Russian newspaper speculates about the absence of Ilham Aliev from the summit of the CIS in Dushanbe on 2-3 September

The Russian Newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta carried the folllowing article on the forthcoming Summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States to be held in Dushanbe on 2-3 Septemberhe  (reprinted here from a translation from news.az)

Instead of celebrations of its 20th anniversary, the CIS will have to calculate losses on that day. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev will not come to Dushanbe to attend the Commonwealth summit scheduled for 2-3 September. The reason is supposed to be the failed talks on Karabakh, which Aliyev held with Dmitriy Medvedev in Sochi.

Experts consider this step to be a signal to Moscow-Russia ceases to be a mediator in the conflicts resolution in its partners’ eyes. Additionally, fraternal capital cities accuse it of launching commercial wars to inflict economic and political compromises that are favorable for the Kremlin. These opinions are primarily voiced in GUAM states including Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

Thus year, declared the year of CIS in the Commonwealth countries, turned not the luckiest one, especially in integration affairs that were planned to move beyond the Customs Union (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan).

“Putin has practically blocked the free trade area, which was the goal of all the CIS countries. Without it, all the rest programs of the Commonwealth, that are variants of mutual assistance in different spheres, are a ground to ask: why is that? It is especially actual in Ukraine, where people say that Gazprom is preparing a new gas war for us, pushing us to membership in the Customs Union”, said director of the Kiev Institute of Political Analysis and International Research Sergey Tolstov.

He said Viktor Yanukovich will not follow Ilham Aliyev’s example and will not reject participation in Dushanbe directly. However, if the style of relations that Moscow uses in the dialogue with CIS partners continues, the Ukrainian President will find many other ways to avoid the Commonwealth summits. “The factor that the CIS can be used as a area to smooth differences between the commonwealth members, will stop working now”, Tolstov said.

“The fact that Aliyev has done this step is bad for Russia, since it is losing its image of a mediator in its partners’ eyes, gaining another one of an Armenian lobbyist. The steps of Aliyev, a cautious and wise politician, show (from Aliyev’s positions) what he has been brought to.  It is sad also for the CIS, which marks its 20th anniversary without Georgia”, the expert of the Moscow Center of Carnegie Alexei Malashenko said.

“Aliyev’s step confirms disability of the CIS. The proof is the constant trade wars and interstate conflicts in its framework”, Malashenko commented to NG.

The report that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev will not take part at the upcoming summit of the CIS heads of states came yesterday, causing a plenty of questions. The main is that why official Baku changed its decision three days after it first confirmed its participation. Official sources do not comment on the reason of such an unexpected change of plans.

It has promoted suppositions that Aliyev’s demarche is mostly connected with the recent events in the negotiation process to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh. They say that Baku is not satisfied with the position of mediators, particularly, their unwillingness to exert pressure on Armenia, which has been holding seven biggest and economically important regions of Azerbaijan under occupation for almost 20 years.

“Azerbaijan does not ignore the CIS summit and will be represented at the high level-by head of the Cabinet of Ministers Artur Rasizade. I will not be surprised if leaders of some other CIS countries will do the same. It is not the first time that it occurs, which is why the situation should not be dramatized”, famous political scientist, member of the committee on international relations of the Azerbaijani parliament Rasim Musabayov told NG.

He said ‘even format CIS summits have turned into a club of post-Soviet presidents. The meetings of the past decades adopt and implement decisions only on minor, rather ritual issues like celebrations of a jubilee of victory in the Great Patriotic War. For this reason, the summits are interesting as a venue for bilateral meetings. It is not a secret that most presidents arrive to the CIS summit, if they have a preliminary agreement about the meeting with the Russian president. In this sense, there is no motivation for participation of President Aliyev in the CIS informal summit in Dushanbe, Musabayov said.

“Azerbaijan maintains stable bilateral relations with all CIS countries and these relations do not need the CIS support. Ilham Aliyev has met the Russian president Medvedev just recently in Sochi and discussed the Russian-Azerbaijani relations and the situation around the Karabakh issue in detail”, Musabayov said. All the same, he said ‘the stiff determination of the Armenian side to promote the possibility of secession of Nagorno Karabakh in any form has done the continuation of the negotiation process unpromising at this stage. For this reason, the trilateral meeting of Aliyev, Medvedev and Sargsyan is senseless and not planning. In this case, there is no need to go to Dushanbe and waste time”, said the political scientist.

Azerbaijan and Ukraine are members of GUAM, the regional organization, once founded as an element, curbing Moscow’s ambitions in the post-Soviet area. Georgia was first to quit the CIS. Moldova was also ready to do so, but it follows its more influential neighbor-Ukraine. The latter is by far trying to preserve friendly ties with ‘fraternal’ Russia. But these relations have currently been put to the test. Yanukovych, who also have other commitments, for instance,  towards the EU and IMF cannot ignore them, as he cannot do so with the national interests of his country.

The Ukrainian president also does not want to give its own transportation system to Russia, like Belarus did. “Yanukovych will never give the keys to the internal market of Ukraine to Russia”, Tolstov said. He noted that ‘Moscow will exert pressure on Kiev to force Ukraine to the transit agreement to prove to the EU that the Ukrainian transit is not reliable and thus lobby the Southern stream. For this reason, it is not ruled out that Ukraine should be expected to be the next to make a step back from the CIS. There is no doubt that in this event, Moldova will follow it.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)