The world on the pan of Russian-American balance scales
Against the background of impending changes, settlement of conflicts simply pales into insignificance and is shelved.
US President Barack Obama's dynamic foreign-policy activities have equal chances of proving triumphant or destructive for the USA. To all appearances, Obama wants to look a "peace dove" or at least a "conciliator" in the eyes of the Islam world and not only there. Delivering a speech at Cairo University, the US President declared the aim of his visit - to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world: the cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
"Based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, they need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity," Obama said.
The second major source of tension, according to the President, is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. "For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth. The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. For peace to come, it is time for them - and for all of us - to live up to our responsibilities," stated Obama.
All this is good; however, it can be derived from Obama's words that the USA can at some moment simply leave Israel and then the Jewish state will cease to exist. And though the Jewish lobby won't have it, the idea itself about the creation of two states on the holy earth already puts you on your guard. The US Administration may even be tempted to resolve both the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the conflict between Georgia and the separated republics in the same way; or, at least, in a similar way, because, as practice shows, Washington can't boast a variety of conflict-settling ways, quite like Moscow
Next month Barack Obama is leaving for Moscow. The visit predicts a more serious conversation, or, to put it more accurately, a trading for the new repartition of influence spheres. The good point is that the new geopolitical map of the World will be divided peacefully, without special bloodshed: naturally, small skirmishes are not counted. If we take into consideration the fact that Russia almost voluntarily yielded to the US control over Eastern Europe, most apparently the South Caucasus will be under deal, because the issue of Central Asia is almost resolved: Russia preserves control over Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The example of closing the air base "Manas" in Bishkek is more than sufficient. Another primary task of Moscow is not to allow the flow of Turkmen gas through Azerbaijan and Turkey into Europe, bypassing Russia. But, most likely, she will manage that problem.
Thus, remains only the South Caucasus - most difficult and unpredictable from the point of view of geopolitical calculations. Whether Russia will be able to finally push the USA out of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan and to insist on her own plan of settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and normalizing the Armenian-Turkish relations will become clear after the Presidents' meeting in Moscow. Such turn of events in Medvedev-Obama negotiations is possible, if we take into consideration certain statements of the American President about non-polar peace, which, by the way, will lead to even greater chaos and to an absolute dictate of one power. Thus, there will be absolute unipolarity, in which neither Russia nor the USA will have a place. For the rest of the world such an outcome of the struggle for supremacy will develop into the great efforts of China and India to control the demographic factor, worth thorough consideration. Great is the role of the economic factor too, since the main debtor of China is the USA, followed by Russia.
Against the background of impending changes, settlement of conflicts simply pales into insignificance and is shelved. Probably, it would be the best outcome for the whole region and for Artsakh in particular.
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
The second major source of tension, according to the President, is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. "For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth. The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. For peace to come, it is time for them - and for all of us - to live up to our responsibilities," stated Obama.
All this is good; however, it can be derived from Obama's words that the USA can at some moment simply leave Israel and then the Jewish state will cease to exist. And though the Jewish lobby won't have it, the idea itself about the creation of two states on the holy earth already puts you on your guard. The US Administration may even be tempted to resolve both the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the conflict between Georgia and the separated republics in the same way; or, at least, in a similar way, because, as practice shows, Washington can't boast a variety of conflict-settling ways, quite like Moscow
Next month Barack Obama is leaving for Moscow. The visit predicts a more serious conversation, or, to put it more accurately, a trading for the new repartition of influence spheres. The good point is that the new geopolitical map of the World will be divided peacefully, without special bloodshed: naturally, small skirmishes are not counted. If we take into consideration the fact that Russia almost voluntarily yielded to the US control over Eastern Europe, most apparently the South Caucasus will be under deal, because the issue of Central Asia is almost resolved: Russia preserves control over Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The example of closing the air base "Manas" in Bishkek is more than sufficient. Another primary task of Moscow is not to allow the flow of Turkmen gas through Azerbaijan and Turkey into Europe, bypassing Russia. But, most likely, she will manage that problem.
Thus, remains only the South Caucasus - most difficult and unpredictable from the point of view of geopolitical calculations. Whether Russia will be able to finally push the USA out of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan and to insist on her own plan of settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and normalizing the Armenian-Turkish relations will become clear after the Presidents' meeting in Moscow. Such turn of events in Medvedev-Obama negotiations is possible, if we take into consideration certain statements of the American President about non-polar peace, which, by the way, will lead to even greater chaos and to an absolute dictate of one power. Thus, there will be absolute unipolarity, in which neither Russia nor the USA will have a place. For the rest of the world such an outcome of the struggle for supremacy will develop into the great efforts of China and India to control the demographic factor, worth thorough consideration. Great is the role of the economic factor too, since the main debtor of China is the USA, followed by Russia.
Against the background of impending changes, settlement of conflicts simply pales into insignificance and is shelved. Probably, it would be the best outcome for the whole region and for Artsakh in particular.
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
