SHOULD GEORGIA AND UKRAINE BE
FORCED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE CIS?
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Ukraine ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Posted on 03/17/2005 2:47:26 PM PST by lizol
SHOULD GEORGIA AND UKRAINE BE FORCED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE CIS?
MOSCOW, (RIA Novosti commentator Pyotr Goncharov).
Moscow views the initiative from Kiev, Tbilisi and Chisinau to resurrect the GUUAM as an anti-Russian demarche and a stab in the back of the CIS. Some people believe that if Azerbaijan joins the triumvirate of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, a political and economic bloc will emerge, which might be the "coup de grace" for the CIS. Moreover, the bloc might become the main competitor for, if not the gravedigger of, the CES (Common Economic Space), which includes Ukraine along with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
In the past, the GUUAM included Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, hence its name. Despite the efforts of its members and America's assistance to establish the organization as an acting body, it remained inactive. There is certainly some logic in the accusations that it is anti-Russian. It would be enough to take a look at recent steps made by Tbilisi and Kiev in regional policy. Moreover, Viktor Yushchenko's press secretary has openly stated, "Georgia hopes Ukraine will assume the role of a leader in Eastern Europe." Moscow took notice of Mikhail Saakashvili's statement in an interview he gave to an influential French newspaper, Le Monde. Mr. Saakashvili stated that since Russia had left them with no other choice, Kiev and Tbilisi intended to integrate with Western structures and, after moving away from Moscow, to establish a "democratic bridge" in the CIS.
The GUUAM will probably be that bridge and a line of CIS countries that want to integrate into the European Union at any cost will stand at the eastern end. However, it is doubtful that Kiev and Tbilisi will manage to resurrect the GUUAM completely. The main idea of the organization was to ensure that Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova broke free of their dependence on Russian energy resources. With this in mind, they bet on Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, which in turn intended to export their hydrocarbons to Europe and to play a proactive role in global projects as TRACECA and the Great Silk Road.
However, drastic changes have taken place since then within the organization, as well as in Moscow's relations with Tashkent and Baku, which have tangibly improved. The GUUAM, though, has been inactive and the global projects have not got off the ground. In June 2002, Uzbekistan withdrew from the GUUAM, but reserved the right to contribute to certain projects. Judging by the mood in Tashkent, Uzbekistan has no intention of returning to the organization. "The current political orientation of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova forces us to reconsider our attitude toward the GUUAM," Uzbek President Islam Karimov said in February. "We have not yet made a decision on whether we will play a role in that organization."
Baku's position, especially in the political and anti-Russian context of the organization, remains unclear as well. On top of that, Baku obviously has no love for the "velvet sentiments" emanating from Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova. But the most important issue is whether Azerbaijan will have enough hydrocarbons to cover the GUAM (without Uzbekistan) with at least the semblance of an active organization. The Ukrainian president stated, "Kiev along with its GUUAM partners intend to present a number of projects that will enable Ukraine, Georgia and their neighbors to find an alternative source of providing national markets with energy." In this case, who, if not Azerbaijan, should provide Caspian hydrocarbons as an alternative to Russia's? But if Azerbaijan could not do this earlier, how can it hope to do so today?
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko, who considers the energy sector to be her hobbyhorse and, just like Mr. Yushchenko, is oriented toward European integration, has placed her bets on completing the extension of the Odessa-Brody pipeline with a further branch to Plotsk. In theory, a refusal to reverse the flow in the Odessa-Brody pipeline exploitation will oust from the market Russian oil companies that deliver oil via this route to Europe. Unsurprisingly, it was Georgia, who agreed to cooperate with Ukraine in the direct use of the Odessa-Brody pipeline.
Russia will certainly encounter some difficulties, but they are not as serious as Ukraine will encounter after the Azerbaijani-Turkish Baku-Ceyhan pipeline is put into operation and it turns out that there is simply not enough Azerbaijani oil for two pipelines. And this will happen sooner or later.
Therefore, the organization resurrected by Kiev and Tbilisi is a far cry from the GUUAM and even GUAM. The most possible outcome is GUM or, to be more precise, GU+M, judging by the degree of activity demonstrated by the triumvirate of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.
So is it practical to keep the GU+M within the CIS? A Russian political scientist and chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergei Karaganov, believes that all efforts made by Kiev, Tbilisi and Chisinau, largely look like a PR move and their importance is unreasonably overestimated. "Kiev wants to become the second influential center in the CIS, an alternative to Moscow, and Tbilisi and Chisinau are giving it active assistance," he says. "Moscow shouldn't overreact to the actions of aggrieved former friends." It would be better for Moscow to follow the principle - if someone, for instance Georgia and Ukraine, wants something, than let them have it. However, Moscow must clearly define the framework for cooperation based on geopolitical realities and established world standards. Russia will only benefit from following this principle, as in the case of Moldova. Finally, the prospects for the CIS without the GUM (Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova) are no worse than the GUM's perspectives without the CIS.
Ping
Ping
And make them take back Texas too!
The CIS still exists?! Next thing you'll tell me that "Three's a Crowd" is still on t.v.
I didn't think the CIS still existed.
Yea screw the people, orage revolution, viva oppresion by muscovites, just send the tanks like way back into Hungary and Czechoslovakia, bring the rascals back to one big happy soviet (gulag) family.
Ping
SHOULD GEORGIA AND UKRAINE BE
FORCED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE CIS?
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Ukraine ping list!. . .don't be shy.
I hope Georgia and the Ukraine are able to discover their own autonomy apart from the CIS.
CIS was created as organization of Kremlin’s puppet governments. Member of the CIS still are treated by international community like Soviet republics. There is no place for democratic countries in CIS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
