NATO’S EVIL TWIN?
By Evgeny Morozov
TCS Daily, DC
June 8 2006
“I find it passing strange to bring a leading terrorist nation in the
world into an organization that says it’s against terror”, said Donald
Rumsfeld in Singapore last week, elevating the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) to the fore of media attention.
“OPEC with bombs”, as a commentator in one Canadian newspaper dubbed
SCO, is now the official bogeyman of the month. Ever since its
inception in 2001, SCO lingered in total media blackout, but Rumsfeld
gave its forthcoming summit in Shanghai the best PR it could hope
for. Bloggers — both liberal and conservative — have also recently
picked on the subject, mostly portraying SCO as a militaristic behemoth
aspiring to counterbalance American supremacy in Asia.
Becoming of a bogeyman, SCO is depicted in a rather bellicose manner
redolent of the Cold War era. Touted as Russia and China’s response
to NATO, SCO appears even more threatening, especially when plotted
against Pentagon’s fretting about China’s military expansion. And
now Iran — that perpetual bogeyman — aspires to join too. Global
security, if not the world order, seems to be at stake.
Are such fears justified?
The organization’s past and present do not seem to warrant all the
bad press. SCO launched to deal with security and confidence-building
issues (border conflicts, terrorism, and militant Islam), and since
then has expanded to the matters of economics, transportation,
culture, disaster relief, and law enforcement. So far, SCO sounds
short of NATO-type of tasks, doesn’t it?
A closer examination reveals that SCO aspires to be neither a new
NATO nor a new Warsaw Pact. At least, not yet and not officially. Its
charter has no reference to collective defense of its member by
others in the event of an outside attack (well, it does stipulate for
collective resistance to big armed gangs or international terrorists
if they cross the border of a member country — but NATO troops hardly
fall under that category). SCO has even developed a promising mechanism
for conflict resolution: i.e. last year when China suggested bringing
in Pakistan as an observer, Russia insisted that India be invited
too. As a result, both now cooperate within SCO’s framework.
In a move characteristic of the proposed cooperation under the SCO
auspices, China has extended loans worth of $900 million to other
SCO members so that they can buy Chinese exports. In another move,
Russia has recently agreed to help Tajikistan improve its border
security and fight drug-trafficking. SCO’s activities might not sound
extremely pacifist, but they do not sound belligerent either.
Set against the background of the rising violence in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the fact that Asian states cooperate in combating
terrorist threats is hard to reprimand. Even Rumsfeld agreed that
the increasing military cooperation between Asian countries bodes
well for the region’s stability. So, what’s all the fuss about?
Perhaps, the Pentagon hawks are fixating on the wrong organization —
they would be much wiser to look at the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, which comprises all of the SCO member states plus
Belarus and Armenia minus China. This is a true anti-NATO alliance in
the post-Soviet space, and it hardly concedes its real intentions
(which are obvious from the name). Yet how often have you seen
this organization in the press? (Perhaps, it is because Iran is not
joining it.)
Has SCO appeared threatening in the past? Partly. The only instance
when it flexed its muscles was at its Astana summit in 2005, when
members asked US troops to provide a deadline for their withdrawal
from Central Asia. However, it was an exercise in PR rather than
an exhibit of military strength. In the past, such statements would
have originated from some Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
institution — would anybody in their right minds ever accuse CIS of
presenting a threat to the international security?
Today as SCO’s clout in the region grows, Iran feels a strong urge
to become a member. The application to join was submitted by the
President Khatami, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor. Now the latter appears
firmly committed to cement Iran’s place in the SCO. Unlike most of
Ahmadinejad’s other desires, this one is hardly outlandish.
Sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iraq and facing grave problems
with its tumultuous minorities, Iran wants to step up its efforts
in preventing potential terrorist threats. The recent unrest of its
Azeri minority over a cartoon published in a local newspaper was an
alarming sign of how unruly things might soon become (four people
were killed and 70 injured, while the whole Azeri community in the
region was watching the evens with great uneasiness).
Acquiring membership in SCO would be a logical way to alleviate
Tehran’s concerns and ensure “collective resistance to big armed
gangs”. No matter whether it is Ahmadinejad or any other more
democratically elected leader ruling the country, reining in Iran’s
minorities is a top priority for the US, and Iraq is not the last
reason for that (Iran’s Kurds and Sunni Arabs might yet play their
own card in Baghdad). As an extra tool to prevent ethnic tensions in
the region, SCO might not be that bad.
So, why not capitalize on Iran’s vulnerability, and factor in
Ahmadinejad’s fears and SCO ambitious in all policy calculations?
Well, that’s easier said than done; Moscow and Beijing have tasted the
lucre of horse-trading and, depending on which official you talk to,
are sending mixed signals about their eagerness to embrace Iran in SCO.
Their stance is changing symmetrically in response to the US
position. The more vocally US oppose Iran’s membership in SCO, the
more strongly Russians and Chinese appear to want it. However, in the
rare moments that the White House skirts the issue, the Russians and
the Chinese oppose Iran’s membership themselves.
Thus, in early April Zhang Deguang, the Secretary General of SCO stated
that the organization would consider application for full membership
from observers. Just a few weeks later, Sergey Ivanov, Russia’s
minister of defense, expressed skepticism about any forthcoming
enlargements of the SCO. A few weeks later Gleb Pavlvosky, the
Kremlin’s spin doctor, said that “the consideration of this issue
was planned a year ago, and if Iran is still interested and if no
insurmountable obstacles are put by the SCO member-states or Iran
itself, this might well happen”.
Approximately at the same time, Russian foreign minister Sergey
Lavrov stated that the SCO is in the process of negotiating a possible
membership with Tehran.
To add to the controversy, on May 29 the Secretary General changed
his mind, saying that the organization’s charter does not provide
for the inclusion of new members (he obviously did not know when he
spoke in April). Nevertheless, an invitation to attend SCO’s 2006
summit was sent to Ahmadinejad; he agreed to come.
Seen through the prism of international relations, the opposition by
the two of SCO’s founding and dominating members to Iran’s membership
does not square well with their rhetoric of geopolitics. If Beijing
and Moscow believe in their own stories about the multipolar world,
they should jump at the opportunity to handle Iran’s crisis; having
it in the SCO will only strengthen the multipolarity they crave. Up
till now, however, their support for Iran’s bid to join SCO has been
rather “muted”.
To see why, suppose the US lifts its opposition to Iran’s membership
in SCO. Will it be the end of the unipolar world and the US military
supremacy? Or rather the end to Russia and China’s horse-trading with
the West? The second option is much more likely, so Iran’s ambition
to SCO should be used as an opportunity rather than a threat by the US.
The moment Iran joins SCO — if Russia and China ever allow that to
happen — both Moscow and Beijing will start panicking: none of them
wants to be responsible for Iran’s loony statements about Israel or
its nuclear program. They would also need to stop naysaying at the
UN Security Council and engage in direct diplomacy with Tehran,
something they’ve started forgetting how to do. They would also
become more involved in joint negotiations with the EU and the US,
since they would have their international credibility to lose should
Iran go nuclear while member of their warm club.
But since the US has already expressed its condemnation of Iran’s
membership in SCO both Russia and China stand to benefit more from the
current stand-off than from having Iran in SCO. Any further escalation
of the situation around Tehran’s nuclear plans only increases the price
that the US and EU would have to pay for Russia’s and China’s eventual
capitulation at the UN. And both of them have a lot to ask from the
West. Just ask Russia about the prospects of its membership in WTO.
What do the US and EU gain if they seize the initiative and green-light
Iran’s membership in SCO?
First of all, such would disarm SCO of whatever evil intentions —
if any — it has harbored. With Iran on board, the block would hardly
dare voicing any belligerent rhetoric. It would be a very awkward
conglomeration, which might actually focus on subjects like border
cooperation, in the absence of any other spicier topics. Neither
Russia nor China is silly enough to discuss alternatives to the US
domination in the region with Ahmadinejad present in the room; it
would be a total media disaster.
Secondly, Iran’s membership in SCO could finally put the burden of
global leadership on Russia and China who have largely shunned away
from their responsibilities as members of the Security Council. Iran
presents them with a good opportunity to prove that they are mature
actors on the international scene and deserve their global status
(this is especially relevant for Russia, which chair G8 this year).
Through SCO they will have to be extra cautious guarding Iran’s
nuclear ambitions, because, indirectly, they might be implicated in
the consequences too. It would be much easier to take both Beijing
and Moscow to task if they have some leverage and connection with
Iran in SCO. That either of them will instigate, not deter, Iran from
developing its nuclear potential is nonsense; both countries are too
dependent on the US and EU to engage in such dangerous schemes.
Therefore, the policy of the US and the EU regarding Iran’s membership
in SCO should focus not on blocking it, but rather on persuading China
and Russia to use SCO as a carrot to obtain certain concessions from
Iran. In order to incentivize them, the US and EU might, indeed,
require more and more carrots. But, perhaps, it is better to waste
a few carrots on China and Russia than waste all of the Middle East
with one stick.
0806A

NEW ENGLAND’S YOUNG PROFESSIONALS MEET IN MASSACHUSETTS
ArmRadio.am
08.06.2006 12:05
AAA Board of Trustees Member Lu Ann Ohanian and her husband, Bruce
Ohanian, hosted an event for Armenian-American young professionals
at their home in Belmont, Massachusetts. Young professionals from
Massachusetts and Rhode Island gathered together to meet one another
and share their ideas for future events of the Armenian Assembly
of America.
The group welcomed Harout Semerdjian, Director of Public Relations
and Communications for KNOW GENOCIDE, a multi-ethnic coalition united
against genocide denial, founded by the Assembly. Semerdjian discussed
the pending federal lawsuit filed by the Assembly of Turkish American
Associations and others against the Massachusetts Board of Education to
insert materials in the State Curriculum Guide that deny the Armenian
Genocide. Attendees also discussed potential ideas for fundraising
events in the New England area. Bruce Ohanian encouraged the group
to be goal and mission oriented when planning such events.
“We are pleased to once again host such a committed group of young
professionals,” said Lu Ann Ohanian. “We encourage their continued
participation in the Assembly and look forward to future gatherings
to discuss Armenian-American concerns.”
“We thank the Ohanian’s and the young professionals for their
activism,” said Executive Director Bryan Ardouny. “Their dedication
ensures a promising future for the Assembly and Armenia.”

THE “ISLAMIC CONFERENCE” SUPPORTS AZERI POSITION ON KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT
ArmRadio.am
08.06.2006 12:20
“We back Azerbaijan in its aspiration to return its lands,” declared
Ekmeletdin Ikhsanoghlu, Secretary General of the “Islamic conference”
organization, at a news conference in Moscow yesterday.
According to “Trand” Agency, he declared that their organization
supports any peace talks between the sides.
“We support Azerbaijan and call on Armenia to cooperate with all
those on the international arena, who aspire for the settlement of the
conflict, be it within the OSCE Minsk Group, UN or other international
structures,” Secretary General of the organization said.

TURKISH MP: ARMENIA SHOULD OBSERVE THE U.N. RESOLUTION AND QUIT THE SEIZED AZERI TERRITORIES
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 8 2006
Turkey wishes to have open border with Armenia, member of the BSEC
PA committee on legal and political issues, member of Republican
People’s Party (CHP) of Turkey Mehmet Sevigen told journalists.
In Mr. Sevigen’s words, Turkey does everything depending on it
to open the border with Armenia, but the latter should also take
essential steps.
“Armenia should observe the U.N. resolution and quit the seized Azeri
territories,’ Sevigen said.
When touching upon Turkey’s acknowledgement of the Armenian claims
regarding the Ottoman Empire in 1915, Sevigen stated that the “events
of 1915 were not genocide but so-called genocide.” “Armenia should
surrender its claims for recognizing these events as genocide.
Historians should deal with the issue. Turkey has opened all its
archives of those times and invited all historians concerned. When
everything clears up we will see that matters do not stand the same
as politicians describe,” Sevigen said, reported IA Regnum.
More than 500.000 Turkish and Kurdish people were massacred by the
Armenian nationalists during the First Wolrd War.

PRESIDNET KOCHARYAN VISITED RF EMBASSY IN YEREVAN
ArmRadio.am
08.06.2006 12:40
On the occasion of the National Holiday of the Russian Federation –
the Day of Adoption of the Declaration of Russia’s State Sovereignty –
President Robert Kocharyan visited RF Embassy in Armenia.
In his congratulating speech the President attached importance to
reinforcement of the Armenian-Russian strategic partnership and
expansion of mutually beneficial cooperation.

“3+3: BALTICS- CAUCASUS” INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR STARTED IN ARMENIA
ArmRadio.am
08.06.2006 13:28
International seminar on “3+3: Baltics- Caucasus: cooperation in the
sphere of youth policy” started today in Lusakert, Armenia. Heads of
over 30 youth organizations, except the representative of Azerbaijan,
are participating in the conference. The participants will discuss the
problems the youth of Baltic and South Caucasian countries face. They
will study the experience of European integration and the youth
policy implemented in their countries. Exchange of experience and
further cooperation are also important. RA Deputy Minister of Culture
and Youth Affairs Arthur Poghosyan said that borders and political
problems should not prevent the contacts and cooperation of the youth.

AMBASSADOR OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA HANDED CREDENTIALS TO PRESIDENT KOCHARYAN
ArmRadio.am
08.06.2006 13:47
The newly appointed Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the
Republic of Armenia Enver Khalilovich (seat in Moscow) handed his
credentials to President Robert Kocharyan.
The President congratulated the Ambassador on appointment and whished
success in carrying out his high mission.
Noting that the relations between Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
are at the initial stage of development, the parties attached
importance to establishment of a legal field, which is of primary
importance for development of cooperation.
The Ambassador presented the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
noting that the country has overcome some very serious trials. He
turned to regional developments as well.

PRESIDENT OF LEBANON MET NKR FOREIGN MINISTER
ArmRadio.am
08.06.2006 14:22
June 6 the President of Lebanon Emil Lahud received the Foreign
Minister of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Georgi Petrosyan, MEDIAMAX
Agency informs referring to Beirut based “Azdak” newspaper.
The meeting was attended by members of the ARF Central Committee in
Lebanon and RA Ambassador Vahan Ter-Ghevondyan.
Information about the meeting of Emil Lahude and Georgi Petrosyan
was placed on the official website of the President of Lebanon –
entlive.htm . It
is noted here that the Lebanese President met the delegation of
Nagorno-Karabakh region of Armenia.

GEOPOLITICAL DIARY: A RUSSIAN MESSAGE FOR NATO
Stratfor
June 8 2006
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday in a speech
to the Duma that “Every country has the right to make sovereign
decisions…. At the same time, the acceptance into NATO of Ukraine
and Georgia will mean a colossal geopolitical shift and we assess
such steps from the point of view of our interests.” This is pretty
blunt language for a diplomat. Russia does not want to see a colossal
geopolitical shift, and that’s what it thinks is happening.
The Russian Foreign Ministry also condemned Ukraine’s decision to
bar several senior Russian lawmakers from Ukraine. One of these,
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, is a fairly notorious Russian nationalist. The
Russian Foreign Ministry doesn’t much care for Zhirinovsky, but it
also obviously doesn’t care for Ukraine barring Russian legislators
— even if, as the Ukrainians put it, he was known for “insulting
statements about Ukraine.” At the same time, a Ukrainian diplomat
was also refused entry to Russia.
Both Ukraine and Georgia clearly want to join NATO. There are
multinational joint military exercises scheduled for July in Ukraine,
to include U.S. forces. These have met with protests by pro-Russian
Ukrainians, whom the Ukrainian government claims are being stirred
up by the Russians. At the same time, Georgia announced that it will
build a NATO-compliant military based in Gori, to join the one already
built in Senakskaya.
As we have said, NATO’s expansion to Ukraine would be the break
point for Russia. Adding to that a NATO base in the Caucasus would
absolutely convince the Russians that the United States is planning
to encircle them. Russia has been busy trying to demonstrate the cost
of this strategy to NATO and the United States. It has intruded into
U.S. areas of interest in the Middle East, particularly regarding
Hamas and Iran. It has not intruded as aggressively as it could,
still signaling Washington that things are not past the break point.
Nevertheless, as NATO accession looms for Ukraine and Georgia, things
will get less pleasant.
There is a fundamental difference in NATO’s admitting Georgia and
Ukraine from the admission of other former Soviet bloc nations. NATO is
a military alliance. Bringing in Hungary or the Czech Republic meant
little from that point of view; there is no real, immediate threat
for NATO to protect them from. Admitting Ukraine and Georgia would
mean entering into a formal alliance with countries that face serious
regional threats. It would mean making a commitment to defending those
countries and therefore, in some way, to assuring their stability. It
is hard to defend an unstable country.
Every other expansion of NATO has been notional. By that we mean that
it amounted to a political signal, far more than a serious political
commitment. That is not the case with these two countries. In fact,
that is the point the Russians are working very hard to make. The
Russian statement today was a message. Russia regards Ukrainian and
Georgian membership in NATO as a major, unwelcome geopolitical shift.
As such, Moscow will resist this process — and failing that, will
consider these two countries a threat to Russia.
Geographically, the defense of either of these countries against a
major regional power — which Russia certainly is — is a significant
burden. Neither country can defend itself. Moreover, each country has
other regional antagonists that NATO would be committed against — such
as, in Georgia’s case, Armenia. That is quite a tangle to get into.
What is attracting Washington is the opportunity to guarantee, by
surrounding it with NATO members, that Russia will not re-emerge as
a superpower. The Russians see this move as that, plus a threat to
the long-term territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. The
Russians do not believe that they can simply accept this as a fait
accompli, as they accepted other NATO expansions. Therefore, this
will trigger Russian responses in the region and more broadly.
The most important thing to watch here is relations between Russia
and China. China has been very careful not to get entangled with
anti-American alliances. It has important economic issues to deal
with. However, given recent U.S. statements on how it views China,
access to Russian military technology becomes more important to
Beijing. And Russia knows it does not, by itself, have the weight to
counter the United States. Therefore, the logic here, over the coming
months, is closer ties between Moscow and Beijing. When this happened
last, in 1948, Washington found itself in an uncomfortable position.
Therefore, it has to calculate how quickly it can move and consolidate
its position via NATO before the Russians can act.
And then there is also the question of the European members of NATO —
particularly France and Germany — whose acceptance of NATO expansion
up to this point has been a signal to Washington of a willingness
to cooperate. On the other hand, NATO is going to a complicated
and dangerous place. Paris and Berlin may not have the appetite for
Washington’s game.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

VARDAN OSKANYAN: NO ALTERNATIVE TO DIALOGUE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT
ArmRadio.am
08.06.2006 14:58
During the meeting in Bucharest Presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan did not manage to agree on questions not agreed upon in
Ramboulliet. The parties, however, decided to continue the talks.
“There is no alternative to dialogue in the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. The parties agreed that the Foreign Ministers will hold
another meeting in case the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs consider it
is necessary,” Vardan Oskanyan said.
Mr. Oskanyan did not rule out the possibility of the meeting on the
level of Foreign Ministers and expressed the hope that it will be
possible to agree upon at least some document of principle in 2006.
“In Bucharest and Ramboulliet the Presidents did not manage to come
to an agreement on a very complex issue,” Vardan Oskanyan noted.
In response to the question what the hopes for positive resolution are
based on, the Foreign Minister said, “Every time when new formulations
or approaches on questions of principle are suggested, each of the
sides hopes it will manage to persuade the other party during the
meeting. This failed in Bucharest, we need to try again.”
RA Foreign Minister underlined that the position of the Armenian side
has not changed. Yerevan is ready to discuss issues of eliminating
the results of the conflict only in case Azerbaijan recognizes the
right for self-determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Vardan Oskanyan declared that Armenian does not feel pressure on the
part of the mediators and does not consider that the parties will
face such pressure in the future.