Who will develop the Caucasus?

The former special representative of the EU, Peter Semneby, published an article devoted to the situation in the South Caucasus and prospects for integration of the region, based on “a new identity.” It’s interesting that he decided to publish the article in the magazine Russia in Global Policy.

It was difficult to imagine a few years ago that the EU would develop such a clear vision of the region's development, as it has always been the zone of Russia’s interests. Mr. Semneby formulates the idea that it is necessary to search for “a common identity to understand each other better.” The idea is not fresh, but previously it was expressed in unstable forms and futureless models of a South Caucasian Federation, Mountain Republic or the confrontational and anti-Russian projects of the All-Caucasian House by the first president of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, and the leader of Ichkeria, Dzhokhar Dudayev.

In the mid-1990s the so-called Kislovodsk Initiative on cooperation in the Greater Caucasus appeared, which includes the three South Caucasian countries, the North Caucasian republics, the Rostov region and Stavropol territory. But the Kislovodsk process came to an end after one of the ideologists of the Chechen Republic–Ichkeria, Movladi Udugov, suggested establishing the Organization on Security and Cooperation in the Caucasus (a quasi-OSCE) in Tbilisi.

Semneby's proposal is deeper and more interesting than previous projects, as he suggests first defining the common identity (to go beyond the limits of national self-recognition), and then relying on it forming any kinds of integrational structures. He means a civic identity based on European values of liberalism and individual freedom, rather than ethnic and national identity.

The official of the EU promises to support these efforts by adding the new dimension of the South Caucasus countries’ belonging to the big European family. Confirming the EU's interest in the region as an energy and transport corridor to the Caspian Sea and beyond, Semneby emphasizes the interest of the united Europe in the stability, security and prosperity of this territory.

The author makes a remark: “It is difficult to dispel doubts that cooperation with the South Caucasus countries means competition and confrontation with Russia, rather than motivation for cooperation with it.”

According to Semneby, the European Union included the region in the strategies of European security several years ago as a “close neighborhood” (as well as the Eastern Partnership), but adopted a principle of cooperation with the states of the South Caucasus after the war in the region broke out.

It is a very interesting confession. It appears the EU decided to compete with Russia in the region after the war in 2008. So the war, which was won by Russia, failed to lead to the strengthening of Russia's positions in the region, and brought other powerful players here, who realized that civilized competition in the region and involvement in the settlement of its problems is necessary to fulfil pragmatic interests on providing security for and operating the South Caucasus energy corridor.

Moreover, Russia doesn’t really want to access other players in this zone, as it is not interested in transportation of Caspian energy from the Caspian Sea via alternative routes.

This idea by the official of the EU demonstrates a mistake made by many authors, who think that after defeat in the five-day war Mikhail Saakashvili with his radical pro-Western project gained nothing in thepolitical and geo-political sphere.

“The five-day war is a serious rolling back. However, even if it sounds paradoxical, it provided an impulse for new initiatives, which in other conditions couldn’t be born,” the European diplomat continues.
Of course, at the moment Russia (not the EU) has the controlling stake of influence on the situation in the region, as it is Moscow that holds its hand on the pulse of the South Caucasian conflicts. Russia and the EU propose various conceptions of integration, and the crucial point is the ability of these two power centers to overcome the main obstacles – ethnic conflicts.

Both Brussels and Moscow realize that the status quo is a dangerous policy, because if the rival proposes an effective and compromise settlement of the conflicts faster than you, it will lead to geopolitical defeat of the late side.

That is why Russia has to develop a new Kozak plan, which was a plan of peacemaking in Transdniestria years ago and led to the strengthening of Moscow's positions in that region.

Georgy Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively to VK.