“I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s — and precisely in today’s — world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.
“Along with this, what is happening in today’s world — and we just started to discuss this — is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world. And with which results? Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. …
“Today we are witnessing an almost [unconstrained] hyper use of force — military force — in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
“We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations.”
This quote from Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech in February 2007 has not become irrelevant, but has even gained new evidence of his vision. Today, billions of people witness the cruel killing of the leader of a sovereign country and the lynching of his sons and grandsons.
The EU state television channel Euronews, which, by the way, is partly-owned by Russia, warned about the cruelty of broadcasting the video of the killing of Muammar Gadhafi, and completed its report with cynical quote: “From now on, the people of Libya have the right to determine their own future.”*
From now on, any regime of any country that does not have sufficient forces and means to resist an internal rebellion, isolation and the military aggression of NATO shall have no choice. Hasn’t the most newsworthy news items in the post-Soviet countries in the last few months been concerned with the possibility of the emergence of the Arab Spring scenario in the region?
No one can seriously argue that [Uzbek President] Islam Karimov and [Turkmen President] Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow are truly more democratic than the lynched Gadhafi. Isn’t this reason why today we are witnessing an active docking of the interests of Washington with that of Tashkent and Ashgabat? On the day of the massacre of Gadhafi, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Uzbekistan. The coincidence!
In May 2004, three years before the Putin’s speech in Munich, the Russian first deputy minister of foreign affairs, and former director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Vyacheslav Trubnikov said that, in spite of earlier agreements, Americans will not leave Central Asia and the Caucasus after the anti-Taliban operations.
“The U.S. presence in the former Soviet Union in recent years has grown greatly. It’s not only in the Caucasus but also Central Asia. Much will depend on how we will build our relations with the CIS countries. Should we confront, or raise the hands, or be neutral toward the U.S. presence? … [A]fter all it [Central Asia and Caucasus] is a sphere of our vital interests. It is our priority and, of course, the presence of non-regional powers can not make us happy. There is a certain limit. There are certain agreements with us, so why have they gone there?” commented Trubnikov.
In August 2003, referring to the presence of American forces in Central Asia and the Caucasus, Iranian Ambassador to Russia Gholam-Reza Shafei, in a meeting with Trubnikov, said that “[the U.S.] goal is to move from south to north.” During Hillary Clinton’s visit to Tashkent on Oct. 21, 2011, she said, “Despite the fact that Russia has its own interests in Central Asia, the U.S. has its own interests here as well. We are in favor of reforms in the region so that the economy of these countries can be developed and get integrated.”*
That is to say, Washington has long been openly saying that its presence in the region is not solely concerned with the problems in Afghanistan, but also with the integration of the Central Asian economies as well as their energy and transport capacities.
Putin published the article titled “A new integration project for Eurasia — the future is born today” on Oct. 3, 2011. It outlined the frames of the foreign policy of his possible presidency. The article is an initiative to create a new model of “a powerful supranational union that can become one of the poles of today’s world” — the Eurasian Union.
“The combination of natural resources, capital, and strong human potential will make the Eurasian Union competitive in the industrial and technological race and the race for investor money, new jobs, and advanced production facilities. Along with other key players and regional institutions such as the EU, the U.S., China and APEC, it will ensure the sustainability of global development,” concluded Putin.
Putin’s internationally-oriented policy for the future, as opposed to Medvedev’s current domestic modernization is quite natural. The “reset” policy between the United States and Russia, announced during the critical strain of the situation in the Caucasus by Medvedev and Obama served only to delay the explosion. But it did not stop the dangerous strain in the system of international relations caused by the reasons outlined in Putin’s Munich speech.
Obviously, the antidote to unilateralism can only be provided by multipolarity, that is, the creation of other alternative poles of power. It is also clear that the alternative poles will be viable only if its total capacity will be comparable with the resources of the current monopolist (the U.S.). What followed the publication of the Putin’s article?
A treaty to establish a free trade zone among the CIS states was signed in St. Petersburg on Oct. 18, 2011. The work behind this treaty took 10 years. This agreement was signed by all CIS countries except Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The economies of these three key countries have already started to “develop and integrate” with the United States. The current intensity of political dialogue between Washington, Ashgabat and Tashkent gives Americans a hope for success.
The U.S. delegation to NATO supported the appropriation of membership program to Georgia in NATO on Oct. 10, 2011 (through MAP — Membership Action Plan). “NATO’s enlargement poses no threat to any nation; on the opposite, it contributes to the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area… Therefore I fully support a full and complete Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Georgia at the NATO Summit at Chicago in May 2012,” said Mike Turmer, head of the U.S. delegation to NATO.
Returning to the agenda, one of the most urgent issues in U.S.-Russian relations is security in the Caucasus. The U.S. has signaled to Putin, hinting at the end of the “reset” in relations when he announced his intention to lead the country again. As expected, this was done specifically in anticipation of the upcoming presidential elections in Russia and Putin’s victory at the elections.
Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze announced on Oct. 19 that Georgia has rejected any alliance with Russia. “As for the so-called unified customs space, or the Eurasian Union, or any other organization set up under the auspices of Russia, Georgia has no desire, no plans to join these organizations,” said Vashadze.
Turkmenistan’s ministry of foreign affairs made an unprecedentedly strong statement against Russia on Oct. 19, the same day Vashadze made his. Ashgabat firmly insisted on its unilateral decision to build a gas pipeline under the Caspian Sea in the direction of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, (within the integration framework of the American plans) disregarding the opinion of the other Caspian states and Russia in particular.
The objection of the Russian foreign ministry was deemed “inadequate” by the Turkmen authorities. In fact, the Trans-Caspian pipeline project is the second direct attack against the interests of Russia after the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. The participants are well aware that they are ignoring the legitimate interests of Moscow in the Caspian region. Nevertheless, they are not going to turn from this path. Moreover, the representative of the European Union in Azerbaijan urges Russia not to raise a noise around this issue.
Thus, the Northern Distribution Network, the supply routes for military goods into Afghanistan could serve a new function, that is the supply of Central Asian hydrocarbons in the direction of the west. At the same time, military infrastructure will be put in place to provide secure communications. The access of Russia to the Southern Energy Corridor in the most vulnerable segment of the Caucasus will balance Georgia’s membership to NATO. Thereby the Atlantic orientation of Armenia will be determined as well.
At the same time, the U.S. plans to build permanent military bases in Central Asia, on the argument that their withdrawal from Afghanistan would bring the region into chaos. That is, by creating chaos US, now, offers protection from it. At the same time, Marc Grossman, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, encourages the Uzbek president to reconsider the feasibility of joining the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Uzbekistan’s unified security system with Russia). Grossman has hinted that CSTO is unable to counteract to threats, as established by U.S., which are both external (from Afghanistan) and internal (the Arab Spring scenario).
Can the Eurasian Union be established in the context of an active presence of U.S. political games inside of each sovereign participant? Can the Putin-projected “new pole” be established while the main competitor maintains its influence within its boundaries? How can the “combination of natural resources, capital, and strong human potential” in Central Asia and the Caucasus be established if these resources, capital and capacity are not sovereign any more?
Analyzing the prospects of a Eurasian Union, Russian experts believe that the integration of the former Soviet Union is possible only if Russia plays a “key role.” In particular, the head of the “Central Eurasia” project, Vladimir Paramonov believes that “from the point of view of history, geopolitics, geo-economics and even conceptual ideology, the key role in the development of integration in the post-Soviet area belongs only to Russia.” He expressed such a vision during the discussions on Putin’s initiative. However, he also states that “a wide discussion of this topic by analysts has not yet been observed, both in Russia and other post-Soviet countries.” Why? Perhaps these countries no longer feel that Russia plays a “key role”?
Mikhail Delyagin, director of the Institute of Globalization Issues, narrows the range of possible partners of Russia in the Eurasian integration. “Russia, for purely economic reasons, cannot exist effectively on its own, not to mention the impossibility of development without Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. We are still forming a single economic organism, which, chopped into pieces, continues to die. The integration of Eurasia for Russia is, firstly, a restoration of the unity of the body, including the involvement of other lesser, but still useful countries.” Thus this expert leaves the whole Transcaucasia outside of the Eurasian Union. Four out of five Central Asian countries, the combined population of which is twice of that of Kazakhstan, falls into the category of “lesser, but still useful countries”.
But, is everything good in Kazakhstan? Well-known Kazakh specialist on China, Konstantin Syroezhkin, sees other integration trends. According to him, China will certainly try to put pressure on the dilemma for Central Asian states in choosing between its “investment opportunities” and the “imperial ambitions” of Russia (this is where any integration must occur only with a single “key player”). Responding to a question about turning Kazakhstan into a raw materials source of China, Syroezhkin stresses that “this thesis holds a great deal of truth. The growing domestic demand in China for commodities will lead to the transformation of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, into a source of raw materials not only for the European, but also the Chinese economy.”
Syroezhkin assures that “China will try, for the most part, to represent its interests, and those interests may, at some point, come into open conflict with the interests and strategy of Russia.” “Today, despite the existing, even if only on the psychological level, fear of a ‘Chinese expansion’ among political elite, including the population of Central Asia, China is seen as quite a worthy alternative to Russia,” said Syroezhkin. However, if we talk about the threat of foreign presence in the oil and gas sector of Kazakhstan, then China is obviously not as important. For example, shares of two of the largest oil and gas companies in Kazakhstan are owned primarily by Western investors, such as Tengizchevroil LLP and Karachaganak Petroleum Operating BV. Oil production by these two companies in 2010 was 46.81 percent of national output, while gas production was 76.52 percent.
In an interview with a Russian TV channel on Oct. 18, Vladimir Putin returned to the issue of global competition; “In today’s world, no matter how attractive the mineral resources of East Siberia and the Far East are, the major struggle is this. The main fight is for world leadership, and we are not going to argue with China. Here, China has other competitors. So let them figure out the solution by themselves…”
But the problem is that one of the major regions the U.S. and China are competing for are located just at the same horizon where, in the Putin’s vision, the Eurasian Union is supposed to be established in. Except in Tajikistan, where this competition takes place with Iran as an external arbiter; the Iranian military divisions took part in a parade celebrating the 20th anniversary of Tajikistan’s independence in Dushanbe.
In other countries, Russia is not only passively observing how the fierce competition for resources between China and the U.S. is taking place, but it has also systematically stepped back from access to its share of the [resource] distribution. During the first quarter of 2011, Russia received only 2.7 billion cubic meters from Turkmenistan, which is the half of the previous quarter’s deliveries.
Binding the resource potentials of the “less important but useful states of Central Asia” to Transcaucasia will completely change the balance of power in Eurasia. It will create a new reality for the “important state” — Kazakhstan, which has not, so far, reacted to the intention of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and the EU to lay the pipeline at the bottom of the Caspian Sea. Perhaps Astana is not against the joining to the “Southern Corridor”?
New opportunities will also open for the other “important state” — Ukraine, which has never hidden its interest in the Georgian transit directions. Furthermore, it gave the birth to the White Stream project, through which Ukraine would like to receive Turkmen gas bypassing Russian territory. As for Belarus, we will obviously see what the price to Lukashenko for participation in the next integration project of Moscow will be, since we have good enough relations with respect to the state of another integration project.
The Eurasian Union, if it claims to balance the global political system, cannot be implemented by Russia alone. It needs to be supported by China in Central Asia and Iran in the Caucasus. Only through cooperation among these three countries, united by common goals to avoid the presence of extra-regional forces in the zone of its vital interests, can create conditions for full political and economic integration. The active U.S. presence in the underbelly [of Russia] and at the temple of China and Iran deprives the Eurasian Union of ideas of vivid ideological purposes and, hence, its political framework.
*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified in English.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.