SCO Annual Summit

Central Asia » Blog Archive » SCO Annual Summit 

It’s that time of year again. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Annual Summit! The meeting will be held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan on August 28, and foreign ministers from all six of its member states have already concluded a meeting going over a few topics to be discussed at the larger summit. The group of ministers decided that no new members, not Iran, Pakistan, Mongolia, or India (all have Observer Status), will be enshrined, but that a SCO Dialogue Partners mechanism will be instituted to increase cooperation between the organization and these important neighbors. During last years meeting, the main topic of media/geopolitical debate was the appearance of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, who brought with him Iran’s ‘right to have nuclear energy’ and his own bombastic style of speaking and railing against the US. Well, he’s back for more. Iran will lose some spotlight this year, as Russia’s actions in Georgia and China’s Olympic spectacle will take center stage once again. Both dominating members of this alliance will come with their chests bursting.

The debate of the SCO’s nature and actual power, and how these may affect US policy and influence in Central Asia, have been major topics since its existence in 2001. Is it a rival, partner, both? How well does it function? Does it provide benefits to its CA members or does it only provide a venue for China and Russia to dominate them? Well, the host of Summit, Tajik President Rahmon seems to be quite excited about the upcoming meeting and the SCO’s accomplishments so far. “The SCO has demonstrated specific results in the years of its existence, and its future is cloudless.” Rahmon went on to discuss how important its relations with Russia and China were, which is indeed obviously true. The US State Department view of the SCO is not as glowing, but not fearful either, at least not in the words of Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Evan A. Feigenbaum. He acknowledges that the US does not have a clear idea of what the SCO is and does, but is quick to assert that it ‘is no Warsaw Pact’ and that there are many shared interests between the US and the Organization’s professed goals: border security, economic development, Afghanistan stability, and defeating radical terrorist elements. However, Feigenbaum draws a firm line when it comes to supporting the region’s smaller states’ sovereign and independent rights to look in all ‘four directions of the compass’ for economic and strategic opportunities, i.e. he wants the states to be able to look and work with the West, not just be dominated by Russia or China.

A perennial concern for the growth of the SCO as a regional and international powerhouse is the relationship, or lack thereof, between Russia and China. The two have been getting along nicely in past years, and have used the SCO to work out many differences between the two Great Powers, especially regarding border demarcations. But man, oh man, do they have some fundamental differences, as any two large nations would who share an extensive border. In fact, they both desire to use the SCO to cooperate in CA, but also to get their individual interests in the region’s resources further embedded. In many ways, its pipeline vs. pipeline and gas deal vs. gas deal between the two. But there have been very few times of crisis/conflict between the two growing powers and the SCO probably deserves some credit for this smooth management.

So how do you see the SCO changing, evolving in the recent geopolitical context? Are its motivations the same? Is its power the same? Does it help the CA states autocrats keep their hold on power? How will the recent Georgian-Russian conflict and the terrorist attacks in Xinjiang Province affect this year’s meeting and future policies of the organization? What about the Observer States? What about them? Should they allow Iran in and receive energy help but diplomatic pain? Is there any chance in Nirvana that India might become a Full Member?

On a less geopolitically fun note, The Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) will have an important summit on September 25 featuring high level officials. Here is a short article discussing the organization’s positive elements and some of its challenges in being an effective force for economic development in the region.

Άντε και καλή αρχή!

Με κλικ στην εικόνα, οδηγείστε στο scribd απ' όπου και μπορείτε να το κατεβάσετε 

Το πρώτο τεύχος του “Σελιδοδείκτη” είναι γεγονός! Αποτελεί, την πραγματοποίηση μιας ιδέας που στριφογύριζε μέσα στο μυαλό μου γι' αρκετό καιρό και χαίρομαι που σήμερα μπορώ να τη βλέπω ολοκληρωμένη στην οθόνη του ηλεκτρονικού μου υπολογιστή.

Τί είναι όμως ο “Σελιδοδείκτης”; Είναι ένας εύκολος τρόπος διαμοιρασμού και παρουσίασης των πιο δημοφιλών αναρτήσεων του ιστολογίου μου – το προτιμώ από ένα απλό newsletter, σύμφωνα με τα στατιστικά στοιχεία του statcounter.com... και όχι μόνον!

Όλοι μας ή τουλάχιστον οι περισσότεροι, θέλουμε να μπορούμε ελεύθερα να δημοσιεύουμε και να συζητάμε τις απόψεις μας, τις προτάσεις μας... Έτσι, και οι σκέψεις και οι γνώσεις μας αποκτούν νόημα και η πληροφόρηση δεν κινδυνεύει να χαθεί καθώς, οι δρόμοι της επικοινωνίας είναι αμφίδρομοι. Το διαδίκτυο παρέχει αυτή τη δυνατότητα και μάλιστα με οικονομία, μέσα από ιστολόγια και ιστοσελίδες. Κι εκεί ακριβώς είναι που αποτυγχάνει, πλέον, η έντυπη έκφραση!

Ο “Σελιδοδείκτης” είναι το επόμενο βήμα, που συπληρώνει ή ακόμη καλλίτερα, επεκτείνει με τρόπο οικείο και χρηστικό την προσωπική μου πολιτική και κοινωνική παρέμβαση μέσα από την συγγραφή.

Οπωσδήποτε, και θέλω να το τονίσω αυτό, η συγκεκριμένη προσπάθεια δεν επιδιώκει να υποκαταστήσει σε καμία περίπτωση το ιστολόγιο μου!

Η “Πολιτική Προσέγγιση” είναι και παραμένει χώρος προσωπικής έκφρασης!

Αυτό το πρώτο τεύχος έχει αρκετές ελλείψεις και χρήζει βελτιώσεων που, ευελπιστώ πως θα έρθουν με τον καιρό. Ο συνεχής εμπλουτισμός της θεματολογίας του είναι ένας ακόμη στόχος γι' αυτό και σας παρακαλώ να το κρίνετε με επιείκεια.

Σας εύχομαι καλή ανάγνωση!

Why Russia’s response to Georgia was right

γράφει ο Sergei Lavrov

For some of those witnessing the fighting in the Caucasus over the past few days, the narrative is straightforward and easy. The plucky republic of Georgia, with just a few million citizens, was attacked by its giant eastern neighbour, Russia. Add to this all the stereotypes of the cold war era, and you are presented with a truly David and Goliath interpretation – with all its accompanying connotations of good and evil. While this version of events is being written in much of the western media, the facts present a different picture.

Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a conflict of Russia’s making; this is not a conflict of Russia’s choosing. There are no winners from this conflict. Hours before the Georgian invasion, Russia had been working to secure a United Nations Security Council statement calling for a renunciation of force by both Georgia and South Ossetians. The statement that could have averted bloodshed was blocked by western countries.

Last Friday, after the world’s leaders had arrived at the Beijing Olympics, Georgian troops launched an all-out assault on the region of South Ossetia, which has enjoyed de facto independence for more than 16 years. The majority of the region’s population are Russian citizens. Under the terms of the 1992 agreement to which Georgia is a party, they are afforded protection by a small number of Russian peacekeeping soldiers. The ground and air attack resulted in the killing of peacekeepers and the death of an estimated 1,600 civilians, creating a humanitarian disaster and leading to an exodus of 30,000 refugees. The Georgian regime refused to allow a humanitarian corridor to be established and bombarded a humanitarian convoy. There is also clear evidence of atrocities having been committed – so serious and systematic that they constitute acts of genocide.

There can be little surprise, therefore, that Russia responded to this unprovoked assault on its citizens by launching a military incursion into South Ossetia. No country in the world would idly stand by as its citizens are killed and driven from their homes. Russia repeatedly warned Tbilisi that it would protect its citizens by force if necessary, and its actions are entirely consistent with international law, including article 51 of the UN charter on the right of self-defence.

Russia has been entirely proportionate in its military response to Georgia’s attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers. Russia’s tactical objective has been to force Georgian troops out of the region, which is off limits to them under international agreements. Despite Georgia’s assertion that it had imposed a unilateral ceasefire, Russian peacekeepers and supporting troops remained under continued attack – a fact confirmed by observers and journalists in the region. Russia had no choice but to target the military infrastructure outside the region being used to sustain the Georgian offensive. Russia’s response has been targeted, proportionate and legitimate.

Russia has been accused of using the conflict to try to topple the government and impose control over the country. This is palpable nonsense. Having established the safety of the region, the president has declared an end to military operations. Russia has no intention of annexing or occupying any part of Georgia and has again affirmed its respect for its sovereignty. Over the next few days, on the condition that Georgia refrains from military activity and keeps its forces out of the region, Russia will continue to take the diplomatic steps required to consolidate this temporary cessation of hostilities.

Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s president, has stated that “unless we stop Russia, unless the whole world stops it, Russian tanks will go to any European capital tomorrow”, adding on a separate occasion that “it’s not about Georgia any more. It’s about America”. It is clear that Georgia wants this dispute to become something more than a short if bloody conflict in the region. For decision-makers in the Nato countries of the west, it would be worth considering whether in future you want the men and women of your armed services to be answerable to Mr Saakashvili’s declarations of war in the Caucasus.

Russia is a member of the Security Council, of the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and partner with the west on issues as varied as the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. In keeping with its responsibilities as a world power and the guarantor of stability in the Caucasus, Russia will work to ensure a peaceful and lasting resolution to the situation in the region.

originally posted at Financial Times