Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Why Did Not The Black Sea Evolve Into A Zone Of Cooperation? By Selcuk Colakoglu Journal of Turkish Weekly - 24/6/2014 Leaders from 11 countries came together on June 5, 1992, publishing the Istanbul Declaration, the founding document for the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). BSEC's primary goal was to declare to the world that the Black Sea Basin was no longer a zone of polarization and rivalry, but one of cooperation and integration. Uncertainties surrounding the region in the aftermath of the Cold War, due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc at large, were to be eliminated in order to establish a solid ground for cooperation. Turkey and Russia were historically opposed to each other based on long lasting tensions, such as the rivalry between the Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia, and the Cold War rivalry between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. A new initiative aimed at enhancing cooperation and paving the way for peaceful coexistence in the Black Sea Basin was jointly pioneered in 1992 by Turkey and Russia. Moreover, countries of the Balkans and South Caucasus were also included under the umbrella of BSEC, meaning that the organization covered a key region broader than Black Sea littoral. Turkey even offered Greece, with which it was experiencing continued tensions over Cyprus and in the Aegean Sea, to become a founding member of BSEC, a risky move that clearly indicated a prevailing mood of optimism conducive to enhanced cooperation. Likewise, Azerbaijan and Armenia also took the plunge and joined the initiative at the same time, despite the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Indeed, another goal of BSEC was to allow for countries which had territorial disputes and cross-border minority issues to gradually sink their differences through peaceful means via regular contact. The shared hope of all parties was to witness the gradual resolution of the NagornoKarabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Georgia's problems with the federal states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Chechnian conflict confronting Russia, and the dispute over Transnistria in Moldova, through efficient diplomacy and joint efforts in which enhanced cooperation in the Black Sea Basin would result. Likewise, problems which emerged after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the consequent civil war in Bosnia could have been resolved through the BSEC mechanism. In fact, it was even thought that such a spirit of cooperation and peaceful dialogue around the Black Sea Basin could result in a new engagement process between Athens and Ankara. Moreover, the U.S. and the EU also gave indirect support to the foundation of BSEC, thus demonstrating their willingness to assist countries in the region to join forces. Therefore, it is accurate to say that Turkey and Russia were clearly on the right side of history when BSEC was founded, as the organization was supported by all prominent actors in regional and global politics. Russia's return to its 'near abroad' After a while, the initial mood of optimism that prevailed over the Black Sea Basin during the first half of the 1990s was replaced by a context marked by divergent interests and policies. That is, BSEC and other regional bodies were unable to gain momentum despite all efforts. Even though BSEC evolved into a regional organization with a permanent secretariat in Istanbul by 1999, cooperation could not be deepened. A major reason why enhanced cooperation could not be achieved was due to the fact that Russia, which overcame the shock caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union within only in a couple of years, began to exert its Soviet-era influence once again. In this respect, Russia did not wish to see Turkey and other Western countries playing an active role in a region which it considered its hinterland. Moscow was also afraid of former Soviet republics pursuing an independent foreign policy and possibly attaining total economic independence from Russia. Based on such a perspective, as Moscow recurred its power, Russia gradually expanded its clout over these newly independent states thanks to its political, military, and economic capacities, and managed to balance developed Western countries' rising influence in the region. In its close neighborhood, Russia froze the conflicts in Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, in order to keep a tight rein on Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Furthermore, when the pro-Western government in Georgia led by Mikheil Saakashvili "crossed the line" and tried to reassert its control over South Ossetia in 2008, Russia entered into a war with Georgia as an act of punishment. Seeing that Georgia could not resist Russia on its own, it was disappointed that NATO and the EU were unable to provide necessary support. After all, Russia managed to "punish" Georgia once again by recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. >From such a perspective, what is currently going on in Ukraine is a clear indication of a Russian strategy that is aimed at penalizing countries in its near abroad which refuse to abide by the rules of the game set by Moscow. Independent policies of NATO and the EU Countries in the region which feel insecure due to Russia's resurgence, prefer to engage with NATO rather than counting on regional organizations like BSEC. This is because they consider NATO a powerful actor which can shield them from security threats, whereas regional organizations such as BSEC are rather ineffective. NATO became the sole organization upon which countries in the region of the Black Sea Basin relied for maintaining security; for NATO's capabilities were affirmed on several key occasions, such as the Civil War in Bosnia and the crisis in Kosovo, where it intervened successfully. Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania, which are all BSEC members, became NATO members in due course in order to guarantee their territorial integrity. Similarly, the prospects of NATO membership became all the more attractive in the eyes of Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Georgia on the grounds that these countries could not maintain amiable relations with Russia after 1990. Correspondingly, the subject of NATO membership acquired currency in Ukraine when pro-Western governments came to power there. Under such circumstances, EU membership also became a priority for countries located in the Black Sea Basin because of the prospects it offered in terms of economic development and prosperity. The EU became littoral to the Black Sea after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Union. Later on, the EU expanded its membership perspective to cover all Balkan countries. For Turkey, which received candidate status in 1999, the EU took priority over any other international organization, including BSEC. Western countries began to ignore BSEC only one or two years after its establishment in 1992, despite the fact that they were initially supportive. Neither BSEC nor any other regional initiatives were mentioned in the expansion and partnership programs promoted by the EU and NATO in the greater Black Sea Region. Therefore, BSEC was unable to develop common strategies with NATO or the EU. Additionally, unilateral policies formulated and implemented by NATO and the EU with the aim of eastward enlargement caused Russia to feel threatened, and as a result Moscow distanced itself from cooperation-oriented policies. On the other hand, although NATO and the EU enfranchised some Black Sea countries, they were unable to put forth any tangible vision with regard to policies to be pursued if Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, or Azerbaijan were threatened, consequently exposing these countries to increased Russian interference. As a result, Russia's relentless efforts to expand its influence once again, in addition to coordinated unilateral enlargement initiatives put into action by NATO and the EU, inevitably undermined BSEC's promise and potential to establish a solid ground for regional cooperation. Today, it is polarization and war, instead of cooperation and peace, that characterize the current context around the Black Sea region. In this respect, the course of the Ukrainian crisis will act as a serious litmus test that will reveal the true prospects of the "greater European idea". http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3891/why-did-not-the-black-seaevolve-into-a-zone-of-cooperation.html