Russian TV sees revitalized GUAM as possible threat to CIS
BBC Monitoring Service – United Kingdom; May 26, 2006
Sources as listed,compiled in English 0001 gmt 26 May 06
The GUAM summit which brought together the leaders of Georgia,
Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova in Kiev on 23 May was generally seen
by Russian TV channels as an attempt to revitalize the organization so
it would become a Russia-free alternative to the Commonwealth of
Independent States. Gazprom’s NTV played down the threat to the CIS,
while Moscow-government-owned Centre TV saw the renewed GUAM as
potentially viable, particularly if plans for a Caspian-EU energy
corridor came to fruition. State channel Rossiya (RTV) viewed the
organization as a US-funded attempt to counterbalance Russia’s
influence in the former Soviet Union area.
Although the Russian Foreign Ministry issued statements saying it did
not view GUAM as an anti-Russian coalition, prime-time TV news reports
on the summit generally took the view that an element of anti-Russian
feeling was involved. NTV Segodnya news programme on 23 May raised
concerns about the summit’s pro-Western focus, but then played down
the possibility the organization would pose a threat to the CIS.
“In Kiev today there was criticism of the CIS and calls to move closer
to NATO and the European Union”, presenter Aleksey Pivovarov said. The
ensuing report featured comments by Ukrainian President Viktor
Yushchenko that full European integration was GUAM’s main aim, while
correspondent Roman Sobol cited a survey that showed that more than 60
per cent of Kiev residents believed that GUAM was an anti-Russian
organization.
However, Sobol went on to say that the majority of those involved in
the summit did not view the end of the CIS as imminent. “Although
GUAM is called an alternative CIS, here they prefer somewhat less
strident wording: not a replacement for the CIS but in parallel with
the CIS,” Sobol said, pointing out that only Georgian President
Mikheil Saakashvili had categorically expressed a wish to leave the
commonwealth.
The report suggested that the four member states were fundamentally
incompatible and hinted that this may well hinder the organization’s
progress. “The Georgian and Ukrainian president’s are old friends and
leaders of colour revolutions. But often the question arises: what
links them to the Moldovan Communist Voronin and Azerbaijani leader
Aliyev?” Sobol asked. Centre TV the same day also asked similar
questions about the viability of GUAM, but was less quick to dismiss
the possibility the organization could be successful.
Introducing the report presenter Nikolay Petrov highlighted the
fundamental differences between the GUAM member states. “GUAM is now
called the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development. True,
it is not entirely clear exactly what Communist Vladimir Voronin and
crown prince Ilham Aliyev have to do with democracy,” he said
pointedly.
Correspondent Aleksandr Ogorodnikov noted that “it seems shared
grudges against Russia unite the four presidents more closely than
their common goals”, but added that Aliyev had made a point of
stressing Azerbaijan’s good relations with Russia. However,
Ogorodnikov warned that if GUAM’s proposed Caspian-EU energy corridor
“which threatens to take the bread from Russia’s mouth” became a
reality, then conflict between Moscow and Baku would be unavoidable.
Nevertheless, the report saw the energy plans and the agreements on
creating of a free-trade zone as a good basis for the future of “GUAM
mark-II”, especially as it has US support. “So, GUAM, which nearly
disintegrated six years ago, now seems to have a real chance of
success,” Ogorodnikov said. He went on to suggest that expansion to
include Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Lithuania might even be on the
cards.
RTV’s Vesti on 23 May saw the plans for an energy corridor as the main
aim of GUAM, which it suggested was nothing more than a US foreign
policy tool.
Presenter Mikhail Antonov introduced the report with claims that the
organization was funded by the USA. “GUAM’s main task is to create a
counterbalance to the CIS and provide an energy corridor from the
Caspian to Europe, bypassing Russia. The people who thought up this
plan and are willing to finance it can only be found far beyond the
boundaries of the former Soviet Union,” he said. He added that because
of this the abbreviation GUAM is particularly apt, as Guam is also the
name of the American military base “from which the USA put political
and military pressure on those it disliked”.
The ensuing video report featured comments by political analysts which
supported this view of the USA’s role. Mikhail Pogrebinskiy, director
of the Kiev-based Centre for Policy and Conflict Research, described
GUAM as “an instrument for implementing US policy in the former Soviet
area”. Director of the Political Research Institute Sergey Markov
insisted that the organization was entirely dependent on US funds. In
a fuller version of his comments, broadcast in the later Vesti Plyus
bulletin, Markov described GUAM as an attempt “to shut the Russian
bear up in its Siberian lair and isolate Russia from Europe”.