Connect with us

Eastern Europe

Why Nikol Pashinyan Returned From Vienna Empty- Handed?

Published

on

On 29 March 2019, the first official meeting was held between Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in Vienna on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs assessed the meeting positive and constructive. According their statement, “two leaders underlined the importance of building up an environment conducive to peace and taking further concrete and tangible steps in the negotiation process to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. The leaders recommitted to strengthening the ceasefire and improving the mechanism for direct communication.  They also agreed to develop a number of measures in the humanitarian field.” After the meeting, UN Secretary General in his statement welcomed creating an environment conducive to peace and called on taking further steps towards successful negotiations.

Both President Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan described the meeting as a new beginning. President Ilham Aliyev also evaluated this meeting as an indicator that the format of the negotiations remains unchanged. Because after Pashinyan became a Prime Minister, he started to draw zigzag regarding the format, principles and future of peace talks around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This meeting was very important for international community to clarify the stance of Armenia’s new government in terms of the future of the peace talks.

Pashinyan, who based his policy on the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiation process on the thesis that the previous administrations had weakened the Armenia’s position, offered two suggestions to the Armenian community for this deadlock. The first is to ensure that the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians are included in the negotiation process by abandoning the Madrid Principles, which are the backbone of the diplomatic negotiations proposed by the OSCE Minsk Group’s Co-chairs. The second is to get rid of the political and economic embargo, which is one of the most important tools against Armenia in the hands of Azerbaijan in the process of diplomatic negotiations.

In order to achieve these goals, before the Vienna meeting, Armenian new Prime Minister tried to benefit from three important visits. He first visited Iran, and later Brussels. After that, new President of Georgia visited Armenia. All three countries play an important role for new Armenian government`s foreign and Nagorno-Karabakh policy. Because he couldn`t attract the interest from Washington and the general observations that his relations with Moscow is complicated.

During these visits, Pashinyan sought to achieve three important goals. Firstly, is to gain support for Armenian position in Nagorno-Karabakh resolution process. Secondly, to attract new investments and to develop new government’s foreign economic relations in order to soften the impacts of economic isolation in the region. Thirdly, to get political support for his new government.

Before Vienna meeting, he made his first visit to Iran on 27-28 February2019.Iran is the second alternative for Armenia to soften here conomic isolation. Armenia, tries to become a bridge for Iranian transportation and energy project between Iran and the Black Sea as well as Iran and the Eurasian Economic Union. In Tehran, Pashinyan proposed the gas transit to Georgia, when Saloma Zourabichvili was in Baku making supporting statements for the East-West energy and transportation projects that meant a kind rejection of Yerevan’s proposal.

On the other hand, Iran was subjected to the Western political and economic sanctions. Iran has its own problems, as they need 3.4 billion dollars for Iranian Armenian railway project. That is why during Pashinyan’s visit to Iran some sectorial agreements signed between both sides, which can unlikely change geopolitical situation in the region.

He made his second visit to Brussels on 4 March 2019. During his visit to the EU, Pashinyan tried to exert pressure on Azerbaijan through the EU official authorities. Here, the main concern of Armenia is the EU’s support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan in the new agreement to be signed between two. Pashinyan also expected economic support from the EU in the wake of his rise to power. But, the EU officials did not promise Armenia a new batch of investment in the current conditions, as well as for the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiation process.

Then important visit made by Georgian new president Salome Zourabichvili to Armenia on 13-14 March in 2019. Before Armenia, Zourabichvili had visited Azerbaijan and supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan. Armenian officials were expecting an explanation from the authorities of Georgia for that reason. Whereas, Zourabichvili accused Armenia for ostensible support of the territorial integrity of Georgia while taking steps that tend to harm the latter’s sovereignty. During the meeting with President of the National Assembly of Armenia President, Zourabichvili stated that, “recognition of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity not only verbally, but also factually is our one and only key interest.” Zourabichvili also mentioned that parties should work together and, based on international norms, move to a new stage of solving these conflicts. Otherwise, economic progress, stability, enhanced cooperation, and strengthening of the transportation and logistics ties with the EU and other countries are only verbal statements.” That statement meant that without settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Georgia could not support Armenian`s participation in the regional projects.

To sum up, prior to his visit to Vienna, Pashinyan new precondition to change the format for the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict didn`t get support from the international community. Meanwhile, before Vienna meeting, Pashinyan couldn`t change the geopolitical conditions for Armenia. As he left Vienna with an empty hand, he couldn`t impose Armenian new precondition on Azerbaijan and returned with empty-hand.

Continue Reading
Comments

Eastern Europe

Lithuanians fight for silence

Published

on

The Ministry of Defence of Denmark has made an important decision supporting human rights of Danish citizens.

Thus, Denmark’s new fleet of F-35s, which are to replace the F-16s currently in use, will arrive at Skrydstrup air base in South Jutland starting in 2023. When the new air force is finally ready, far more neighbours will be bothered by the noise exceeding limit values, calculations by the Danish Defence Ministry show. The 100 worst-affected homes will have to suffer noise levels of over 100 decibels, which is comparable to a rock concert or a busy motorway.

The noise pollution from F-35s is projected to exceed that of the F-16s, though noise pollution from F-16 also bother locals. Discontent of citizens reduced their confidence not only in the Ministry of Defence but in their current government and NATO as well.

Thus decided to compensate the victims.This step has improved the image of the armed forces and showed the population the care that the Ministry of Defense shows to a residents of the country.

A similar situation has developed in Lithuania. Lithuanian citizens demand compensation from the Ministry of National Defense due to high noise level made by fighter flights from Šiauliai airbase as part of NATO’s Baltic Air Policing.

Lithuania is a NATO member state and contribute to the collective defence of the Alliance. Thus, Šiauliai airbase hosts fighter jets that conduct missions of the NATO’s Baltic Air Policing.
Citizens also initiated on-line petitions in order to attract supporters and demonstrate their strong will to fight violation of human rights in Lithuania.

According to peticijos.lt, the petition was viewed more than 5 thousand times. This shows great interest of Lithuanian society in the subject.At the same time existing control over any political activity, as well as silence of current government and Ministry of National Defence don’t allow people openly support such idea. All websites with petitions demand the provision of personal data. Nobody wants to be punished and executed.

The lack of response is not a very good position of the Lithuanian Ministry of Defence in case Lithuania wants to prove the existence of democracy. Denmark is a prime example of a democratic society caring for its people.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Georgia Returns to the Old New Silk Road

Published

on

Georgia has historically been at the edge of empires. This has been both an asset and a hindrance to the development of the country. Hindrance because Georgia’s geography requires major investments to override its mountains, gorges and rivers. An asset because Georgia’s location allowed the country from time to time to position itself as a major transit territory between Europe and the Central Asia, and China further away.

This geographic paradigm has been well in play in shaping Georgia’s geopolitical position even since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the rise of modern technologies. Thereafter, Georgia has been playing a rebalancing game by turning to other regional powers to counter the resurgent Russia. Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran (partly) and bigger players such as the EU and the US are those which have their own interest in the South Caucasus. However, over the past several years yet another power, China, with its still evolving Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has been slowly emerging in the South Caucasus.

This how a new Silk Road concept gradually emerged at the borders of Georgia. In fact, a closer look at historical sources from the ancient, medieval or even 15th-19th cc. history of Georgia shows an unchanged pattern of major trade routes running to the south, west, east and north of Georgia. Those routes were usually connected to outer Middle East, Central Asia, and the Russian hinterland.

Only rarely did the routes include parts of the Georgian land and, when it happened, it lasted for merely a short period of time as geography precluded transit through Georgia: the Caucasus Mountains and seas constrained movement, while general geographic knowledge for centuries remained limited.

It was only in the 11th-12th cc. that Georgian kings, David IV, Giorgi III and Queen Tamar, spent decades of their rule trying to gain control over neighboring territories with the goal to control the famous Silk Roads. Since, foreign invasions (Mongols, Ottomans, Persians, Russians) have largely prevented Georgia from playing a major transit role for transcontinental trade.

This lasted until the break-up of the Soviet Union. After 1991, Georgia has returned to its positioning between the Black and Caspian seas, between Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Major roads, pipelines and railway lines go through Georgian territory. Moreover, major works are being done to expand and build existing and new Georgian ports on the Black Sea with the potential to transform Georgia into a sea trade hub.

A good representation of Georgia’s rising position on the Silk Road was a major event held in Tbilisi on October 22-23 when up to 2000 politicians, potential investors from all over the world, visited the Georgian capital. The event was held for the third time since 2015 and attracted due attention. In total, 300 different meetings were held during the event.

The hosting of the event underscores how Georgia has recently upped its historical role as a regional hub connecting Europe and Asia. On the map, it is in fact the shortest route between China and Europe. There is a revitalization of the ancient Silk Road taking place in Georgia. This could in turn make the country an increasingly attractive destination for foreign investment. Indeed, the regional context also helps Tbilisi to position itself, as Georgia has Free Trade Agreements with Turkey, the CIS countries, the EFTA and China and a DCFTA with the European Union, comprising a 2.3 billion consumer market.

Thus, from a historical perspective, the modern Silk Road concept emanating from China arguably represents the biggest opportunity Georgia has had since the dissolution of the unified Georgian monarchy in 1490 when major roads criss-crossed the Georgian territory. In the future, when/if successive Georgian governments continue to carry out large infrastructural projects (roads, railways, sea ports), Tbilisi will be able to use those modern ‘Silk Roads’ to its geopolitical benefit, namely, gain bigger security guarantees from various global and regional powers to uphold its territorial integrity.

Author’s note: First published in Georgia Today

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Strategic Black Sea falls by the wayside in impeachment controversy

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Presidents Donald J. Trump and Recep Tayyip Erdogan had a plateful of thorny issues on their agenda when they met in the White House this week.

None of the issues, including Turkey’s recent invasion of northern Syria, its acquisition of a Russian anti-missile system and its close ties to Russia and Iran, appear to have been resolved during the meeting between the two men in which five Republican senators critical of Turkey participated.

The failure to narrow differences didn’t stop Mr. Trump from declaring that “we’ve been friends for a long time, almost from day-one. We understand each other’s country. We understand where we are coming from.”

Mr. Trump’s display of empathy for an illiberal leader was however not the only tell-tale sign of the president’s instincts. So was what was not on the two men’s agenda: security in the Black Sea that lies at the crossroads of Russia, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and NATO member Turkey.

The Black Sea is a flashpoint in multiple disputes involving Russia and its civilizationalist definition of a Russian world that stretches far beyond the country’s internationally recognized borders and justifies its interventions in Black Sea littoral states like Ukraine and Georgia.

The significance of the absence of the Black Sea on the White House agenda is magnified by the disclosure days earlier that Mr. Trump had initially cancelled a US freedom of navigation naval mission in the Black Sea after CNN had portrayed it as American pushback in the region.

The disclosure came in a transcript of closed-door testimony in the US House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry of Mr. Trump’s policy towards Ukraine by Christopher Anderson, a former advisor to Kurt Volker, the US special representative to Ukraine until he resigned in September.

Mr. Anderson testified that Mr. Trump phoned his then national security advisor, John Bolton, at home to complain about the CNN story. He said the story prompted the president to cancel the routine operation of which Turkey had already been notified.

The cancellation occurred at a moment that reports were circulating in the State Department about an effort to review US assistance to Ukraine.

“We met with Ambassador Bolton and discussed this, and he made it clear that the president had called him to complain about that news report… I can’t speculate as to why…but that…operation was cancelled, but then we were able to get a second one for later in February. And we had an Arleigh-class destroyer arrive in Odessa on the fifth anniversary of the Crimea invasion,” Mr. Anderson said.

The operation was cancelled weeks after the Russian coast guard fired on Ukrainian vessels transiting the Strait of Kerch that connects the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov and separates Russian-annexed Crimea from Russian mainland. ‘This was a dramatic escalation,” Mr. Anderson said.

Mr. Trump at the time put a temporary hold on a condemnatory statement similar to ones that had been issued by America’s European allies. Ultimately, statements were issued by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley but not by the White House.

The Black Sea’s absence in Mr. Trump’s talks with the Turkish leader coupled with the initial cancellation of the freedom of navigation operation, the initially meek US response to the Strait of Kerch incident, and the fallout of the impeachment inquiry do little to inspire confidence in US policy in key Black Sea countries that include not only Turkey, Ukraine and Georgia, a strategic gateway to Central Asia, but also NATO members Bulgaria and Romania.

In Georgia, protesters gathered this week outside of parliament after lawmakers failed to pass a constitutional amendment that would have introduced a proportional election system in advance of elections scheduled for next year.

The amendment was one demand of protesters that have taken to the streets in Georgia since June in demonstrations that at times included anti-Russian slogans.

Russia and Georgia fought a brief war in 2008 and Russia has since recognized the self-declared independence of two Georgian regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Some 1500 US troops participated in June in annual joint exercises with the Georgian military that were originally initiated to prepare Georgian units for service in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The absence of the Black Sea in Mr. Trump’s talks with Mr. Erdogan raises the spectre that the region could become a victim of the partisan divide in Washington and/or Mr. Trump’s political priorities.

The Republican-dominated US Senate has yet to consider a bipartisan Georgia Support Act that was last month passed by the House of Representatives. The act would significantly strengthen US defense, economic, and cyber security ties with Georgia.

A Chinese delegation that included representatives of several Chinese-led business associations as well as mobile operator China Unicom visited the breakaway republic of Abkhazia this week to discuss the creation of a special trade zone to manufacture cell phones as well as electric cars.

The Black Sea is one region where the United States cannot afford to sow doubt. The damage, however, may already have been done.

Warned Black Sea security scholar Iulia-Sabina Joja in a recent study: “The region is (already) inhospitable for Western countries as they struggle to provide security… The primary cause of this insecurity is the Russian Federation… Today, Russia uses its enhanced Black Sea capabilities not only to destabilize the region militarily, politically, and economically, but also to move borders, acquire territory, and project power into the Mediterranean.”

Ms. Joja went on to suggest that “a common threat assessment of NATO members and partners is the key to a stable Black Sea. Only by exploring common ground and working towards shared deterrence can they enhance regional security.”

Continue Reading

Latest

Eastern Europe3 mins ago

Lithuanians fight for silence

The Ministry of Defence of Denmark has made an important decision supporting human rights of Danish citizens. Thus, Denmark’s new...

Southeast Asia2 hours ago

What Jokowi’s anti-radicalism cabinet can do for Indonesian security

Jokowi second terms have been preoccupied with the issue of radicalism following the shocking attack to former coordinator minister of...

South Asia4 hours ago

Sri Lanka’s election results and their implications

Authors: Tridivesh Singh Maini & Mahitha Lingala* The Sri Lankan election result, was closely observed, not just for its likely...

Reports5 hours ago

Emerging and Developing Economies Less Prepared Now for a Deeper Downturn

Emerging and developing economies are less well positioned today to withstand a deeper global downturn, should it occur, than they...

Middle East8 hours ago

The secret behind Trump’s moves in eastern Deir ez-Zur

Trump’s desire for Syrian oil has led observers to consider it as the beginning of occupying oil wells in other...

Middle East10 hours ago

Middle Eastern protests: A tug of war over who has the longer breath

Mass anti-government protests in several Arab countries are turning into competitions to determine who has the longer breath, the protesters...

EU Politics12 hours ago

Rwanda: EU provides €10.3 million for life-saving refugee support measures

During his visit to Rwanda, Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica has announced a €10.3 million support package...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy