(Re)Defining Priorities in the Black Sea and the Caucasus
The crisis over South Ossetia in August 2008 and the ensuing series of events is symptomatic of a changing global environment where the tectonic plates holding it together are undergoing readjustment. With regard to the wider Black Sea area some conclusions are relatively easy to be made:
1. The ‘frozen’ conflicts are not frozen. This development was in evidence before the 5-day war although now it is a foregone conclusion.
2. Key regional stakeholders such as Russia and Turkey find themselves in the midst of major policy reappraisal.
3. Other regional actors such as the Caucasian States, Ukraine, and Moldova are hereby (re)evaluating this relationship within their neighbourhood.
4. EU regional stakeholders such as Greece, Romania and Bulgaria have come to the conclusion that they need to work together and with their other 24 EU partners not only in the sphere of CFSP and ESDP by enhancing the Union’s tools conflict prevention, conflict resolution and rehabilitation tools, but in assuring that EU policies already in place such as the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Black Sea Synergy take hold over the medium to long term and contribute to peace, security, development and stability of the Black Sea region.
5. The United States and the steadfast supporters of NATO enlargement in the region are having a harder time today in gaining the support of their allies in favour of NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia at this stage.
The crisis and the resulting verbal and political confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation lead one to the conclusion that the security framework of the Black Sea-Caucasus region needs to be reassessed. Are the developments simply a tell tale sign of the quest for regional hegemony by Washington and Moscow? To this end, do they signal the beginning of a “new Cold War” as many commentators have rushed, either cynically or with conviction, to describe? Or do the developments point to a move in the direction of a post-American or multipolar world that is in transition or formation whereby actors like the European Union together with Russia, the United States and other regional stakeholders together define the agenda? One could describe the region at hand as the meeting place of regional hegemons each with its own agendas and priorities which either clash or allow for collaboration with their counterparts depending on the issue at hand.
The issues of energy security, NATO and EU enlargement (linked to the question of the frontiers of Europe to a certain extent), the persisting conflicts (with global implications) and the various attempts to work together in the areas of transport, trade, migration and the environment among others imply that the wider Black Sea region (encompassing the Caucasus) is increasingly becoming a priority for policymakers in Europe, Asia and North America. The (un)frozen conflicts can no longer be contained in terms of their impact in today’s globalised environment as the implications of a change in the status quo has direct implications on the rest of the world. As a result of the crisis, Georgia’s stability has been severely questioned as has its ability to be a reliable transit state for the various oil and natural gas pipelines either traversing its territory or planned to do so. For Russia, its aspiration to join the WTO is threatened while its membership in the G8 is being questioned by some of its partners.
The impact of globalisation is also in evidence with the global implications of the US financial crisis which has had a direct impact on Moscow’s stock exchange where stocks have dropped to low values while the withdrawal of funds by international investors globally might well suggest, as an analyst has recently written, that when “the United States catches a cold, the emerging economies contract pneumonia.” Add to this reduced consumption, especially for oil in this case, leading to reduced revenues for Russia and the vulnerability of the exchange rate mechanisms coupled with a poor banking system and the impact on the country’s economy is great.
Therefore, in this context, the solution, at least in the eyes of this observer, lies in the direction of further cooperation. While the political context remains volatile (at least until the first Tuesday of November when it will be decided who will lead the next American administration), the region’s stakeholders, both local and extraregional, have an interest in defining together how to best enhance the common neighbourhood that is the Black Sea Region by allowing international and regional organizations such as the European Union, the OSCE, the IFIs, and the BSEC among others to implement policies and define synergies that benefit all the countries of the region and their societies.
1. The ‘frozen’ conflicts are not frozen. This development was in evidence before the 5-day war although now it is a foregone conclusion.
2. Key regional stakeholders such as Russia and Turkey find themselves in the midst of major policy reappraisal.
3. Other regional actors such as the Caucasian States, Ukraine, and Moldova are hereby (re)evaluating this relationship within their neighbourhood.
4. EU regional stakeholders such as Greece, Romania and Bulgaria have come to the conclusion that they need to work together and with their other 24 EU partners not only in the sphere of CFSP and ESDP by enhancing the Union’s tools conflict prevention, conflict resolution and rehabilitation tools, but in assuring that EU policies already in place such as the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Black Sea Synergy take hold over the medium to long term and contribute to peace, security, development and stability of the Black Sea region.
5. The United States and the steadfast supporters of NATO enlargement in the region are having a harder time today in gaining the support of their allies in favour of NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia at this stage.
The crisis and the resulting verbal and political confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation lead one to the conclusion that the security framework of the Black Sea-Caucasus region needs to be reassessed. Are the developments simply a tell tale sign of the quest for regional hegemony by Washington and Moscow? To this end, do they signal the beginning of a “new Cold War” as many commentators have rushed, either cynically or with conviction, to describe? Or do the developments point to a move in the direction of a post-American or multipolar world that is in transition or formation whereby actors like the European Union together with Russia, the United States and other regional stakeholders together define the agenda? One could describe the region at hand as the meeting place of regional hegemons each with its own agendas and priorities which either clash or allow for collaboration with their counterparts depending on the issue at hand.
The issues of energy security, NATO and EU enlargement (linked to the question of the frontiers of Europe to a certain extent), the persisting conflicts (with global implications) and the various attempts to work together in the areas of transport, trade, migration and the environment among others imply that the wider Black Sea region (encompassing the Caucasus) is increasingly becoming a priority for policymakers in Europe, Asia and North America. The (un)frozen conflicts can no longer be contained in terms of their impact in today’s globalised environment as the implications of a change in the status quo has direct implications on the rest of the world. As a result of the crisis, Georgia’s stability has been severely questioned as has its ability to be a reliable transit state for the various oil and natural gas pipelines either traversing its territory or planned to do so. For Russia, its aspiration to join the WTO is threatened while its membership in the G8 is being questioned by some of its partners.
The impact of globalisation is also in evidence with the global implications of the US financial crisis which has had a direct impact on Moscow’s stock exchange where stocks have dropped to low values while the withdrawal of funds by international investors globally might well suggest, as an analyst has recently written, that when “the United States catches a cold, the emerging economies contract pneumonia.” Add to this reduced consumption, especially for oil in this case, leading to reduced revenues for Russia and the vulnerability of the exchange rate mechanisms coupled with a poor banking system and the impact on the country’s economy is great.
Therefore, in this context, the solution, at least in the eyes of this observer, lies in the direction of further cooperation. While the political context remains volatile (at least until the first Tuesday of November when it will be decided who will lead the next American administration), the region’s stakeholders, both local and extraregional, have an interest in defining together how to best enhance the common neighbourhood that is the Black Sea Region by allowing international and regional organizations such as the European Union, the OSCE, the IFIs, and the BSEC among others to implement policies and define synergies that benefit all the countries of the region and their societies.
Comments