05.06.2003 02:24
GU(U)AM S VIRTUAL SUCCESSES

What kind of future is in store for GU(U)AM? Is that alliance still alive? Serhiy Konoplev, the director of the Harvard University s Black Sea Security Program, shares his view.A milestone development for GU(U)AM the expert believes the most recent meeting of GU(U)AM Foreign Ministers in [the Georgian capital] Tbilisi.

Among the most interesting results of the GU(U)AM Foreign Ministers meeting in Tbilisi is no doubt the decision by the U.S. and GU(U)AM member states to set up a virtual center for combating international crime and terrorism. This decision marks the first sizeable move by the U.S. concerning the funding for GU(U)AM activities. The U.S. has long supported GU(U)AM by word of mouth. Now it apparently decided that it s time to begin supporting the alliance by word of action. Prior, the Americans were reluctant to provide the cash for GU(U)AM operations. As a high-placed Pentagon official put it, they didn t want their fingerprints left . GU(U)AM needs to give up unnecessary ambitions and unfeasible projects to become a truly efficient organization, a staff officer at the U.S. Congress told the author.

Where s the money has come from this time? Speaking of the need to prop up U.S. interests in the Black Sea region, John F.Markey, the State Department Law Enforcement Program Director, said that in 2002 the U.S. appropriated $1.8 billion in funding for law enforcement programs in South-East Asia, Central Asia and the Caucasus region, with priority given to programs for combating contraband and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It should be pointed out that the U.S. has already appropriated $6 million in technical assistance to customs and border security agencies of the GU(U)AM countries. That sum looks not that impressive as compared to what the U.S. spends on other programs in that region.

We do not mind the fact that there are two alternative alliances the Collective Security Treaty alliance and GU(U)AM existing in the former Soviet Union. It s essential that activities of both of them should be aimed at common goals of combating terrorism and reinforcing security in the region. Neither do we mind Moscow s playing the key role in the Collective Security Treaty (CST) alliance, and we would be only gratified by its successes. Moscow has taken on a heavy burden of financing more than half of CST s budget, a member on the U.S. National Security Council pointed out. But one must be mindful that the CST represents a military-political organization, whereas the GU(U)AM, indeed some of its members made cautious mentions of the possibility of a military component showing up within its structure some day. The absence of a strong leader no doubt tells on the GU(U)AM s efficiency. Over the past year, Uzbekistan s position on its further membership in GU(U)AM has changed several times, and few doubt that it was the U.S. who eventually convinced that country not to withdraw altogether. It is yet to be seen how far active Uzbeksitan is going to be as GU(U)AM member. Moldova, which, like Uzbekistan, has never shown much interest in GU(U)AM activities, does not seem to be going to change its position, and not without influence from Moscow.

It would be pertinent to note that the American press has in recent months been silent about GU(U)AM. The Tbilisi meeting has passed practically unnoticed, even for GU(U)AM member countries themselves. GU(U)AM is yet to mature till it is noticed by the outside world and its activities are discussed in serious terms. Given the money, which we don t have so far, we would have long done and built everything on our own, a leading Ukrainian politician said. Creating joint military units and trying to lessen Russia s influence in the region is so far beyond our capabilities. What matters now is for Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Georgia to develop a common strategy for entering NATO. This by itself would be conducive to more security for the Black Sea and Caspian Sea region. Pending that, we would better address commerce and transportation issues. It is to be hoped that in store for GU(U)AM is a real future, not virtual.

Defense Express note: GU(U)AM, originally an alliance of five former Soviet republics Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova was set up in 1997 as a regional grouping of countries with similar political and economic interests. Now the alliance actually groups only four members, after Uzbekistan suspended its membership last summer.

(By Serhiy Konoplev, Director of the Harvard University s Black Sea Security Program)