From Archives:
This article was published in the 'Mainstream' (RNI NO. 7064/62), New Delhi, Vol. XLVII No. 43, Oct. 2009, pg. 32-34.
This article was published in the 'Mainstream' (RNI NO. 7064/62), New Delhi, Vol. XLVII No. 43, Oct. 2009, pg. 32-34.
Introduction:
Declaration of independence by Kosovo assembly, the Muslim majority
region of Serbia, on 17 February, 2008 has posed serious challenges before the
world community. This declaration received conflicting reaction from the
international community and is strongly opposed by the Serbia which continues
to claim Kosovo as its province.[1] Several countries like
USA, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia and France have announced their
recognition, despite protests by Serbia in the United Nations Security Council.
As on 5th April 2009, no member countries of CIS, CSTO and SCO have
recognised Kosovo as an independent state. The two permanent members of the UN Security
Council China and the Russia consider it illegal. On the other hand, most of
member countries of NATO, EU, and OECD have recognised Kosovo as an independent
state.[2]
Serbia has been Russia’s Slavic Orthodox
Christian ally for ages. Staying with it on Kosovo was a question of moral
vindication for Russia. Following the II-week bombing of Yugoslavia by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1999, which Russia strongly
opposed, Moscow persuaded Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw from
Kosovo conveying to him a solemn promise by the west that NATO occupation of
the conclave would never lead to its separation from Serbia. Moscow was stung
by the west’s treachery; it has now vowed to “go as far as Belgrade is prepared
to” in opposing Kosovo’s independence.[3]
Russia had warned the west that
Kosovo would open a Pandora’s Box, setting off separatism and territorial
conflicts in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Vladimir Putin, former Russian
president and incumbent Prime Minister, stated that Kosovo’s unilateral
declaration of independence and its recognition by the west set a “terrible
precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international
relations”. It was in this context Elena Guskova, head of the Balkan Crisis
Study Centre, said that “by creating an independent Kosovo, the U.S. has placed
a time bomb under European stability”. Moreover, Dr. Guskova further stated
that “the Americans are using the Kosovors to perpetuate their military
presence in the Balkans, but the Kosovors are also using the Americans to
pursue their goal of Greater Albania”.[4]
Russia has rebelled against Kosovo’s independence because it sees it as
part of U.S. efforts to dismantle the post-second world war international
system based on the respect for state sovereignty and inviolability of borders
and enshrined in the supremacy of U.N. in resolving international disputes.
Even Kosovo’s independence is against the Security Council resolution 1244 of
1999, which gave the U.N. jurisdiction over Kosovo, had explicitly rejected
Kosovo’s declaration of independence by reaffirming “the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, of which Serbia
is the successor state, and calling for “substantial autonomy and meaningful
self-administration for Kosovo”. [5]
Balkan and US Interest:
Despite
its so called declaration independence, Kosovo is set to remain a protectorate
of the European Union. This is perhaps what Mr Ahtisarri, UN appointed Mediator
and former President of Finland, envisaged, when he spoke of “supervised
independence”. It has been noted that such “independence” enables the Americans
to maintain a strategic military base at “Camp Bond steel” in the breakaway
region- the largest American military base to come up in Europe over the last
generation.[6]
Moreover, the Americans appear to have plans through “AMBO” – the
Albania, Macedonia, Bulgarian Oil Corporation registered in the US – to build a
trans-Balkans oil pipeline. This pipeline, bypassing Russia, will bring oil
from the Caspian sea to terminals in Georgia and then by tanker through the
Blake sea to the Bulgarian port of Burgas and then rely it through Macedonia to
the Albanian port of Vlora, for shipment to refineries in Rotterdam and the US
west coast.[7]
CAUCASUS:
The
“time bomb” of Dr. Guskova finally blasted in Caucasus when Russia intervened
militarily in Tbilisi and broken away two provinces-South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Russian-Georgian relations have been strained for some time over South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. Abkhazia has been demanding independence while South Ossetia
wants to join Russia.[8] Russia has issued Russian
passport to the 80,000 inhabitants of South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers,
nominally under the CIS umbrella, have been present in both regions since 1991.
Russia has many grievances vis-a-vis the West. In 2004, Georgia saw regime
change which brought a pro US government in power. NATO’s recent offer to
Georgia of the alliance’s membership at some future date has further annoyed
Russia.[9]
Russia’s confrontation with Georgia appeared to be partly responsible
for Moscow’s perception that attack on the Iran is on cards. It is now
acknowledged that Russia seized control of two air fields in Georgia from where
air strikes against Iran were being planned.[10]
The western recognition of Kosovo’s
independence last year also upset Russia deeply. The west has refused to take
heed of Russia’s concerns. The US has supported Georgia all these years. This
created an impression in Georgia that it enjoys US protection. But, during the
crisis, the US exercised restraint not to get involved militarily in the
conflict.
Apart
from pressuring Moscow to fall in line on the Iran nuclear issue, what is the
US game plan? To begin with, Saakashvilli, of course, is a progeny of the
“colour revolution” in Georgia, which was financed and stage-managed by the US
in 2003. The Georgia and the Caucasus constitute a critically important piece
of real estate for the U.S. since it straddles a busy transportation route for
energy. It can be used as a choke point. Simply put, keeping it under control
as a sphere of influence is a high advantageous for the pursuit of US
geopolitical interests in the Eurasian region. Rollbacks of Russian influence
therefore become a desirable objective.[11]
With
the induction of Georgia, NATO would cross over to the approaches to the Asia.
The arc of encirclement of Russia gets strengthened. The NATO ties facilitate
the deployment of US missile defence system in Georgia. The U.S. aims to have a
chain of countries tied to “partnerships” with NATO brought in to its missile
defence system- stretching from its allies in Baltic and Central Europe. The
ultimate objective of is to neutralise the strategic capability of Russia and China
and to establish its nuclear superiority. The National Defence Strategy
document issued by the pentagon on July 31, 2008, portrays Washington’s
perception of a resurgent Russia and a rising China as potential adversaries.[12]
Issues Of Differences:
The Russian-US difference exists
over a range of issues. The US has been accused by Russia of expanding uprising
in former Soviet territories such as through Rose revolutions and Orange
revolutions. Also US has accused Russia of having an undemocratic political
structure. The present US-Russia difference has arose over US plans to deploy
Anti-Ballistic missiles, citing threats from Iranian missiles, in
Czechoslovakia and Poland. Russia views it as a direct source of intervention
in Russia’s neighbourhood. Russia in turn suspended the CPE treaty and is
demanding a new treaty with US on lines of START. Moreover, they also the
differences over Iranian nuclear issue. Russia is against the punitive action
against Iran. US is also worry of development of Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation as a military block which would challenge NATO in west and Central
Asia.[13]
New Cold War:
Has the United States declared a new cold war on Russia? This question
is being asked by Russian politician and analysts bewildered by a virulently
anti-Russian speech of former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made at a
conference in Vilnius, Lithonia on 30 April, 2006. Addressing a meeting of
Baltic and Black sea states, Mr. Cheney lashed out at Russia, accusing it of
curbing civil liberties and using its energy resources as “tools of
intimidation and blackmail”.[14]
It was the harshest attack on Russia by a senior member of the US
administration since the closing days of cold war, when President Ronald Reagan
branded the Soviet Union an “evil empire”. Russian commentators compared Mr.
Cheney’s address to a 1946 speech by British leader Winston Churchill in
Fulton, the US; which gave the green light for the cold war. “The cold war has
restarted, only now the front lines have shifted (from Eastern Europe to the
former Soviet Union)”, Russia’s top business daily, kommersant, said.[15]
Russia’s transformation in foreign and security policy has been nothing
short of spectacular. After years of humiliation and retreat, Russia has
regained its great power status and global role. Mr. Putin, ex Russian
President, has put Russia on an equal footing with the west. His famous ‘Munich
Speech’ in February 2007, where he blasted the U.S. global policies as a
disaster and proclaimed the unipolar world dead, underscored Russia’s return to
the international stage as a leading power. Its international standing is
probably higher today than during the best of Soviet times. Respected U.S. scholar
Stephen F. Cohen, Professor of Russian and Slavic Studies at New York
University, defines the US policy towards Russia as an “undeclared cold war
Washington has waged, under both parties (Democrats and Republican), against
post communist Russia during the past 15 years.[16]
Moscow’s message to the west is that resurgent Russia will no longer
tolerate being treated as the cold war loser. “To be honest, not every one was
ready to see Russia begin to restore its economic health and its position on
international stage so rapidly”, Mr. Putin told the Russian ambassadors meeting
in August 2006. He further stated that “some still see us through the prism of
past prejudices and, as i said before, see a strong and reinvigorated Russia as
a threat”.[17]
Barack Obama’s pledge to “rest” relations with Moscow is although a good
effort towards normalisation of US-Russian relations but, from Moscow’s
perspective, the main problem of Russian American relations is that even though
the cold war ends 20 years ago the U.S. has continued to treat Russia as an
enemy, pushing NATO to Russia’s borders, surrounding it with a ring of military
bases and supporting patently anti-Russian leaders in former Soviet Union
states. Writing in Newsweek ahead of the Obama’s Moscow summit Russia’s Foreign
minister Sergei Lavrov said it “will take time” to overcome the “the crisis of
trust” that had developed between the two countries.[18]
[1] Rick Fawn, “the Kosovo- and Montenegro- effect”,
International Affairs 84: 2 (2008), pg.270-71.
[5] David S. Yost,
“NATO and the anticipatory use of force”, International Affairs 83: 1 (2007),
pg.49-50.
[8] Anuradha
Chenoy, “ The Russian- Georgian confrontation”, Economic and Political Weekely,
August 23,2008,pg.17-18.
[12] Richard Sakwa,
“new cold war or twenty years crisis; Russia and international politics”,
International Affairs 84: 2 (2008), pg.251.
[18] Vladimir Radyuhin,
“Towards a new cooperative era in US-Russia relations”, The Hindu, July 6,
2009.
