Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

March 15, 2012 |  9 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Editorial Team

James Appathurai on Central Asia, the Caucasus, and More

Editorial Team: The NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy returns to answer more of your questions! In this next round he discusses NATO’s role in Central Asia, the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, and reaching out to Brazil, among other issues.

James Appathurai, the Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy, is back on atlantic-community.org with answers to more of your questions. In case you missed it, you can watch the videos of his first visit where he discussed global partnerships and the Arab Spring as well as the Alliance's partnerships in Asia, including responding to two proposals from the Atlantic Memos.

In this playlist, he answers 5 more questions on topics such as tensions in the Caucasus, how Central Asian partnerships relate to the Afghanistan mission, and the changing focus of NATO's partnership frameworks in the Middle East and North Africa. He will be back for a final 5 answers tomorrow.

You can read more about Mr. Appathurai and his role at NATO in the original article.

We encourage you to let us know what you think of the answers and to contribute your reactions, comments, and ideas in the comments below. Remember to log in when commenting. If you've forgotten your password, click here.

A full transcript of Mr. Appathurai's answers appears below.

 

Elkhan Mamedov, student, Russia: Which kind of arrangements is NATO going to carry out in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia?

James Appathurai: The bottom line is we hope that that never happens. NATO has no intention, no plan, of getting involved in a Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and we're not even involved in the peace process, which is being led by, of course, the two presidents but also the Russian Federation, the United States, and France in something called the Minsk Process. That being said, I think there is concern amongst the Allies at the state of the Minsk Process. We heard from the two presidents here at NATO headquarters just in the last few weeks that they are committed to the process, they're committed to a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis. But the reality is that the Minsk Process has had some difficulties, especially recently, and that there is worrying rhetoric between the two countries and a lot of weapons being purchased by both countries.

This is a region which probably doesn't get as much attention as it deserves from the international media. It is of critical strategic importance for reasons of its location, for reasons of its potential, and for reasons of its energy transit and supply role. So for many, many reasons it's important that this conflict be resolved in a peaceful way as soon as possible and respecting the principles of international law. So we hope it will be solved, but to come back to the question in its most pointed way, NATO is not involved in this crisis, except to support the Minsk group and a peaceful resolution. Video

 

Robert Helbig, student, American University, Germany: Is Brazil on NATO's agenda yet? If so, does NATO strive to build up a partnership with Brazil in the medium-term? What benefits does NATO hope to get out of a partnership with Brazil?

James Appathurai: The short answer is: Brazil has not expressed any particular interest in a relationship with NATO and we have not sought it out. It's relatively far away for us and the importance of Brazil is something which we recognize. It even is part now of an informal grouping called the BRICs, and it even leads it off. It's an emerging power and one which we hope and expect will work constructively, of course, in the international system. But the Alliance isn't seeking out a particular partnership with Brazil, though we wouldn't oppose it.

What we have seen in the last little while is that a number of emerging countries have taken an ever more prominent role at the United Nations, in the international system, not just economically, but also politically. And we welcome that. These countries can help bear the burden of international security in a way that the Alliance alone cannot do. So we definitely want to see a situation in which all the emerging economies, including Brazil, the emerging powers, continue to play an ever more prominent, ever more constructive role with us in the international system. Video

 

Yulia Boguslavskaya, assistant professor, St. Petersburg State University, Russia: How does cooperation with NATO contribute to security and stability in Central Asia? What is the proper role for the Alliance in that region?

James Appathurai: It's a good question, and coming from Russia an even better question. Because there are many who look at Central Asia as a sort of battleground between the West and Russia. An area in which we are competing for influence. And I would quite strongly reject that analogy or that assessment.

We have common interests in Central Asia. And I mean common with the Central Asian countries and NATO, and common between all three if we include Russia as well. And I could list them for you.

First, is stability in Afghanistan. It is vital for all of us that Afghanistan does not once again begin exporting terrorism, extremism, or continue to export drugs, which of course hit Russia but hit all of us as well. So we have an interest in stabilizing Afghanistan, shared by all of us. And the best way to do that is to cooperate. We do that. NATO, Russia, and Central Asia for example train together our counter narcotic officials, particularly Central Asian, Afghan but also now Pakistani. Russia plays a very important role in this joint project with NATO allies. And it works very well. It's not solving the drug problem, and we're doing our best to help that to happen. But it is at least helping to mitigate, to restrain the flow of drugs out of Afghanistan.

But we have a larger interest in cooperation with Central Asia. And that is to help the Central Asian countries reach their full potential. Including as transit areas for trade, as production and transit areas for energy. That's a mutual interest for everybody.

And finally, let me also say that the Allies do encourage the process that was put in place recently in Istanbul and in Bonn, and that is to promote economic cooperation between the Central Asian countries, and Afghanistan, and other regional parties.

In the end, the strongest incentive for peace and stability in Afghanistan will be economic cooperation and interdependence. Look at the EU. The EU is the ultimate example of how economic interdependence breeds cooperation and peace. So we're very happy to see that the Central Asians are embracing this concept through the processes that I have mentioned, and NATO will be there. I am committed to this, not only personally, but professionally as NATO's Special Representative to Central Asia. Video

 

Yulia Boguslavskaya, assistant professor, St. Petersburg State University, Russia: Should Central Asian states do more to bring about stability to Afghanistan? Should their role increase after the Alliance's withdrawal?

James Appathurai: I sort of addressed this in the last question. But let me make another couple of points. The Central Asian countries are concerned that when 2014 arrives and the Alliance has a much smaller and different presence in Afghanistan, that they will be left with a problem or a growing problem of instability, and terrorism, and extremism, and drugs.

So it's very important that the Alliance is clear with them, including me, that we will have a presence beyond the end of the combat mission. That we are committed for the long term to Afghanistan's stability. And committed not just rhetorically or politically, we will have people on the ground doing work to help the Afghans stabilize their own country.

But we will also work with the Central Asian countries so that they can protect themselves better, fight against and defend against these many threats. So we're going to offer them more consultation, more exercises, more joint training to help them beef up their own capacity to handle these problems. And in doing that, we want to create a situation where the Central Asian countries can engage productively with Afghanistan, and they are trying to do that to help Afghanistan find its own feet. We don't want to return to a situation that we hand in the past where, for reasons of insecurity, individual nations of the region took individual approaches to Afghanistan, which didn't do anybody in the end any good. Video

 

Olga Kolesnichenko, freelance journalist, Russia: Have NATO's frameworks in the Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative led to changes in the Middle East or are they a reflection of the new importance and changing security situation in the region?

James Appathurai: In fact, these two frameworks, and put more largely NATO's partnerships with countries in the Middle East and North Africa in these two separate frameworks, date back many, many years. You can look up their history on the web.

We've always believed, well it's obvious to anybody that the Middle East and North Africa is a region of key strategic importance, and I don't need to explain to you why. But it is true that the Allies have decided just in the last couple of years to beef up the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. And right now, almost literally right now as I'm recording this, the Allies are in discussion with our partners from the region to see how we can do more together.

What more can we do together in terms of political consultation, in terms of practical cooperation. Where should our priorities be. Can we provide more support to them on their request for their reform processes? Would Libya like to join the Mediterranean Dialogue, the seven other countries in the MD, so that it can take advantage of all the experience and capacity that NATO has to help them build security in their own country? To build a defense ministry. To build an armed forces that can provide for security in its own country.

So there is a lot NATO can offer. There's a lot we want to offer. But we want to do it according to the priorities of our partners of the region. So they're talking to us; we're talking to them. And what you'll see I think at the Summit in Chicago around the 20th of May is a declaration by NATO that will, I believe, have the endorsement of our partners in the region, of how we are going to do more together.

And the word together is the word I want to stress. There will be no imposition by the Alliance of anything on anyone. On the contrary, we want to hear from them and meet their needs in a way of course that we can afford and that meets our priorities as well. So you'll see more out of NATO in the next little while. Video

  • 11
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Olga  Kolesnichenko

March 16, 2012

  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you Mr. Appathurai for very wise and important answers and opinion!
It is crucial for NATO today to see the right way in terms of strategy, especially with modern powered view. New NATO partnership approach, new century with globalization and new millennium in history. Today is the most interesting moment for creation entirely new ideas and not only creation but also to implement new ideas into reality. Nobody, as I suppose, predicted such new historical turn as Arab Spring. Of course it happened under West mental influence. It is strictly shows that new era has become, it has become as 'son' which had born Europe, Euro-Atlantic values. Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative are not only new NATO tools for reaching out Arab Spring region. Both frameworks are necessity and only one chance in history! to nurture Arab Spring - 'son' in right direction. To grow Eastern world that is more strong and more inhabited than West. To build for Europe-mothership the pillar in the future that can be safer and more prosperity, if Europe would base upon strong power. That kind of strategy goal we all can achieve only due to common efforts together.
 
Stephen  Raeman

March 16, 2012

  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you Mr. Appathurai for very interesting round of answers.
Concerning Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia I have to say that politicians should avoid to use the history for arising the 'freeze' conflicts among states. The previous people tragedies must not become as cause of new people tragedies. Unfortunately especially today in information era politicians use the historical claimes not only for history explanation, but for provocation the tension in the conflict's area. In every case of historical claimes we should differentiate the only historical reconstruction from attempts to provoke the bloody conflict. The historical truth must serve for society, for peace, not for war. Reason of historical claims should be recognized clear. Of course every state, every nation has the strong right to seek the historical truth. And may be better historical disputes, not the political. All historical disputes can bring the lessons how avoid the previous mistakes that of course have brought only disadvantages and damage. All historical claims shouldn't undermine the breakable regional stability. Politicians don't have the right to use the speed of information spread around the whole world as the tool for regional satisfaction.
In my point of view you Mr. Appathurai make very polite statements that are needed for region in that you in charge in NATO. Thank you.
 
Bronislav  Mazur

March 16, 2012

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Appathurai, thank you again!
With great pleasure always read your articles and answers.
Recently on your FB official pageJames Appathurai Official http://www.facebook.com/JamesAppathurai?sk=wall you mentioned that you are going to continue the discussion about NAC and new partnership strategy during upcoming live web chat on the WE-NATO platform on March 21, live stream online at www.livestream.com/nato at 15h00 CET.
Can you please say a little more about Afghanistan, about NAC meetings with non-NATO ISAF Contributing Nations. Some key points. You said that NATO will help to build a defense ministry and armed forces in partner-countries. Afghanistan today is one of several states that has included in NATO format 'Partners across the globe'. Interesting, what is the first steps of Afghanistan in the new framework? Did NATO hold NAC+ sessions with 'Partners across the globe'? And how it may be - at the common negotiation table NAC, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq? Do Afghanistan and Iraq have some bilateral discussions as transition experience of cooperation with NATO in military education sphere?


 
Unregistered User

March 17, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Viktor Nikolaevich Mytarin
Colonel, retired, from Kursk, Russia
veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and in Chechnya,
communist

Mr. Appathurai! I have to say you that in Russia we have another point of view! I think that efforts of NATO and USA in Caucasus have intention to push out Russia from region. NATO presence in Caucasus will lead to weakness of Russia's influence and will be as threat for Russian national security! USA aspire to dictate only own interest in Caucasus in terms of oil, it is expansion to Caspiy! You might hear it from our most experienced politician about NATO and military sphere D. Rogozin. We all respect and believe Rogozin!

 
Unregistered User

March 18, 2012

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Ronald Lertoff, PhD Fellow, Canada
Mr. Appathurai, thank you for very interesting round. I can write some sharp opinion. The only reason that can explain Russia policy towards Georgia during last decade is interest of oil-gas lobby which afraid to lose big part of Russian Caspiy border if Georgia would be as trigger of separatism in North Caucasus. Russia has pushed away Georgia first after Chechnya war, I think it was strong decision because of historical involving Georgia into North Caucasus and fear of separatism in North Caucasus. It was wrong politycal decision in Russia that led to Georgia losing it's historical pillar in region. Also it led to war in 2008. It is crucial to return Georgia to North Caucasus due to cross-border development strategy.
The solid argument for inefficiency for regional security the only one Caucasus state involvement into partnership framework is Collective Security Treaty Organization that since 1999 has included only Armenia. This fact resulted as zero effect in terms of regional security in Caucasus as a whole. Armenia has joined into CIS Collective Security Treaty in 1992 (Tashkent founding), Azerbaijan joined in 1993 and Georgia joined also in 1993. In 1999 Azerbaijan and Georgia withdrew from CIS Collective Security Treaty. It means that in Caucasus post-Soviet Russia had the tremendous failure in regional security efforts in 1999. And it was directly during second Chechen war (1999-2000).
 
Stephen  Raeman

March 18, 2012

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Appathurai,
all understand that Caucasus is that kind of region where are two dangerous 'frozen' conflicts: Georgian-Russian (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and Armenian-Azerbaijani (Nagorno-Karabakh).
Caucasus is the very rich land, with crucial opportunity to be as transport hub and passage among two seas, and with oil-gas in Caspiy. However Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia cannot say that they are the 'host of Caucasus' and that they have all advantages from Caucasian land. Quite the reverse especially Georgia and Armenia don't feel itself as host of Caucasus. They aspire very keen to Europe. But they should feel the own regional footstep and they should be attractive for Europe. Twenty years after USSR should be considered as very short historical period for any state for establishment entirely new stable regional infrastructure. But they can become as strong Caucasian cluster of three small independent states.
Caucasian states have had understanding that republics are still without enough experience of modern independent statehood to define clear goals and long-term political perspective. Due to concentration of several crucial circumstances post-soviet states are able only to focus on survival way in ad-hoc regime, and didn't have the opportunity to develop the strategic vision of foreign policy orientation with concrete effective steps. The historical territorial conflicts only add the strategic uncertainty.
Experts considered three types of policy for Caucasian states: 1. pro-Russian; 2. pro-Western; 3. buffer state. All lost the power. Pro-Russian policy cannot have success till Russia change own strategy from fears towards openness. Pro-Western policy cannot have success because of economic failure of EU. 'Buffer state' policy is the failed policy because small states have to keep the balance among big regional players.
All of Caucasian states have the same political problems as small countries in the similar conditions in region. It leads to 'Cluster strategy' or pro-Caucasian policy.
Because of involving of all three states of Caucasus into frozen conflicts with enduring uncertain situation 'no war, no peace' for all three states - Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia - most crucial issue in state's building and development is military sector. Any unilateral attempts to provide security in Caucasus only deliver the damage for every of three states.
The membership of Armenia in CSTO with simultaneously move closer to NATO of Azerbaijan can provoke the military tension in Nagorno-Karabakh. As it was with Georgia after Bucharest Summit in 2008.
 
Unregistered User

March 18, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Aslan Jyhanov, Russia, student
Mr. Mytarin!
Due to Caucasus Russia keeps itself as 'core' of EuroAsian influence. But if we ask Russian people is Russia the big Caucasian country, Russians will answer that no, Russia is not the Caucasian country!
 
Bronislav  Mazur

March 18, 2012

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
And I also can say to Mr. Mytarin that in 1998 in journal 'International Life' was wtitten by fellow from Ministy of Foreign Affaires of Russia that USA in Georgia planned to base the military ships and some transport aviation. It was period beetween two Chechen wars and also it was as some provocation that only affect against Georgia and its relation with Russia. There were 2 mentioned cases of USA 'attempts' to deploy the troops in Caucasus (in 1998 Georgia; Turkey proposal in 1998 of special peacekeeping NATO PfP forces), also there were mentioned 'plan Storm over Caspiy' in 1994-1996 for deploying NATO troops in Caucasus (and in Kalmykia) if war would be (but war in Chechnya was!) and plan to start big war in Caucasus by USA in 1992-1993, also there was mentioned that in 1999 Aslan Mashadov called NATO to deploy troops in Caucasus - today we see that USA and NATO haven't deployed any troops in Caucasus that contradicts with such kind of 'versions'.
 
Yulia  Boguslavskaya

March 23, 2012

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Mr. Appathurai,

Thank you for your answers.

NATO-Russia relations can be viewed as a peculiar mix of competition and cooperation, where the former still prevails. May be it is just a logic of how the international system works.

However, any signs of cooperation, if it can become mutually beneficial for both, are very engouraging. I believe, we should step by step develop the habit to cooperation, despite the ever-existing areas of disagreements. Learning to solve the problems together, taking into consideration each other`s preoccupations, will contribute beneficially to both sides.

Thank you!
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website