A Possible Blueprint for Preserving Peace in Europe

 August 2, 2017

Remember Montesquieu and his “doux commerce” ? “L’effet naturel du commerce est de porter à la paix. Deux nations qui négocient ensemble, se rendent réciproquement dépendantes: si l’une a intérêt d’acheter, l’autre a intérêt de vendre; et toutes les unions sont fondées sur des besoins mutuelles. Mais si l’esprit de commerce unit les nations, il n’unit pas de même les particuliers.”

Over the past few hundred years, this belief has become an integral part of the liberal credo and it animates the economic thinking of globalists to this day. Alas, the promise of trade as a peace-promoting activity among nations has never been fulfilled to date. The recent adoption of additional sanctions against Russia by the US senate amply proves that geopolitical tensions among nations and blocks of nations can thwart the beneficial effects of trade among them. One of the problems is that Russia and the United States are essentially alike tradewise. Both countries rely heavily for their export earnings on commodities (oil & gas) and sales of military hardware to their allies…

In many ways, the European Union is caught in the current crossfire between the former cold war enemies. A new and more dangerous version of the first cold war between the Americans and the Russians has emerged, one that is commonly called cold war 2.0. It has occurred as a direct result of the relentless expansion of NATO eastwards since the turn of the millennium and it is now seriously affecting international trade.

Nevertheless, restoring peaceful relations between the EU, US and Russia is an essential precondition of resuming normal trade relationships. But how to achieve this?

First, the Western alliance should recognize that the presence of NATO in the countries bordering Russia is viewed in Moscow as a huge security threat. Thus, not only should its expansion into Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia be halted, but additional confidence-building steps should be undertaken in order to defuse the current tensions.

Second, the Baltic countries should themselves revert to a neutral status, even as they retain EU membership.

Third, a newly-formed neutral zone between NATO and Russia should be created. This would include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, whose security should be guaranteed by multilateral treaties between NATO powers and Russia.

Past experience has proven that in case of conflict, in all these countries with sizeable Russian minorities, their allegiance naturally tilts towards Moscow. This makes these states, at the best of times, unreliable NATO allies or candidates. Furthermore, history has also shown that states like Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia achieve a relatively higher level of internal stability when led by pro-Russian leaders.

Putting a stop to NATO’s expansion and taking a step back from the Russian borders would restore peaceful relations with Russia and improve trade ties. Just as important, it would prove that NATO is not bent on expansion at the expense of trade, but stays true to its original mandate of preserving peace on the continent.

The OSCE Summit 2010

 November 18, 2010

This fall’s Deauville summit between Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Dimitri Medvedev has highlighted the need to include Russia in a pan-European security architecture, distinct from the decaying and confrontational-type North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Fortunately since 1975 European nations, regardless of EU membership, have had one of the most advanced regional co-operative security structures in the world, the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe).

After an 11-year hiatus, an OSCE member states’ leaders summit is convened in Astana on the 1st and 2nd of December at the initiative of Kazakhstan’s president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Although lesser-known than NATO, the OSCE is more inclusive (it currently includes 56 states) and represents, in Fabio Liberti’s words, “the largest security forum in the world”.

From the start, the OSCE was created as a regional security organisation, the first one to approach security comprehensively. It encompasses not only politico-military activities (police, arms control, conflict prevention, border management), but also economic and environmental activities (control of money-laundering, integrated management of water resources, support for the elimination of hazardous materials) and human rights activities (promotion of human rights, minority rights, freedom of the press and gender equality).

During the cold war, the OSCE effectively contributed to the promotion of human rights behind the Iron Curtain and participated in the dismantling of the Soviet bloc. In 1990, member states have adopted the Charter of Paris for a New Europe and have decided to equip the OSCE with permanent institutions (secretariat, election bureau and a center for conflict prevention) in order to enable the organisation to respond to eventual crises. Subsequently, OSCE has installed missions in Kosovo, Sandjak, Voivodina and Macedonia. Together with the UN and NATO, it has participated in bringing to an end the ethnic conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and to the elaboration of an arms control agreement for the Balkans.

All these achievements, its regional focus and comprehensive approach to security matters qualify OSCE as the most adequate regional security arrangement for Europe, Russia and Central Asia alike.
Recent developments

The conflict between Russia and Georgia in the summer of 2008, the tensions in Transnistria between Moldova and Russia and the current crisis in Kyrghizstan have highlighted the need to rethink European security outside its current NATO-EU-Russia dialogue. Although Dimitri Medvedev has advanced the proposal of a new security architecture for Europe and Russia, distinct from NATO, the OSCE is perfectly capable of assuming this role. To achieve this, however, the organisation would have to become consistent with its regional focus and restrict its membership to 54 countries (all the European countries plus Russia and the 5 stans), but without the US or Canada, as is currently the case.

The presence of the US withion OSCE structures has become counterproductive, as the current negotiations in Kyrghizstan demonstrate. The State Department’s pressure to involve the OSCE in the stabilisation process there has led to the organisation’s failure to successfully participate to negotiations for an end to the ethnic conflicts in the area. In truth, the Eurasian focus of OSCE, which is regional and not global, comes into conflict with the vision of an OSCE “from Vancouver to Vladivostock”. Since 2001, Russia’s Far East security problems could be more adequately dealt with within the structures provided by the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation), and it’s even likely that the OSCE will have to bring its expertise to bear in Central Asia in cooperation with the SCO.

To summarize, instead of creating another EU-Russia cooperative structure, the leaders meeting in Astana could instead consider ways of re-focusing the OSCE exclusively on regional security matters, without the participation of the US and Canada, and of funding it more adequately than it is the case right now. (sources: Le Monde diplomatique, EurActiv, Project Syndicate)

Author : Spotlight on Geopolitics
 Print

English, External Relations  , E.U., OSCE, Russia

EU's Regional Security Concerns

 October 27, 2010

Slowly but surely, EU leaders are waking up to the fact that they should take regional security into their own hands and promote a neighbourhood diplomacy which would eventually have to exclude NATO or the United States, but would be inclusive of Russia and Turkey.

This is the new geostrategic context in which the Sarkozy-Merkel-Medvedev meeting has taken place last week in Deauville. As the leaders of the two most powerful EU countries, Sarkozy and Merkel could no longer overlook the adverse consequences for the Union of the US’ involvement in promoting the Orange revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Romania. The two previous winters beset by gas supply interruptions, as well as the Georgian war were alarming enough events for France and Germany to take action. Now that a pro-Russian president is again in power in Kiev, and that the Georgian conflict is largely frozen even if not solved, Merkel and Sarkozy can concentrate on the future relationship with Russia and, to a lesser extent, with Turkey.

Since 2008, president Medvedev has advanced a common Russia-EU security architecture project, which until recently has received the cold shoulder from Paris or Berlin. Far from trying to divide the NATO alliance, as American pundits claim, the Russians feel that regional security would be better served if Russia and the EU adapted to the new geopolitical landscape and built a regional security organisation. Indeed, as the EU is one of Russia’s largest customers for oil and gas, it makes sense for both supplier and end-user to join forces in ensuring the security of supply routes and – it goes without saying – in preventing the US from interfering again in each other’s “spheres of influence”. The pay-off, especially during these tight economic times, could be huge, as this way both EU and Russia would save tens of billions of euros earmarked for the construction of undersea pipelines, originally planned to bypass problem-countries like the Ukraine.

Further afield, the European Union has to compete for Central Asian oil & gas with a turbo-charged China and with a burgeoning India. By comparison, Russia’s cooperation with China is functioning smoothly : oil & gas pipelines have been built, from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to China, and more are planned and paid for. To date, the Europeans haven’t been successful in completing more than one such project with Russia, namely the North Stream pipeline. That brings it into the same leagues with India, which experiences similar difficulties in securing its energy supplies. In both cases, the negative outcome is the direct result of the US’ involvement in regional security matters and trade options, from Eastern Europe to the Persian Gulf.

Russia’s frustration with US-supported revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, and the disruptions of gas supplies that affected Gazprom’s earnings, have determined Moscow to shift its geopolitical agenda towards China, taking its Central Asian allies along with her. Thus since 2001, Russia and China have established the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), designed to deal with security threats affecting Russia, China and Central Asia. The SCO is the first working example of a regional security organisation which will become the hallmark of the security arrangements of the evolving multipolar world. Similarly, the ASEAN countries have this year started working on their own collective security architecture, and across the Atlantic, a group of Latin American countries have established Unasur as of 2008.

As a consequence, the European Union, will have to compete for the natural resources it needs and for political influence with a player like China. The latter was quicker off the mark and better at developing a brisk raw materials and energy trade with Russia, Central Asia and Latin America, as well as in reaching cooperative security arrangements with Russia.

Coming just weeks before the Lisbon NATO summit, the Deauville summit has given a clear indication of where the immediate security interests of the European Union lie. These, to be sure, are not global, but regional in scope and would have to involve Russia and Turkey. As for NATO, the outdated organisation is still in search of an elusive enemy, which will probably have to be found in outer space, in partnership with NASA. (sources: EurActiv, Presseurop, SME.sk, BBC)

Disputed borders: a tripwire for war

 October 14, 2010

Whilst the world’s attention was recently focused on a relatively minor incident involving disputed islands in the South China Sea, the 4,000-km disputed border between India and China is quietly being beefed up militarily by both sides. In the words of M. Taylor Fravel, borders specialist with MIT, the border in question is “the most continuously negotiated border in modern history”.

Tensions generated by the Indian-Chinese border, which in 1962 erupted into full-fledged war between the two countries, date back to the times of the British Raj. Indeed, in 1914 the border was arbitrarily established by the simple drawing of a line on a map by Sir Robert MacMahon. Following this, in 1914 the British, on behalf of the Indians, signed the notorious Simla accord with the Tibetan government, which had briefly declared independence from China. Republican China had refused to take part in the talks and never recognised the loss of southern Tibet – a territory the size of Austria that goes these days by the name of Arunchal Pradesh – to the British colony, India.

After independence from Britain, India split along confessional lines, with Pakistan and Banglandesh appearing on the map. To date, India went to war in 1965 with Pakistan over Kashmir in the north, and with China over Aksai-Chin (a territory the size of Switzerland occupied by Chinese troops in 1962), as well as over Arunchal Pradesh (a Buddhist territory rich in forests and agricultural land).

The inconclusive conflict of 1962 ended with the two armies retreating behind the Line of Actual Control (LAC) which roughly follows the infamous MacMahon line. Since then, there have been incursions and so-called border violations in their thousands, as the old MacMahon line allowed for a 10 km “give-or-take” corridor the length of the entire border.

Relations between the two superpowers remained largely frozen until the eighties when both Deng Xiaoping and the Indian leadership realised that the two countries have to finalise their border disputes once and for all. Thus in 1993, the two sides agreed to adopt the CBM (Confidence Building Measures) agreement, which provided for non-aggression, notification of large troop movements and the establishment of a 10 km no-fly zone for military aircraft.

Negotiations between China and India continued, with the signing in 2005 of a “strategic partnership for peace and prosperity” by Wen Jiabao and Indian premier M. Sinh. The partnership is aimed at ensuring that border disputes are solved amiably and would not degenerate into a second border war between the two countries.

Latest developments

The neo-conservative Bush Jr. administration in Washington decided to befriend India and use it to contain China’s rise. It agreed to overlook India’s violation of the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and the US replaced India’s traditional ally, the defunct Soviet Union, as the country’s new strategic partner. According to Washington Times editorialists, India started to be groomed by the State Department as a “new Australia” in Asia, in spite of the Indian political leadership’s deep suspicion of the US – a 50-year ally of Pakistan.

In 2007, the US military’s involvement with India culminated with joint naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal, in which Singapore, the Australian and Japanese navies also took part. In 2009, India acquired 3.5 billion dollars’ worth of arms from the US, greatly alarming China.

Beijing describes India’s new foreign policy as based on the principle of “befriending the far and attacking the near”. Since the 1980’s the Dalai Lama – the old CIA protege – was reactivated and encouraged to tour world capitals in support of a Tibet cause, as the 1914 border accord had been signed with a de facto Tibetan state that had never been recognised internationally and disappeared after a few years.

The Indian public is continuously bombarded with news about so-called Chinese violations of Indian borders and of a Chinese military build-up of the border zones. In fact, as the same Taylor Fravel of MIT points out, China has successfully concluded permanent border agreements with all its neighbours except India and Bhutan. Its upgrade of military facilities does not target India in particular, as it encompasses the full length of China’s borders.

The anti-Chinese rhetoric has recently culminated with an article published by Baharat Verma, editor of the Indian Defense Review, in which he predicted that by 2012 China will attack India over the disputed territories. The scare tactics might, however, have been employed by the defence establishment in order to obtain the funds needed to renew its antiquated equipment. Thus, on October 7, 2010, India has signed a pre-contract agreement with Russia for the supply of between 250 and 300 latest generation Sukhoi fighter jets at an estimated cost of some 30 billion dollars, or 100 million USD per jet. Some fighter jets were already dispatched close to Arunchal Pradesh and 100,000 mountain troops were also sent to the area.

Meanwhile, Indian military officials and foreign policy pundits are claiming that China has replaced Pakistan as India’s biggest threat. Tensions, however, are mitigated by the fact that bilateral trade between the two countries is booming. If in 1990 this was worth 270 million dollars, the figure has reached around 60 billion dollars in 2009-2010. Clearly, India’s politicians and business establishment have a strong vested interest in normalising relations with China, whose economy is 4 times larger than India’s and is growing at a faster pace.

The Obama administration has fortunately abandoned the Bush administration’s reliance on India as a centerpiece of the US’ geostrategic realignment in Asia. President Obama is on record for saying that China and not India is the US’ main partner in Asia, provided the country abides by its self-imposed “peaceful rise” strategy.

India and China, however, still have the largest unsolved border issue in the world, with the potential to degenerate into full-fledged war at any time. If one takes into account the fact that the two countries are the largest and most populous in Asia and that they are both economically strong and nuclearly armed, one could more easily realise why the resolution of the issue cannot be delayed much longer without enormous risks for peace in Asia. (sources: Hindustan Times, Pakistan Daily, Arunchal News, People’s Daily, WSJ, Newsweek, The Australian, Washington Times, Japan Times)