Caucaz.com, Georgia
Oct 10 2005
X-Sender: Asbed Bedrossian <[email protected]>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
Will America set up a military base in Azerbaijan?
Article published in 09/10/2005 Issue
By Célia CHAUFFOUR in Paris
Translated by Sophie LANCASTER and Simone KOSHIMIZU
The United States have denied any official military involvement in
Azerbaijan. Rumours continue to abound, however. Ariel Cohen, a
Russian and Eurasian specialist for American institute `The Heritage
Foundation’, responds to questions posed by the editorial team on
American military strategy in South Caucasus.
The press has recently been speculating over the possible opening of
a permanent American military base in Azerbaijan. The Ambassador for
the United States in Baku and the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham
Aliyev, have both firmly rejected this idea. But whilst the Pentagon
prepares to withdraw its troops from Uzbekistan on the request of the
Uzbek government, local and foreign observers have wondered about the
possibility of moving these American forces to the other side of the
Caspian Sea, to Azerbaijan. What is really going on?
This important question also raises others: what should be America’s
strategy in Eurasia? This is a issue which has been made more
delicate by recent events. Firstly, as the United States were
effectively `asked’ to leave Uzbekistan, but also because Washington
is at present paying particular attention to Iran and the EU3
(Germany, France and Great Britain), the European allies of Tehran.
Today, the priority for Washington is to determine if the US needs to
carry out an active policy in Eurasia or if, on the other hand, they
should limit their presence to the absolute minimum in order to focus
on the Middle East, in particular Iraq, before worrying about Central
Asia and Caucasus.
This debate is ongoing in Washington. Many experts have been
discussing the subject and have recommended different approaches.
However, for as long as this debate remains open and unresolved, I
think that the probability of establishing an American military base
in Azerbaijan is slim.
Do you think that America has an actual strategy for the South
Caucasus, similar to that put into place in Central Asia?
The overseas policy carried out in the South Caucasus primarily aims
to maintain relations and cohesion between Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Keeping this equilibrium is vital in order to guarantee the security
of energy supplies which pass through these territories. The main
issue here is oil.
But the links between Georgia and Azerbaijan are fairly open, free
from all foreign interference, and this is being maintained, at
present, without any American military bases. What’s more, when
Georgia negotiated with Russia for the removal of its troops, they
guaranteed Moscow that a permanent American base would not be set up
in Georgia. Also, if Washington does not set up any base in Georgia,
why would it establish one in Azerbaijan?
A permanent American infrastructure in Azerbaijan would only be
possible for two reasons. The first centres around any possible
serious risk to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline. The
second depends on Iran: if the United States sees the possibility for
an attack on Iran, they could do so from Azeri territory. But for the
time being, neither of these two events are applicable or really
probable.
At the end of July, the first Russian military convoy left Batumi.
The definite withdrawal of the 12th and 62nd Russian military bases
is planned only for the end of 2008. In August however, some members
of the Russian parliament started to reproach the agreement signed in
Moscow. The withdrawal process will probably not be affected. But
will the Kremlin be able to come to terms with the departure of their
troops from their `close neighbour’?
Russia has assured the United States that they will definitely
withdraw their military bases from Georgia. Moscow accepts to
withdraw their troops on condition that Georgia keeps a balanced and
moderate conduct towards Russia. However, the agreement on the
closing of these two Russian military bases does not change in the
least the policies imposed by the Kremlin in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. The Kremlin does not intend to give up its influence on
these two secessionist territories. It granted Russian citizenship to
thousands of Abkhazians and South Ossetians and now claims that most
of these separatist populations are Russians.
This means a de facto annexation of these two separatist republics,
which would directly threaten the integrity of the Georgian
territory. But this situation is not linked to the withdrawal of the
military bases in Georgia. Be that as it may, the representatives in
Duma will never exercise any actual authority over the subject if
they strive to rail against the departure of the Russian troops in
Georgia.
The Kremlin and the Ministry of Defence, the two major political
actors with the power to make decisions, concluded that the closing
of the two military bases – which are independent one from each
other, difficult to defend and supply and too expensive to be
maintained – did not mean the end of Russian influence over Georgia,
a fortiori over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Moscow also has the Georgian labour force in Russia to its advantage.
Therefore, if Moscow closes its frontiers and forbids the Georgians
to either work in Russia or to repatriate their income, that would
result in a serious setback to Tbilisi. This fact highly increases
the power that Moscow has to put pressure on Tbilisi.
You have mentioned what certain issues such as the stability and the
security of Georgia and Azerbaijan represent to the United States. Is
Armenia being relegated to the background of Washington’s strategic
plans concerning the South Caucasus?
Armenia is not located in the Caspian-Black Sea corridor. Besides
that, Yerevan is a member of the CSTO (the Collective Security Treaty
Organisation, created on 30 April 2003 during the Dushanbe summit and
which is largely dominated by Moscow) and they maintain historical
and privileged relations with Russia as well as with Iran. All these
factors put Armenia aside and out of the enclosed circle of America’s
favourite allies in the region.
In addition, Armenia is not only under the influence of South
Caucasian geo-political realities, but also under that of a very
powerful pro-Armenia lobby group in the US. Therefore, the relations
between Washington and Yerevan are more bilateral than integrated and
interdependent of American strategies in the region.
When it comes to this subject, the Nagorno-Karabakh project is of
major importance. American diplomats are optimistic and have been
working hard to put an end to the Yerevan-Baku conflict. This process
might end sooner or later and only then will it be possible to
integrate Armenia into the strategy concerning the region.
But so far among the American priorities, the main objective in
Washington has been to settle the process created under the aegis of
the Minsk group, and to develop bilateral relations with Yerevan in
order to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and support
non-governmental relations between Azeris and Armenians. Examples of
these efforts of popular democracy for the resolution of conflicts
can sometimes be observed in Georgia. From now on, they should work
on that direction to re-establish relations between Armenians and
Azeris.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress