Washington is using a policy of soft influence to affect the South Caucasus as a counterbalance to Russia’s Eurasian projects, Editor-in-Chief of Vestnik Kavkaza, Alexey Vlasov, stated. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will discuss regional security and settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan. She arrived in Baku on June 6 as part of her visit to the South Caucasus.
She visited Georgia and urged Russia to leave South Ossetia. Clinton believes that Russia should stick to the cease-fire agreement of 2008, News Georgia reports.
The secretary of state called for development of democracy in Georgia and made a set of political statements. Experts consider it an attempt to activate the efforts of Washington in Georgia and support for Mikheil Saakashvili’s regime.
Alexey Vlasov, Editor-in-Chief of Vestnik Kavkaza told Golos Rossii about the purposes of the visits of Clinton to the Trans-Caucasus.
- This is not the first Armenia-Georgia-Azerbaijan tour by Clinton. Is the current visit symbolic or pragmatic?
- She needs to carry out an audit of the first presidential term of Barack Obama, his policy in the South Caucasus for the upcoming presidential terms in the US. The statements Clinton made during her visit to Georgia and the expected format of dialogue with the Azerbaijani authorities show that the US administration considers its foreign political course there a success and wants Barack Obama’s next term in office to start with enforcement of positions in the post-Soviet region.
- So does the region depend on US support? Does Washington have greater influence there?
- Washington has a dominating influence in Georgia and this is understandable. Azerbaijan is diversifying its policy between Moscow and the West, but Armenia is traditionally considered Russia’s strategic partner. So the US goal is formulated by Clinton: to preserve and enforce its influence in Georgia, bring Azerbaijan to the clear-way of US policy in the region and try to reduce Armenia’s dependence on Russia. Maybe these words have not been clearly articulated, but these goals doubtless lie in the background of her statements.
- About Georgia’s statements. Clinton’s last visit to the South Caucasus coincided with a call from the White House for the Russian military bases to leave South Ossetia two years ago. This time, the secretary of state herself urged Russia to withdraw from South Ossetia. Why did Clinton make the statement herself this year? What is hidden in her desired projection of Russian-US relations?
- The first projection is certainly the internal political context. It is clear that the topic of US foreign policy is not the dominant one at the upcoming polls, but Obama’s opponents blame him for being too soft with Russia and insist that the reload never happened. One of the reasons for that is Russia’s aggressive policy in the South Caucasus towards Georgia. This is why Clinton has to make references towards a more conservative part of the US establishment, realizing that it is the votes of very influential voters and lobbyists, which means that rhetoric is only getting harsher when “hour X” starts or is close.
The other aspect is the real attempt of US non-regional forces, and the US is not a regional force in the South Caucasus, to force Russia into a softer, as they say, policy towards South Caucasus and Abkhazia, i.e. to call off recognition of new independent states. Clinton is familiar with that. There is no sensation in the statements she made.
It is a constantly repeated thesis about withdrawal of Russian bases, withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers, scrapping of Abkhaz and South Ossetian independence. The intrigue is that Saakashvili will not run for president in 2013 or quit big politics of Georgia in return.
- Many said on the eve of the visit that US diplomacy will get familiarized with future candidates for president in Georgia. We know that Clinton met opposition leaders in Georgia and both the authorities and opposition were happy, as media reported. Could we say that the administration, the US secretary of state is looking for possible candidates and making bets?
- I believe that this issue was discussed intensively for the first time during the recent meeting of Saakashvili and Obama, which was the first one within the framework of a summit and bilateral talks. The shortlist of candidates for president is more or less clear. Let’s say Tbilisi Mayor Ugulava, Prime Minister Gilauri, Foreign Minister Vashadze, the very popular Interior Minister of Georgia Merabishvili, in other words, they are the people of Saakashvili.
It seems the opposition has some candidates for the future, a formally approved candidate to avoid unmasking of the pro-Western political class of Georgia. I think that they stopped at such a candidate, but we shall not try to guess which of the figures suits Saakashvili and the Georgian opposition, without giving a sense of rejection. Most importantly, it is not Saakashvili, it is a principle issue for them.
- We often hear the Georgian elite calling the US a good friend often offering a helping financial hand to Georgia. How far may Georgia get in playing with US friendship? What goal does the US plan using Georgia in the long-term prospect?
- It is a very multi-faceted issue, but I will stop at one of its parts. Georgian modernization is to a large extent realized using money of the US and Western funds. There is quite a successful, according to Georgian terms, reform of the customs service, the Interior Ministry, prevention of corruption. All this these achievements under foreign finances turns Georgia into a showcase of Western modernization in the South Caucasus region.
I assume that this version is an example of soft influence on neighboring states, because it is clear that young network opposition leaders in South Caucasus states are taking a more active position, promoting it online and make manifestations under slogans such as “We want it the way it is in Georgia”, “We want our own Saakashvili”.
The US, I believe, wants this: to expand the modernization field using additional financing according to the Western scenario, the Western model, as counterbalance for Eurasian projects proposed by Russia and Vladimir Putin.
It this struggle for minds and moods of young people may not be as evident as the topic of South Caucasus, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, but I believe that it is a much more important goal for Russia. We need to make our showcase of successful modernization to switch the public opinion, including that of Georgia, to closer ties with Moscow.
- But how should we regard the presents, not just the close relations of Georgia and the US? The US presented Georgia with a patrol boat, if I am not mistaken.
- These are moments symbolizing a new level of partnership relations. A special gift is prepared for every visit.
- Can constant statements about Georgia being welcome in NATO affect relations between Moscow and Washington?
- I believe that the Georgian topic is not the determining one, because there are many issues related to the anti-missile defenses, the Iranian problem, Syria, that only bring Russia and the United States apart. Many believe that the reload is only a fancy cover without any real filling.
I am not that pessimistic , but I believe that an audit after such statements, such visits of Russian policy in the Western, US direction, is no doubt necessary. Because we see that the closer the elections, the harsher the rhetoric, the less credit is given to Russian interests. It is generally a fact come true. This is why our leaders need to make conclusions. Let us see how they react to the loud statements of Clinton.
- The first state was Armenia, where Clinton said that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has no military solution. Officials of other states have said thisnumerous times. It is clear that the topic will be one of the central ones at negotiations with the Azerbaijani president. Do you believe that the US secretary of state will announce new opportunities to resolve the conflict?
- A talked with Azerbaijani partners and colleagues. There was only one question: if Clinton is supporting Georgia’s position in South Ossetia and Abkhazia so consistently, then why does she not support the position of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Or why not Azerbaijan, rather than Armenia?
Clinton is playing a very dangerous game by offering a thesis on an immediate resolution of the Abkhaz and South Ossetian issue, using the so-called double-standard approach to the topic of Nagorno-Karabakh. People can see it in Azerbaijan and I suppose that, despite the common positive information background of the visit, Azerbaijan will raise the topic for Clinton in quite a harsh fashion.
Personally, I do not expect big achievements from her visit to Azerbaijan. There will be some phases of friendship, democracy and strategic partnership. But the Nagorno-Karabakh topic cannot be solved at the moment, in my opinion. It will be like a rock that cannot be got round for Clinton.
