PERSPECTIVES OF THE CSTO’S PEACEKEEPING: COMMITMENT OF ARMENIA TO FACILITATE INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING COOPERATION
12:47, June 28, 2013
As we have reported, on June 26-27, Yerevan hosted the Second Strategic
Policy Forum “POLITICAL AND SECURITY GUIDELINES FOR THE FORMATION
OF THE CSTO’S MILITARY COMPONENT” organized by the Institute for
National Strategic Studies MOD, Armenia (INSS), the Secretariat of
the CSTO and the independent non-profit organization “Institute of
the CSTO”. It should be noted that the Forum was attended by both the
specialists of the CSTO member states and the representatives from
the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chair states (Russia, the US and France), as
well as from international organizations accredited to Yerevan. The
President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan welcomed the Forum.
Praising the success of the Forum, the CSTO Secretary General Nikolai
Bordyuzha suggested to establish the Annual Strategic Policy Forum
on the basis of the INSS, MOD, Armenia grounded on the experience of
conducting academic and expert forums on the most topical issues of the
Organization’s development. It is proposed to extend the participation
format of the Forum to an international level – involving all the
parties interested in the strengthening of the collective security in
the context of the overall interests of maintaining peace, stability
and global security.
Here is the presentation of one of the key organizers of the Second
Strategic Policy Forum – Doctor of Political Science (Russia),
Counterterrorism Fellow (the US), Head of the INSS, MOD, Armenia,
Major-General Hayk Kotanjian on the topic “PEACEKEEPING AS AN IMPORTANT
PART OF THE CSTO’S MILITARY COMPONENT: PLACE AND ROLE OF ARMENIA”.
It is well known, that peacekeeping activities are crucial
in preventing and settling armed conflicts, and involvement of
individual countries or international organizations in peacekeeping
processes significantly raises their profile, promotes national and
collective interests within the international community, strengthens
their military and political positions in the system of international
security.
Realizing the importance of peacekeeping in ensuring international
security and stability the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO) consistently increases the normative-regulatory framework for
coordinating its activities in this area. As we know, on October 6,
2007 the “Agreement on peacekeeping activities of the Collective
Security Treaty Organization” was signed in Dushanbe, which came into
force in January 2009[i].
According to Article 2 of the Agreement, the establishment of
peacekeeping forces – acting on a permanent basis – is envisaged for
the participation in peacekeeping operations. For the acquisition
of peacekeeping forces the states parties – in accordance with their
national law – are prescribed to allocate peacekeeping contingents. In
fact, the establishment of a permanent peacekeeping collective
military formation is envisaged within the confines of a collective
security organization that is still unprecedented in international
practice. Today no international organization has peacekeeping forces
acting on a permanent basis. For example, the UN has a system of
the so-called “stand-by arrangements”. Thus, the CSTO may become
the first international organization that will have “blue helmets”
constantly ready for action[ii].
Although more than four years have passed since the Agreement
entered into force, and during that time within the framework of the
Organization a political and legal basis for the formation and use
of peacekeeping forces has been successively developing – Methodical
guidelines were worked out for the training of peacekeeping troops –
the CSTO’s peacekeeping activities in comparison with those of the UN,
NATO and the EU aimed at resolving conflicts remain quite passive. It
should be mentioned, that the cooperation of the Organization’s
member states in the field of peacekeeping still does not extend
beyond joint exercises. In the fall of 2012, Kazakhstan hosted
the first exercises of the CSTO member states’ peacekeeping forces
“Unbreakable brotherhood-2012”, and the following exercises are to
be held in October 2013 in Russia[iii].
According to Article 3 of the abovementioned Agreement, the decision to
conduct a peacekeeping operation in the territory of the member states
is made by the Collective Security Council (CSC), taking into account
their national legislation, on the basis of an official request of a
member state to conduct peacekeeping operations in its territory or
by the decision of the UN Security Council to conduct a peacekeeping
operation in the territory of non-CSTO member states.
Thus, although the mechanisms of peacekeeping operations in the
Organization’s zone of responsibility and beyond are normatively
identified, in fact, the CSTO is not able to implement certain
activities in this direction yet.
Meanwhile, the Agreement and other basic documents on the CSTO’s
peacekeeping activities will have a real practical significance
only if the CSTO takes the initiative to be integrated into the
international security processes of conflict settlement in the “hot
spots” of our planet.
The implementation of peacekeeping operations in the territory of
the Organization’s member states from the political point of view
appears to be problematic only because of possible assessments of
goal setting and substance of operations. In other words, we are
talking about the guarantees to distance the peacekeeping within the
CSTO from punitive functions. As for political and legal competence
of such operations – for their implementation the Article 3 requires
only a decision of the CSTO’s Collective Security Council, and the
UN mandate is not compulsory.
Perhaps at an early stage of implementing its legal and regulatory
basis the CSTO should focus on peacekeeping operations beyond its
zone of responsibility, after the example of NATO strengthening
the cooperation with the UN and providing peacekeeping contingents
for its missions. The “Memorandum of Understanding between the UN
Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Secretariat of the
Collective Security Treaty Organization”[iv] signed last year could
serve as a basis for such cooperation. As we have already noted,
the participation in peacekeeping operations under the UN mandate
would substantially increase the prestige of the corresponding CSTO
in the field of international security[v].
>From the organizational and practical perspective, the questions
about the representation format of the states parties in the CSTO’s
permanent collective peacekeeping brigade, the development of its final
structure have to be discussed, taking into account the resources and
some other features of the represented countries that is connected
with the need for additional consultations at the level of Heads of
States of the CSTO.
At the same time, there is another option for the participation of the
CSTO in peacekeeping missions. According to Article 8 of the Agreement,
the CSTO may conclude collective stand-by arrangements with the UN,
and each member state having such an arrangement may participate
in joint peacekeeping operations of the Organization under the UN
mandate or under the auspices of corresponding regional organizations,
in the latter case after informing the Collective Security Council.
This practice is widely used in international relations. For example,
NATO under the UN mandate is actively involved in peacekeeping
operations in different continents of the world. According to this
practice, the CSTO can also take responsibility for conducting
peacekeeping operations. Individual countries have the right to
conclude framework agreements with the CSTO, and perform peacekeeping
operations under the command of one of the members of the Organization
authorized to coordinate the mission.
For the development of the peacekeeping institute within the framework
of the CSTO it is important to build new relations with NATO – a
highly experienced actor that has a well-established key role in the
system of global security. Joint peacekeeping operations involving
the individual member states of the Alliance and the CSTO could be
one of the initial platforms on which it will be possible to generate
a fruitful cooperation. In this sense, the organization of joint
peacekeeping activities in conflict regions where the interests of
the two organizations are the same seems expedient.
In connection with the establishment of relations with NATO, the
emerging recent trends of the CSTO’s revitalization in the Central
Asian region are noteworthy. Inside the CSTO there is a dominating view
that after the withdrawal of coalition troops from Afghanistan, the
situation in the countries of the region will worsen[vi], and there can
be a threat to the security of Central Asia and the CSTO as a whole. In
this regard, during the CSTO Council meeting in Moscow on November 17,
2011, the CSTO’s Action Plan Project was agreed on the neutralization
of potential challenges and threats coming from Afghanistan[vii].
In December 2011, as a participant of the Afghan war I had a chance to
speak at the special meeting of the Academic-Expert Council of the CSTO
on Afghanistan. Recently I had the opportunity to participate in the
discussion of this important issue organized by the CSTO Analytical
Association in Bishkek. In my opinion, the interest in peacekeeping
cooperation shown by the American experts from the Harvard University
National Security Program is worthy of attention.
The promotion of a dialogue on the fight against threats from
Afghanistan after the withdrawal of coalition forces seems promising
not only in the format of “Russia-US”, but also “US-CSTO” or “6+1”
– commensurate with the parallel partnership in the format of
“NATO-Russia” or “28+1”. The emerging trend of the renewal of the
dialogue between the President of the Russian Federation Mr. Vladimir
Putin and the US President Mr. Barack Obama on finding solutions to
the global security problems can contribute to this endeavour.
>From the point of view of supporting this dialogue and establishing
the cooperation in the field of international peacekeeping among
the states and organizations Armenia can play a certain role being
Russia’s strategic ally and the partner of the United States, as
well as a founding member of the CSTO and partner of NATO, having
extensive experience in peacekeeping operations conducted by coalition
forces of the Alliance and the forces of partner states, as well as
in the exercises of the CSTO within the operating Collective Rapid
Reaction Force.
Since 2004, Armenia has participated in the NATO-led Peacekeeping Force
in Kosovo. In 2005-2008, the Armenian peacekeepers have also gained
useful experience participating in the US-led peacekeeping coalition
in Iraq. Since 2009, Armenia has contributed to the peacekeeping
mission of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
The recent official appeal of Italy – the country-commander that
implements UNIFIL peacekeeping mission in Lebanon under the auspices
of the UN – with a proposal to include in the mission an Armenian
detachment, which will have to ensure the security of the mission’s
headquarters confirms the credibility of Armenia as a “peacemaker
state”. The prerequisites for sending a detachment to Lebanon have
recently been discussed by the Chiefs of Staff of the Republic of
Armenia and the Republic of Italy[viii]. The possibility of future
participation of the RA peacekeeping mission under the UN mandate in
North Africa is also being considered[ix].
Thus, Armenia can contribute to the formation of the peacekeeping
element within the CSTO’s military component, supporting its
transformation into a multifunctional actor not only of regional but
also of global security.
In conclusion, we consider it appropriate to reiterate the urgent need
for the CSTO’s peacekeeping activities to expand beyond the exercises
in the formation of the Military component of the Organization and
reach the level of active involvement in the international peacekeeping
operations.
[i] “oïcìaûåîeå ï íeòïô÷ïòþåoëïe aåñôåìøîïoôe ïòcaîeúaãee aïcï÷ïòa
ï ëïììåëôe÷îïe âåúïðaoîïoôe”
[ii] oôòaôåceñ íeòïô÷ïòþåoô÷a
[iii] õþåîeñ íeòïô÷ïòþåoëeè oeì ïaëâ “îåòõûeíïå âòaôoô÷ï-2013”
ðòïeaõô ÷ òæ
[iv] oÍ: “íÅÍÏÒÁÎÄÕÍ Ï ×ÚÁEÍÏÐÏÎEÍÁÎEE ÍÅOÄÕ aÅÐÁÒÔÁÍÅÎÔÏÍ ïÒCÁÎEÚÁÃEE
ïÂßÅÄEÎÅÎÎÙÈ ÎÁÃEÊ ÐÏ ÐÏÄÄÅÒOÁÎEÀ ÍEÒÁ E oÅËÒÅÔÁÒEÁÔÏÍ ïÒCÁÎEÚÁÃEE
aÏCÏ×ÏÒÁ Ï ËÏÌÌÅËÔE×ÎÏÊ ÂÅÚÏÐÁÓÎÏÓÔE”: aÏËÕÍÅÎÔÙ ÐÏ ×ÏÐÒÏÓÁÍ
ÆÏÒÍEÒÏ×ÁÎEÑ E ÆÕÎËÃEÁÎEÒÏ×ÁÎEÑ ÓEÓÔÅÍÙ ËÏÌÌÅËÔE×ÎÏÊ ÂÅÚÏÐÁÓÎÏÓÔE
ïÒCÁÎEÚÁÃEE aÏCÏ×ÏÒÁ Ï ËÏÌÌÅËÔE×ÎÏÊ ÂÅÚÏÐÁÓÎÏÓÔE, ÷ÙÐÕÓË 13, MÏÓË×Á,
2013.
[v] a.e. îEËEÔEÎ, ëÏÎÆÌEËÔÙ, ÔÅÒÒÏÒEÚÍ, ÍEÒÏÔ×ÏÒÞÅÓÔ×Ï. eÚÄ. “îÁ×ÏÎÁ”
í: 2009, Ó.167
[vi] “ï ðìåîaòîïí úaoåaaîee cåîåòaìøîïe aooaíâìåe ïïî ðï oeôõaãee
÷ aæcaîeoôaîå”
[vii] “ï úaoåaaîee ðïoôïñîîïcï oï÷åôa ðòe ïòcaîeúaãee aïcï÷ïòa ï
ëïììåëôe÷îïe âåúïðaoîïoôe”
[viii] ÷ïúcìa÷ìñåíañ îaþaìøîeëïí cû ÷o òa aåìåcaãeñ ïôâùìa ÷ eôaìea
[ix] cåïcòaæeñ aòíñîoëeè íeòïô÷ïòãå÷ òaoûeòñåôoñ: ëïoï÷ï, aæcaîeoôaî,
ìe÷aî e oå÷åòîañ aæòeëa
http://hetq.am/eng/news/27727/perspectives-of-the-csto%E2%80%99s-peacekeeping-commitment-of-armenia-to-facilitate-international-peacekeeping-cooperation.html