What's new

Russia remains a Black Sea power

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

By M K Bhadrakumar

If the struggle in the Caucasus was ever over oil and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) agenda towards Central Asia, the United States suffered a colossal setback this week. Kazakhstan, the Caspian energy powerhouse and a key Central Asian player, has decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Russia over the conflict with Georgia, and Russia's de facto control over two major Black Sea ports has been consolidated.

At a meeting in the Tajik capital Dushanbe on Thursday on the sidelines of the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Kazakh President Nurusultan Nazarbayev told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that Moscow could count on Astana's support in the present crisis.

In his press conference in Dushanbe, Medvedev underlined that his SCO counterparts, including China, showed understanding of the Russian position. Moscow appears satisfied that the SCO summit also issued a statement on the Caucasus developments, which, inter alia, said, "The leaders of the SCO member states welcome the signing in Moscow of the six principles for regulating the South Ossetia conflict, and support Russia's active role in assisting peace and cooperation in the region." The SCO comprises China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

There were tell-tale signs that something was afoot when the Kazakh Foreign Ministry issued a statement on August 19 hinting at broad understanding for the Russian position. The statement called for an "unbiased and balanced assessment" of events and pointed out that an "attempt [was made] to resolve a complicated ethno-territorial issue by the use of force", which led to "grave consequences". The statement said Astana supported the "way the Russian leadership proposed to resolve the issue" within the framework of the United Nations charter, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and international law.

The lengthy statement leaned toward the Russian position but offered a labored explanation for doing so.

Kazakhstan has since stepped out into the thick of the diplomatic sweepstakes and whole-heartedly endorsed the Russian position.
This has become a turning point for Russian diplomacy in the post-Soviet space. Nazarbayev said: I am amazed that the West simply ignored the fact that Georgian armed forces attacked the peaceful city of Tskhinvali [in South Ossetia]. Therefore, my assessment is as follows: I think that it originally started with this. And Russia's response could either have been to keep silent or to protect their people and so on. I believe that all subsequent steps taken by Russia have been designed to stop bloodshed of ordinary residents of this long-suffering city. Of course, there are many refugees, many homeless.

Guided by out bilateral agreement on friendship and cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia, we have provided humanitarian aid: 100 tons have already been sent. We will continue to provide assistance together with you.

Of course, there was loss of life on the Georgian side - war is war. The resolution of the conflict with Georgia has now been shifted to some indeterminate time in the future. We have always had good relations with Georgia. Kazakhstan's companies have made substantial investments there. Of course, those that have done this want stability there. The conditions of the plan that you and [President of France Nicolas] Sarkozy drew up must be implemented, but some have begun to disavow certain points in the plan.

However, I think that negotiations will continue and that there will be peace - there is no other alternative. Therefore, Kazakhstan understands all the measures that have been taken, and Kazakhstan supports them. For our part, we will be ready to do everything to ensure that everyone returns to the negotiating table.

From Moscow's point of view, Nazarbayev's words are worth their weight in gold. Kazakhstan is the richest energy producer in Central Asia and is a regional heavyweight. It borders China. The entire US regional strategy in Central Asia ultimately aims at replacing Russia and China as Kazakhstan's number one partner. American oil majors began making a beeline to Kazakhstan immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 - including Chevron, with which US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was associated.

Unsurprisingly, Kazakhstan figured as a favorite destination for US Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W Bush has lavishly hosted Nazarbayev in the White House.

The US had gone the extra league in cultivating Nazarbayev, with the fervent hope that somehow Kazakhstan could be persuaded to commit its oil to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, whose viability is otherwise in doubt. The pipeline is a crucial component of the US's Caspian great game.

The US had gone to great lengths to realize the pipeline project against seemingly hopeless odds. In fact, Washington stage-managed the "color" revolution in Georgia in November 2003 (which catapulted Mikheil Saakashvili to power in Tbilisi) on the eve of the commissioning of the pipeline. The general idea behind the commotion in the South Caucasus was that the US should take control of Georgia through which the pipeline passes.

Besides, Kazakhstan shares a 7,500 kilometer border with Russia, which is the longest land border between any two countries in the world. It would be a nightmare for Russian security if NATO were to gain a foothold in Kazakhstan. Again, the US strategy had targeted Kazakhstan as the prize catch for NATO in Central Asia. The US aimed to make a pitch for Kazakhstan after getting Georgia inducted into NATO.

These American dreams have suffered a setback with the Kazakh leadership now closing ranks with Moscow. It seems Moscow outwitted Washington.

Belarus voices support

The other neighboring country sharing a common border with Russia, Belarus, has also expressed support for Moscow. Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko visited Medvedev in Sochi on August 19 to express his solidarity.

"Russia acted calmly, wisely and beautifully. This was a calm response. Peace has been established in the region - and it will last," he commented.

What is even more potent is that Russia and Belarus have decided to sign an agreement this autumn on creating a unified air defense system. This is hugely advantageous for Russia in the context of the recent US attempts to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic.

According to Russian media reports, Belarus has several S-300 air defense batteries - Russia's advanced system - on combat duty and is currently negotiating the latest S-400 systems from Russia, which will be made available by 2010.

Attention now shifts to the meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is scheduled to take place in Moscow on September 5. The CSTO's stance on the crisis in the Caucasus will be closely watched.

It appears that Moscow and Kazakhstan are closely cooperating in setting the agenda of CSTO, whose members are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The big question is how the CSTO gears up to meet NATO's expansion plans. The emergent geopolitical reality is that with Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Moscow has virtually checkmated the US strategy in the Black Sea region, defeating its plan to make the Black Sea an exclusive "NATO lake". In turn, NATO's expansion plans in the Caucasus have suffered a setback.

Not many analysts have understood the full military import of the Russian moves in recognizing the breakaway Georgian republics.

Russia has now gained de facto control over two major Black Sea ports - Sukhumi and Poti. Even if the US-supported regime of Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine creates obstacles for the Russian fleet based in the Crimean port of Sevastopol - in all probability, Moscow will shrug off any Ukrainian pressure tactic - the fleet now has access to alternative ports on the Black Sea. Poti, in particular, has excellent facilities dating to the Soviet era.

The swiftness with which Russia took control of Poti must have made the US livid with anger. Washington's fury stems from the realization that its game plan to eventually eliminate Russia's historical role as a "Black Sea power" has been rendered a pipe dream. Of course, without a Black Sea fleet, Russia would have ceased to be a naval power in the Mediterranean. In turn, Russia's profile in the Middle East would have suffered. The Americans indeed had an ambitious game plan towards Russia.

There is every indication that Moscow intends to assert the strategic presence of its Black Sea Fleet. Talks have begun with Syria for the expansion of a Russian naval maintenance base at the Syrian port of Tartus. The Middle East media recently suggested in the context of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Moscow that Russia might contemplate shifting its Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol to Syria. But this is an incorrect reading insofar as all that Russia needs is a supply and maintenance center for its warships, which operate missions in the Mediterranean. In fact, the Soviet navy's 5th Mediterranean Squadron had made use of Tartus port for such purpose.

China shows understanding

Moscow will approach the CSTO summit pleased with the SCO's backing, even it it was not without reservations. Medvedev said of the SCO meeting,
Of course, I had to tell our partners what had actually happened, since the picture painted by some of the Western media unfortunately differed from real facts as to who was the aggressor, who started all this, and who should bear the political, moral and ultimately the legal responsibility for what happened ...

Our colleagues gratefully received this information and during a series of conversations we concluded that such events certainly do not strengthen the world order, and that the party that unleashed the aggression should be responsible for its consequences ... I am very pleased to have been able to discuss this with our colleagues and to have received from them this kind of support for our efforts. We are confident that the position of the SCO member states will produce an appropriate resonance through the international security, and I hope this will give a serious signal to those who are trying to justify the aggression that was committed.
It must have come as a relief to Moscow that China agreed to line up behind such a positive formulation. On Thursday, the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow also seems to have had its first contact with the Chinese Embassy regarding the issue. Significantly, the Foreign Ministry statement said the meeting between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Borodavkin and Chinese ambassador Liu Guchang took place at the Chinese initiative.

The statement claimed, "The Chinese side was informed of the political and legal motives behind Russia's decision and expressed an understanding of them." (Emphasis added.) It is highly unlikely that on such a sensitive issue, Moscow would have unilaterally staked a tall claim without some degree of prior tacit consent from the Chinese side, which is a usual diplomatic practice.

The official Russian news agency report went a step further and highlighted that "China had expressed its understanding of Russia's decision to recognize Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia".

The favorable stance by Belarus, Kazakhstan and China significantly boosts Moscow's position. In real terms, the assurance that the three big countries that surround Russia will remain on friendly terms no matter the West's threat to unleash a new cold war, makes a huge difference to Moscow's capacity to maneuver. Any time now - possibly this weekend - we may expect Belarus to announce its recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Clearly, Moscow is disinterested to mount any diplomatic campaign to rally support from the world community for the sovereignty and independence of the two breakaway provinces. As a Moscow commentator put it, "Unlike in comrade Leonid Brezhnev's time, Moscow is not trying to press any countries into supporting it on this issue. If it did, it could find quite a few sympathizers, but who cares?"

It serves Moscow's purpose as long as the world community draws an analogy between Kosovo and the two breakaway provinces. In any case, the two provinces have been totally dependent on Russia for economic sustenance.

With the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, what matters critically for Moscow is that if the West now intends to erect any new Berlin Wall, such a wall will have to run zig-zag along the western coast of the Black Sea, while the Russian naval fleet will always stay put on the east coast and forever sail in and out of the Black Sea.

The Montreal Convention assures the free passage of Russian warships through the Straits of Bosphorous. Under the circumstances, NATO's grandiose schemes to occupy the Black Sea as its private lake seem outlandish now. There must be a lot of egg on the faces of the NATO brains in Brussels and their patrons in Washington and London.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
 

By Mikhail Molchanov

On the eve of his visit to Ukraine, David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary, said he wanted to forge "the widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia". The next day, he warned that Russia must not start a new cold war.

Russians reacted defensively, saying a cold war is not what they want, yet arguing it is better to lose so-called friends in the West than lose national dignity.

The row that has started over Russia's using force to rebuff a Georgian military attack on a separatist minority is now continuing over Moscow's decision to recognize the de-facto independence of the two pariah statelets that have been effectively self-governed for the last 16 years.

Russia's decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia should come at no surprise to those who know the region. South Ossetia had never been a part of Georgia until Joseph Stalin separated the Ossetian homeland into two parts and attached the northern part to Russia, while giving the South to Stalin's native Georgia.

Stalin's plan included a measure of autonomy for Abkhazia and the two Ossetias. However, yet another Georgian dictator, Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1939 - 1993), abolished South Ossetian autonomy and liquidated the autonomous status of the Abkhazian Republic even before the Soviet Union formally ceased to exist in 1991. At about the same time, when Georgians proclaimed their independence from Moscow, the parliamentary assembly of the Republic of Abkhazia reasserted its sovereignty and announced separation from Georgia. Tbilisi responded by sending bands of looters to both breakaway regions.

Gamsakhurdia's officially chauvinist policy of "Georgia for the Georgians" encouraged the ethnic cleansing that followed. When South Ossetians and Abkhazians tried to throw the rascals out with the help of popular militias specifically assembled for that purpose, Georgia sent in police forces and regular troops. This started an armed conflict which lasted until a 1992 ceasefire agreement brokered by the Russians. All sides agreed to accept Russian troops as peacekeepers.

For the last 16 years, Moscow had staunchly refused to heed numerous requests of the separatist leaders to acknowledge their de-facto independence from Georgia. Even so, the one and only channel of material aid reaching breakaway enclaves was coming from Russia. Tbilisi has not contributed a penny to help restore cities and villages ravaged by the Georgian fire. As time went by, more and more Georgians left for Georgia proper. Abkhazian and South Ossetian economies lost all connections to Georgia and became fully oriented toward Russia.

Georgia's claims of sovereignty over the separatist republics are based on the Soviet precedent and the Western desire to "discipline" Russia, while rewarding the US-propped regime of Mikheil Saakashvili. The idea of North Ossetia and South Ossetia reuniting as a new republic of the Russian Federation is simply unpalatable to the West, no matter how many referendums would prove the people's will and how genuinely democratic those referendums would be. After all, as former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argued, Russia was too big even in its curtailed post-Soviet form; would it not be great to tear apart Siberia and the Far East?

Interestingly, some people among the Russian so-called "liberal" elite met the idea with sympathetic understanding. Indeed, if your personal fortune is based on an indiscriminate sell-off of the country's natural riches, central oversight is not the first thing on your mind.

During the whole Boris Yeltsin decade, Russia's foreign policy did not significantly deviate from the master plan devised in Washington. The country was ruled by the oligarchs, not by the elected government. The West has called this "democracy". While the two small Caucasian nations were clamoring for protection, Moscow's hands were tied by the fear of Western disapproval.

The slightest sign of independent orientation in foreign policy was cited as a proof of Russian "imperialism". Never mind that thousands in both unacknowledged republics were carrying Russian passports. Russia was forced to turn a blind eye to the continuing misery of the people that could not live as a part of Georgia - and were not allowed to exist independently.

In the meantime, humanitarian reasons worked well for East Timorese, Kosovars, and factually independent Kurds in Iraq. Not so for Abkhazians and South Ossetians. On August 8, the Georgian army was given a command to "retake" South Ossetia, and launched a barrage of GRAD rockets against the civilian population of Tskhinvali. Close to 2,000 Ossetians were soon dead, and 30, 000, or one quarter of the total population, fled their destroyed homes, many ending up on the Russian side of the border. A dozen Russian peacekeepers were killed in the attack. The UN was "concerned", yet nobody among the Western leaders indicated even a slightest displeasure.

However, the displeasure became pronounced when Russian troops moved in to protect the threatened minority and stop the conflict. The Russian offensive accomplished these tasks in five days and with minimal bloodshed.

Western displeasure grew into a universal chorus of condemnation when President Dmitry Medvedev, acting on a direct and unanimous mandate of both chambers of the Federal Assembly, decided to extend Russia's recognition of independence to the two nations that have been factually independent since 1992, and paid in blood for that privilege.

Rather than seeing Russia's actions as dictated by considerations of humanity, or, at the very minimum, sheer political realism (can anyone in their right mind believe that fiercely proud North Caucasian nations would voluntarily accept the rule by those who deny their very right of existence as separate ethnicities?), the Western press is chanting cold war.

Moscow's position is, if friendship with the West can only be bought by standing idly by and ignoring desperate pleas for help from a kindred, ethically affiliated nation, Russia cannot afford such a friendship. Cold war or not, the time of a politically correct, US-style Russia is now over.

Instead, it is the time of a Russia that has restored the dignity of its elected government offices; a Russia that owes nothing to the world financial institutions, and itself holds near US$100 billion in US agencies' debt; and a Russia that supplies one-third of Europe's total gas. This is a country whose army is, once again, capable of procuring world-class armaments and training soldiers in their proper use.

This Russia is prepared to beef up its military collaboration with China, ensuring comprehensive modernization of the Asian giant's forces. This new Russia has re-established its diplomatic and economic presence world-wide, has friends and partners in both hemispheres, and is capable of influencing geopolitical situations in the areas much further distanced than the neighboring Caucasus.

Attempting to punish this new Russia, one way or another, may be a rather costly adventure. Is the West prepared to bear those costs - just to show Russia "who is the boss here", while denying two smaller nations that very same right of self-determination that Georgians now enjoy?

Mikhail A Molchanov is a professor of political science at St Thomas University, Canada. He has published several books and articles on Russia's post-communist transition and foreign policy, Russian-Ukrainian relations and international problems of Eurasia.
 
Interesting the way North Ossetians are divided from South Ossetians. Reminds me of the Durand Line.
 
It is highly unlikely that on such a sensitive issue, Moscow would have unilaterally staked a tall claim without some degree of prior tacit consent from the Chinese side, which is a usual diplomatic practice.

This can only be deemed as a conjecture/hypothesis with no proof/facts to support yet, at least for the moment.
 
Interesting the way North Ossetians are divided from South Ossetians. Reminds me of the Durand Line.

Sir,

If I'm informed correctly, North and South Ossetians are same nation same race with only difference being that South Ossetians kept their Russian passports wheh Georgia became independant in 1992. They had the choice to migrate to Russia but they chose to remain part of Georgia.
 
I've tried to get an English text of the communique, but failed to do so. Isn't it rare? Do Russia and China only want to keep the communique to their own people? Who knows.

Here is a Chinese text from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC ÉϺ£ºÏ×÷×éÖ¯³ÉÔ±¹úÔªÊ׶ÅÉбðÐûÑÔ£¨È«ÎÄ£©

2008 SCO summit joint communique (Dushanbe)


上海合作组织成员国元首杜尚别宣言(全文)

2008/08/28

2008年8月28日,上海合作组织成员国元首理事会第八次会议在杜尚别举行,与会元首共同签署并发表了《上海合作组织成员国元首杜尚别宣言》。宣言全文如下:

  上海合作组织成员国元首杜尚别宣言

  上海合作组织(以下简称“本组织”)成员国元首在杜尚别举行元首理事会会议,讨论了重大国际问题和地区局势,发表声明如下:

  一、21世纪各国相互依存极大提高,安全和发展日益不可分割。当前,任何一个国际问题都不可能通过武力解决,这在客观上降低了武力因素在全球和地缘政治中的作用。

  企图单纯依靠武力解决问题是完全行不通的。这只会阻碍局部冲突的综合解决;只有充分考虑各方利益,将各方纳入谈判进程,而不是将其孤立,才能全面解决现存问题。以损害其他国家安全为代价巩固自身安全的企图不利于维护全球安全和稳定。

  元首们重申,必须尊重每个国家和每个民族的历史和文化传统,以及根据国际法为维护国家统一和领土完整、促进各民族和睦相处、共同发展所作的努力。

  二、应在恪守《联合国宪章》和公认的国际法准则基础上,寻求应对全球性共同威胁和挑战的有效途径,并通过各国共同努力来实现。应发挥多边外交的作用,摒弃对抗思维、集团政治和单边主义。

  本组织成员国认为,在当代条件下,国际安全应建立在互信、互利、平等、协作的原则基础上。建立全球反导系统不利于维护战略平衡、国际社会就军控和核不扩散作出的努力、增强国家间信任和地区稳定。

  三、本组织成员国对不久前围绕南奥塞梯问题引发的紧张局势深表担忧,呼吁有关各方通过对话和平解决现有问题,致力于劝和促谈。

  本组织成员国欢迎2008年8月12日在莫斯科就解决南奥塞梯冲突通过六点原则,并支持俄罗斯在促进该地区和平与合作中发挥积极作用。

  四、本组织成员国重申,将推动开展预防性外交,将其作为有效解决安全和发展问题的重要手段,加强联合国在预防危机方面的关键作用。

  本组织成员国认为,预防冲突应遵守《联合国宪章》、安理会有关决议及国际法基本准则。联合国安理会对维护世界和平与安全负有主要责任,在该领域具有主导作用。

  鉴于地区组织潜力不断增长,在预防性外交领域发挥着日益积极的作用,本组织成员国主张根据《联合国宪章》第8章规定,全面发展和完善联合国与地区组织的合作。

  五、本组织成员国主张,在解决人类资源需求问题上进行广泛国际合作,不以破坏环境为代价,应寻求全球共同发展,包括在保障所有国家平等享受全球化带来的益处基础上消除国家间的技术差距、消除贫困。

  在世界经济增长放缓的情况下,执行负责任的金融货币政策、对资本流动进行监控、保障粮食和能源安全具有特殊意义。

  六、本组织成员国对本组织框架内打击恐怖主义、分裂主义和极端主义的合作不断巩固表示满意,将发挥地区反恐怖机构的作用,使成员国安全合作提高到一个新水平。

  本组织成员国重申,应维护联合国在国际反恐斗争中的核心协调作用,坚定不移地推进《联合国全球反恐战略》,尽快商定《打击国际恐怖主义全面公约》。

  本组织成员国将坚决打击恐怖主义对意识形态领域的渗透,愿进行密切合作,落实联合国安理会第1624号决议,并开展文明和文化间对话。在此情况下,依靠公民社会、实业界、媒体和非政府组织的力量十分重要。

  七、元首们强调,第62届联合国大会通过62/17号决议━《从国际安全角度看信息和电信领域的发展》具有重要意义,愿共同推动落实文件中提出的建议。

  元首们指出,本组织框架内在建立保障国际信息安全合作的国际法基础和具体合作机制方面的工作富有成果。

  八、元首们支持本组织与联合国,以及独联体、东盟、欧亚经济共同体、集体安全条约组织、经济合作组织和联合国亚太经社会根据已签订的谅解备忘录深化合作。

  九、元首们强调,在考虑到各方关切的前提下,本组织成员国就有效合理利用水能资源开展对话十分重要。

  在应对全球气候变化的背景下,成员国密切合作开发新型能源技术具有特殊意义。因此,本组织成员国高度重视制定共同立场,应对气候变化带来的消极后果,发展环保清洁型能源。

  十、本组织成员国重申恪守保护和促进人权领域的基本文件和标准:

  (一)根据所承担的国际义务和本国法律保障人的基本权利、自由和少数民族的权利;

  (二)就履行人权领域的国际条约问题交流经验;

  (三)落实人文领域现行的多边和双边条约;

  (四)加强在联合国人权领域的磋商与合作;

  (五)就人文合作和促进保障人权问题与其他地区组织和一体化机制合作。

  十一、本组织成员国指出,中亚的地缘政治、经济意义日益上升。本组织的蓬勃发展将促进本地区巩固战略稳定、维护和平与安全、开展经济和人文等多领域合作。

  十二、安全领域面临的外部威胁与挑战成为扰乱本地区局势的因素。阿富汗局势仍在发展,毒品走私规模扩大,跨国有组织犯罪猖獗,因此必须加强合作,建立对上述威胁和挑战进行共同分析、预防和反应的机制。

  元首们认为,联合国安理会授权的驻阿富汗国际安全援助部队应与阿富汗伊斯兰共和国政府、邻近国家及其他有关国家合作,更加关注打击阿富汗毒品生产和走私问题。元首们建议,在联合国安理会例行讨论阿富汗局势时将这一任务列入国际安全援助部队的权限。

  本组织成员国将继续共同努力,与有关国家和地区性国际组织紧密合作,建立广泛的伙伴关系网,应对恐怖主义和毒品威胁。

  元首们强调,在对阿富汗工作方面,应加强上海合作组织━阿富汗联络组的工作,筹备召开本组织倡导的阿富汗问题特别国际会议,讨论共同打击恐怖主义、非法贩运毒品和有组织犯罪问题。

  十三、元首们认为,建立中亚无核武器区是巩固国际核不扩散条约体系的重要步骤。2006年塞米巴拉金斯克条约将促进地区和平与稳定,有助于打击国际核恐怖主义,防止非国家实体掌握核材料、核技术。

  十四、上海合作组织奉行开放原则,愿与所有赞成本组织宗旨和原则的国际和地区组织进行建设性对话,并根据《联合国宪章》和国际法准则开展自身活动。鉴此,本组织愿研究与其他国际组织建立合作关系的可能性,以保障地区稳定、安全与和谐发展,最大限度地惠及本组织成员国。

  哈萨克斯坦共和国总统
  努尔苏丹·纳扎尔巴耶夫
  中华人民共和国主席胡锦涛
吉尔吉斯共和国总统
库尔曼别克·巴基耶夫
  俄罗斯联邦总统
德米特里·梅德韦杰夫
塔吉克斯坦共和国总统
  埃莫马利·拉赫蒙
乌兹别克斯坦共和国总统
  伊斯兰·卡里莫夫

  二00八年八月二十八日于杜尚别

Point 1:

1. In the 21st centuries, interdependency among nations are greatly increased, security and development becomes more indivisible. Currently, no international problem can be resolved by use of force; this reduces the role played by the factor of military forces in global- and geo-politics.

Simple reliance on use of force to solve issues will never work. This can only hamper a comprehensive resolution of regional conflict. Only a sufficient consideration of the interest of all parties, including all parties in the negotiation, not isolating them, can an existing problem be solved completely. Attempting to consolidate one’s own security at the expanse of other countries’ is not conductive to maintaining global security and stability.

Point 3 is totally dedicated to S. Ossetia conflict:

3. Member countries (of this organization) express their deep concern over the intense situation caused by South Ossetia issue days ago, calling on all relevant parties to solve the existing problem through peaceful dialogue, and vowing to promote peace and negotiation.

Member countries welcome the 6-point principle signed in Moscow on August 12, 2008 to solve South Ossetia conflict, and support Russia to play an active role in promoting peace and cooperation in this region.
 
Last edited:
Sir,

If I'm informed correctly, North and South Ossetians are same nation same race with only difference being that South Ossetians kept their Russian passports wheh Georgia became independant in 1992. They had the choice to migrate to Russia but they chose to remain part of Georgia.

Hmm..Well, if that's the case, I don't think that's a good choice. South Ossetia is their home. They should have decided whether they want to join Russia or Georgia. Not just given the option to migrate to Russia, which really is no option at all.

I do think that Georgia's claim on South Ossetia is weak, because Stalin, afaik, gave the Southern part of Ossetia to Georgia (Stalin was Georgian). Whether Russia's claim on Georgia is strong is a different matter. I suspect they feel like Chechnya though.
 
well! guys in my opinion its better to have two super powers rather then one who decides the fate of countries on its own and good news for us muslims now that the former enemy is remerging west will switch its attention towards it rather then demonising us for their political benefits and russia is up for a cold war russian battle ships have left for venezuella a move never seen after cold war so let the events unfold sit back and enjoy the show!
and more over we can get weapons easily being on both sides i am talking muslims as a whole different countries different suppliers there won't be any questions as long as u are on their side hopefully pakistan will be able to get its hands on more western equipment ,syria and iran will be able to buy any weapons from russia without worrying abt western sanctions both ways works for us so just sit back and relax
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom