The following Issues Points interview
was conducted by Steven Ellis of Saylor Company with Doug
Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
Doug Bandow
is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign
policy and civil liberties. He worked as special assistant to President
Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry. He writes
regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine and speaks
frequently at academic conferences, on college campuses, and to
business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS,
NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford
University. |
|
|
IP: What is your assessment of the current situation in the Caucasus?
Bandow: The
situation remains relatively unstable with relations between Georgia
and Russia, and Georgia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia, continuing to
be very negative. The political situation in Georgia remains rather
unstable as well. President Mikheil Saakashvikli is under domestic
political pressure and appears determined to press ahead with an
aggressive stance towards the seceding territories and towards Moscow.
So there is reason for concern.
IP: U.S.
Senator Richard Lugar, who is the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, recently released a report that calls on
the U.S. and NATO to craft a “comprehensive, transparent approach to
security assistance and military sales in the region” that would
include resumption in the arms sales halted after the August 2008 war.
Do you agree or disagree with Sen. Lugar’s recommendation and why?
Bandow: I
believe it is dangerous to talk about increased military sales to
Georgia. I’m not saying that the US should forgo in principle
providing defensive weapons to countries if they are involved in
potential conflict situations, but weapons should not be provided to
parties which show aggressive intent. Look at the contrast between
Taiwan and Georgia. The Obama Administration is preparing a new
weapons package for Taiwan, which makes a lot of sense in terms of
empowering Taiwan to defend itself against China. But no one believes
Taiwan is likely to start a war. Unfortunately, we have seen that
Georgia is a relatively aggressive party—a smaller country seeking
American aid and protection while quite willing to trigger a war.
Therefore it’s dangerous for Washington to step into that situation
talking about providing arms shipments and further security assistance
until the political situation has been worked out or at least until
there is a more responsible party to deal with in Tbilisi.
IP: How
has the extensive U.S. and NATO political and military support for
Georgia impacted the security situation in the region, particularly
Russia’s policy towards its neighbors?
Bandow: For
understandable reasons, Russia views its border as being critical to
its security. One may or may not believe that Russia is correct in
that assessment, as well as its policy towards Georgia, but they are
today’s reality. The U.S. and NATO have basically inserted themselves
into issues that, from Moscow’s standpoint, are strategically vital.
It’s as if the Warsaw Pact was making alliance arrangements with Latin
American countries against America. Washington would find that to be
very offensive. Something similar was, in fact, the case in the early
60s with Moscow’s relationship with Cuba. So, unfortunately, the U.S.
and NATO have given the Russians reason to be concerned, intervene, and
be active militarily. Basically, NATO and the U.S. have inadvertently
promoted the very results which they oppose—a more active Russia, more
willing to use military force. Consequently, I believe the U.S. and
NATO should be much more willing to accept the fact that Russia has
legitimate security interests, and more willing to work with Russia in
the context of those interests.
IP: The
Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, has refused to
recognize the independence of the Republics of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia and has supported Georgia’s diplomatic and economic embargo of
the two countries. What are the implications of this policy for the
region?
Bandow: Isolating Abkhazia and South
Ossetia is not likely to improve the situation. The question of who
recognizes whom is a very political act. We obviously have the issue of
Kosovo where 60 or so countries worldwide have recognized Kosovo. The
Russians have not, and they will veto any proposal for the UN to grant
membership. The United States and many—though not all—European
countries brought this result about by treating Russian interests in
Kosovo dismissively. The U.S. and the West were quite willing to
dismantle Serbia arbitrarily. So they don’t have a lot of credibility
in complaining about Russian behavior in the Caucasus. About the only
practical step they can take is to deny recognition to Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. We need a serious negotiating process, through which
Western countries expand economic relations and open up some political
dialogue with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Current policy is not likely
to promote negotiation and a peaceful settlement of any sort.
IP: Several
governments have joined Russia in recognizing the governments of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia. As these governments gain greater legitimacy,
they are even less likely to agree to return to Georgian control. How
do you see this situation unfolding?
Bandow: I
hesitate to predict what the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia
will do. For them to return to Georgia probably would require, in
terms of federalism, autonomy and other issues, concessions that the
current Georgian central government is unlikely to make. The underlying
conflicts involving both South Ossetia and Abkhazia began well before
creation of the new nation of Georgia. Thus, honey is going to be a lot
more effective in terms of attracting residents of these areas than
threatening more war and conflict. Clearly, there needs to be an
accommodation that reduces tensions. That is going to require
Georgia—as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia‐‐ to make some
concessions. But Georgia has to take the lead and until we see some
willingness on Tbilisi’s part to compromise, it’s hard to imagine that
we are going to see much progress.
IP: Abkhazia
has just conducted a presidential election in which more than 70
percent of its voters participated and in which five candidates
competed. Whether or not some nations recognize the validity of this
election, it was carried out peacefully, openly, and in full view of
many international observers and journalists. What are your thoughts on
the legitimacy of the recent election and the progress Abkhazia has
made in nation building?
Bandow: Abkhazia is a
small territory. Turning it into a widely accepted country won’t be
easy. It’s obviously going to continue to remain reliant on Russia.
Most countries will remain hesitant to grant recognition. So Abkhazia’s
campaign to attain international legitimacy will remain a challenge.
Yet, having a peaceful election, where the results are accepted as
valid and legitimate, is a very important step. Let’s consider the US
experience in Afghanistan. We have there a government that is widely
seen as winning reelection through fraud, and that is a problem for
both countries. For Abkhazia to gain international acceptance, the
first step is convincing the world that it is democratically governed.
A positive election result will be helpful but alone will not be
enough. Northern Cyprus has democratic elections and remains largely
isolated from the international community‐‐supported by Turkey but not
recognized by other countries. Nevertheless, it has achieved a certain
amount of acceptance and is engaged in serious negotiations with the
Republic of Cyprus on a variety of issues. That may be the direction in
which Abkhazia can hope to move. If the people there are able to create
a stable, democratic, prosperous system, they may be in a position to
say to the international community: “we’ve succeeded in creating a de
facto nation and we therefore deserve to have some form of
recognition.” Then they might gain acceptance of some kind from other
nations. It will be a long process, but it is possible. Therefore, the
recent election would seem to be a step in the right direction.
IP: If
oil is discovered in the Black Sea off Abkhazia’s coast, do you think
that will change the geopolitical situation in the region? If so, in
what ways?
Bandow: That obviously would
increase the interest of a lot of parties in creating a stable and
peaceful situation and establishing some kind of generally accepted
legal regime in order to develop those resources. So any energy
discovery would put pressure on the Western powers to find an
accommodation, which in turn would encourage them to press Georgia to
compromise and reach a modus Vivendi with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and
Russia in order to stabilize the Caucasus. The desire to have stable
access to energy resources has a way of concentrating peoples’ minds
politically around the world. I suspect it would do so in this case as
well. Oil companies do not like to operate in unstable geopolitical
environments in which war can break out. So everyone would suddenly
have a big economic interest in trying to find an accommodation. What
it would look like, I can’t predict. Still, all the powers in the
region might find some form of accommodation that was realistic and
mutually beneficial. As complicated as it could prove to be, a major
energy discovery might end up being tremendously helpful in promoting
peace.
IP: Thank you, Mr. Bandow.
Source: www.therepublicofabkhazia.org |