"US policy more focused maintaining status quo and balancing other regional players"
01 June 2011 [14:27] - TODAY.AZ
Interview with Kornely Kakachia, visiting fellow on the Black Sea Security Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, who also serves as an Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science of Tbilisi State University.
What needs to happen in South Caucasus countries so that
they better integrate into Euro-Atlantic structures? Where do you see
the region in the long-term period?
Different security perceptions of the three South Caucasian states are
key obstacles in forging closer relations with each other and it also
undermines regional unity, negatively affecting relations with
Euro-Atlantic structures. As a result, despite their geographic
proximity, three countries have generally fared poorly at interstate
cooperation. In order to integrate into Euro-Atlantic space South
Caucasian countries need to think on long term security interest of the
region, which is not the case at the moment. However, in medium and long
term one could predict new regional alliances involving close ties with
NATO and EU as result of ongoing substantial changes of strategic
environment in the region.
There is a major disagreement in many countries about the OSCE’s
role as a mediator in conflict zones. Is the OSCE an effective mechanism
for peacemaking? If not, what should be done to make it more effective?
OSCE has done everything possible to halt the ethnic violence in many
parts of Europe; however, it was less successful in the South Caucasus.
To become effective conflict manager the OSCE sometimes may require
"intrusion" in the domestic and foreign affairs of participating states,
which is not an easy task for organization that works in consensus
based environment. It is especially difficult when it has to deal with
great powers interest as most of them though formally accept OSCE norms,
in reality don’t tolerate OSCE’s active role. This policy consideration
is especially true in the regions where great powers have strategic
interest. That’s the one of the major reason why participating States
had failed to reach consensus on the future role of the OSCE.
Is there anything that the West can do in the Caucasus? What are
the main differences in Bush and Obama administration’s approach to this
region?
During the last two decades the West and particularly EU had a chance
to enhance and reposition itself in the South Caucasus; however, EU
political visibility as security actor was not as obvious as it could
be. Most of the cases it was tied to monitoring conflict resolution
process and included small scale support for democratization, good
governance and human rights benchmarks. At present it seems that due to
its internal difficulties stemming from global financial crisis,
enlargement fatigue, war in Afghanistan, and other issues the West lost
strategic insight towards South Caucasus. Largely same could be
attributed to US policy towards the region. While Bush administration
was focused to enhance security ties with South Caucasus and to support
further integration of the region into Euro-Atlantic community present
US policy constrained by internal priorities as well as “resetting” its
ties with Russia. The individual countries of the region are not of
vital interest to the United States thus its policy more focused
maintaining status quo and balancing other regional players.
/APA/
Views: 1717
Connect with us. Get latest news and updates.