessity to settle “frozen” conflicts.

The US other initiatives are connected with East-European countries. In particular at the summit of GUAM (Georgia-Ukraine-Azerbaijan-Moldova) held in Kiev not long ago were accepted the following decisions.

  • To form a free economic zone out of GUAM countries;
  • To establish a so called energetic council, which will have to ensure energetic security of the organization’s member states.
  • To rename GUAM the name of an international organization “In the name of democracy and development”, the founder of which also desired to become Rumania, Poland and Bulgaria.

GUAM’s Anti-Russian orientation is obvious. Let add to this the decision to establish a big American military base in Bulgaria as well as the announcement made by the US that in all probability anti-missile complexes will be established destined to protect East European territory from Iranian missiles. The Iranian missiles, with the range of 1300 km, are not technically able to reach to Europe, and it is obvious that the aim of these complexes is to limit Russia in launching a rocket blow1. In this connection Russia’s joint stuff general has already made the appropriate announcement and at present unproportional (asymmetrical) methods are being worked out to pass round American systems.

Some conclusions

A violent competition began between the US and the partner couple Russia-China. Today one can already state as a fact the progresses and failures the parties have had for the last years.

The US strategic achievements are:

  • Considerable strengthening of its influence in Post-Soviet countries-Georgia, Ukraine and Moldavia.
  • The US managed to include the East-European countries- Rumania, Poland and Bulgaria into its sphere of influence giving their policy pro-Atlantic, anti-Eurocentrist orientation and thus splitting Europe.

At present work is carried out to unite the above mentioned countries into the format of “In the name of democracy and development”, to give their policy obvious anti-Russian direction. It is characteristic that Azerbaijan, which is included into the format, is ideologically far from the format “in the name of democracy” and has other geopolitical preferences; however, being “set” into a certain format the Azerbaijani authorities will have to meet the “Anti-Russian” engagements entrusted to it.

Among the US strategic loses should be considered its failure in Iraq and its considerable reduction of influence in Central Asia, first of all in Uzbekistan and Kirghizia.

The strategic achievements of Russian-China partner couple are:

  • Strengthening of SCO and the inclusion of Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan and partially Kazakhstan into its sphere of influence as well as expansion of Russia’s presence in South Caucasus.
  • Establishment of cooperation with the Central European countries-German and France (the visits of German chancellor A. Merkel to Russia and China should be perceived in this context).

There is an impression that there is a certain balance of power between the parties. Preservation or shake in this balance mainly depends on:

  • The results of confrontation between Iran and the US. If the US manages to destroy the Iranian regime by “peaceful” or military means, then one may accept that this power state will go on carrying out its offensive strategy, and particularly its domination in our region2.
  • The US presidential elections. If the democrats come to power one may accept that self-isolation tendencies will prevail in the US. In this case it is not excluded that the US will withdraw its troops from Iraq and reduce its presence in the region.

SCO is still developing evenly and there are not obvious reasons for essential changes in the policy of China or Russia.

The above mentioned developments have come to prove that in the following two years Russia should not hurry to make its geopolitical orientation more precise and try to peruse multi-dimensional policy.

1 According to the American anti-missile tactics it is easy to destroy the rival’s missiles when the latters are just gaining height. However for this purpose it is necessary for unti-missiles to be situated as close to the enemy’s missile lands as possible, to “manage” to blow the rocket while it is making a start. That’s why the US aims at allocating anti-missile systems close to Russian and Chinese boundaries.

2 Let’s notice that some experts think that the US-Iran military confrontation may be advantageous for China, as in such a way the US will be “stuck” in and will come off second-best like in the case of Vietnam.


Return
Another materials of author