BLACK SEA SYNERGY INITIATIVE
18th Economic Forum in Krynica, 10-13 September 2008
My comments will be mostly confined to the Black Sea Synergy. As I believe there are other speakers who would elaborate on the European Neighbourhood Policy, I myself will only briefly touch upon it when necessary. In this context, I also should like to take the opportunity from time to time, to point out Turkey’s stand concerning some issues and problems.
II. A Historical Background
The Black Sea region was subject to settlements and invasions throughout the centuries. Warrior Scythes tribes are known to have lived somewhere around the Black Sea. More documented Greek colonies date back to a few centuries before the Christian era. Roman and Byzantine expeditions to the coast around the Black Sea continued at the early centuries of the Christian era.
Incursions to the coasts of the Black Sea took also place in the opposite directions from upstream regions towards the downstream regions along the rivers that fall into the Black Sea such as Dnieper, Dniester and Don. At the early part of the thirteenth century, Genghis Khan’s hordes swept the Northern parts of the Black Sea and pushed several tribes living in this area towards the Eastern Europe.
Between 1500 and 1774 the Black Sea remained almost entirely under the Ottoman rule. In the 16th century the Ottomans controlled almost the entire coastal line of the Black Sea and in the second half of the 16th century they started to dig a canal to link the Don and Volga rivers in an attempt to send their navy to the Caspian Sea. This design was noted and countered by the Russian Tsars who took measures to abort the project.
With the Kainardja Treaty of 1774 Russia got access to the Black Sea and expanded its domination throughout the following centuries. The expansion of the Russian control to the North and South Caucasus caused several waves of emigration from these areas towards the Ottoman territories.
This volatile past rendered the ethnic composition of the population of the Black Sea highly heterogeneous.
After the Second World War, the Black Sea became the south line of “iron curtain” that divided the Soviet block from the rest of the world.
III. The Geopolitical importance of the Region
1. The International Status of the Black Sea (The Montreux Convention)
The passage from the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea, which in turn
will lead leads to the Mediterranean, is through the Straits of Istanbul, one of the most difficult and dangerous waterways with an extremely congested sea traffic.
An international Convention signed in Montreux in 1936 regulates not only the passage through the Turkish Straits but also the tonnage of the military vessels that non-littoral countries of the Black Sea would be allowed to keep in the Black Sea.
For the purpose of our discussion, the relevant section of the Montreux Convention is the provisions that pertain to this limitation. This should not be perceived as an impediment to cooperation with non-littoral countries. It aimed at providing and preserving a military balance in order to maintain the stability in the Black Sea. The most important provisions that limit the tonnage of the military vessels of the non-littoral countries could be summarized as follows:
- ·The aggregate tonnage of the vessels of the non-Black Sea Powers shall not exceed 30 000 tons.
- This upper limit may be increased to 45 000 tons in case the tonnage of the strongest fleet in the Black Sea is increased above this figure.
- The tonnage which any one non-Black Sea Power may have in the Black Sea shall be limited to two-thirds of the aggregate tonnage of the strongest fleet in the Black Sea.
b) Energy Sources and Routes
Even though the Caspian Sea is not within the remit of this Forum, I for one would argue that the picture will be incomplete without it. After all, none of us can afford to disregard the basic fact that the strategic importance of the Black Sea is inseparable from the huge reserves of oil and gas of the Caspian. And that these are vital for the western world whose own sources of energy are of a rather limited nature. So, all those oil and gas are to be transported from the Caspian Sea to the Western European market either through the Black Sea or through the territories of countries surrounding the Black Sea.
The US and the EU as two main actors and Turkey as a regional country have converging interests in the Black Sea as far as the energy issue is concerned. The EU wishes to diversify both the sources and the routes of energy. One way of diversifying it is to be able to transport the Turkmen natural gas and Kazakh oil across the Caspian Sea, and from there further west. The American interests are of a more general nature. The US wishes to contribute to the strengthening of the economies of newly independent CIS countries with which it maintains good relations. As for Turkey, it is the co-owner of both an oil pipeline carrying Azeri oil from Baku to its Mediterranean harbour of Ceyhan and a gas pipeline carrying Azeri natural gas again from Baku to the eastern Turkish city of Erzurum. Moreover, there is work going on the mega project Nabucco. Clearly, Turkey would like to see an international atmosphere that will allow the continuation and finalization of the work, present and projected. And there lies the convergence of interests…
Apart from oil and gas, the region is important for Turkey for other reasons as well:The Caspian and Black Sea regions, taken as a whole, are the immediate neighbourhood of Turkey. Vast territories in the region were parts of the Ottoman Empire at various period of their history. Ottoman Turkey played an important role in the shaping of the history of the region. There were big waves of migrations from these regions towards the present Turkey throughout the history. The region is populated by various Turkic peoples. Unavoidably, the instability in the region effects Turkey. Moreover, there are very close cultural and historical ties between Turkey and the bordering countries of the Black Sea. Turkey’s interest in the stability of the region is based on these facts that cannot be ignored.
c) Frozen conflicts
The existence of several frozen conflicts is another reason for the importance of the region. They have come to be called frozen conflicts, but some of them are not entirely frozen and break out again from time to time.
There are several common features in four frozen conflicts. One of them is that they all resulted from the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Second, all of them are within the territory of the former Soviet Union. Third, the Russian Federation is the major player in all of them.
· Trans-Dniestr (Transnistria)
The breakaway State of Trans-Dniester was born when the Soviet Union began to fall apart. The Moldovan territories that were on the left bank of the river Dniester were inhabited by mainly Russian speaking population while the population living on the Moldova proper spoke Moldovan and identified strongly with the neighbouring Romania. This frightened the Russian-speaking population of Moldova living on the left side of Dniester who felt a much stronger allegiance to Moscow. As a result of this, it proclaimed independence in 1990. The independence is not recognized by any country.
The sustainability of this territory as an independent State is questionable without the diplomatic recognition by the international community. Its annexation to the far away Russian Federation is neither easy nor practical. And a solution that will satisfy both the Russian Federation and the remainder of the international community is not yet at sight.
· South Ossetia
South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast of Georgia in the Soviet times. Now the greater part of it is controlled by the government of the de facto independent South Ossetian Republic which is not recognized by any country.
A cease-fire is monitored by a Russian dominated military force whose neutrality is questioned from time to time. However the EU did not show eagerness to share or take over the task of monitoring from the Russian forces.
In April of 2007, the Georgian government created a temporary administrative unit (Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia) for this territory of 70 000 inhabitants. It is headed by ethnic Ossetians and it will enable Georgia to administer the region through local leaders and to negotiate with Ossetian authorities regarding its final status.
Clashes broke out again when, on 8 August 2008 Georgia made an attempt to occupy Tskinkali, the capital of the South Ossetia. The Russian Federation reacted by sending 130-150 tanks and an army of …soldiers. The calls for a cease-fire were ignored by both sides ……
Abkhazia is recognized as an autonomous republic of Georgia. It has a population that dwindled from 550 000 in 2002 to 190 000 in 2007. Only 18 % of this population is Abkhazian. The secessionist movement of Abkhaz ethnic minority declared independence from Georgia in 1992. An armed conflict broke out in 1992 and 1993 between the de facto independent entity and Georgia. With the military assistance of the Russian army the Abkhazians forced the Georgian army to retreat and it resulted in an ethnic cleansing and mass exodus of Georgian population from Abkhazia.
A cease-fire was agreed in 1994 and a Russian dominated force is monitoring the cease-fire. The sovereignty dispute is far from being resolved.
South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts adversely affect the relations between the Russian Federation and Georgia.
This geographical region was an oblast within the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan during the Soviet era. It has around 190 000 inhabitants. It is officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It declared independence on 10 December 1991, but not recognized by any country including Armenia. However Armenia does not recognize its being part of Azerbaijan either, claiming that the region declared independence at the same time that Azerbaijan became an independent State and that both of them are equally successor States of the Soviet Union.
The UN, EU, US and the Council of Europe have all issued resolutions and declarations to affirm the Azeri sovereignty over Karabagh. However, in spite of this unequivocal position of all major international actors and organisations, no concrete step is taken to resolve the dispute.
Nagorno Karabagh lies at the core of the conflict, however the conflict has other aspects as well: Armenian forces occupy seven provinces in Azerbaijan proper and one million Azeris or one fifth of the population are evicted from their homes and became “internally displaced persons”.
Each one of thefrozen conflicts enumerated above is shaped by different parameters. The solution applicable to one of them may not be valid for another. However we may say that 1) the political will of the major players is not strong enough to place these conflicts high on the agenda; 2) progress on these conflicts cannot be expected without the cooperation of the Russian Federation.
- Turkey’s position with regard to the frozen conflicts
Turkey is very much in favour of an early and peaceful solution of the frozen conflicts. Two of them affect directly its relations with its neighbours. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is one of the major impediments in Turkey’s relations with Armenia.
Turkey’s position is the same as that of the remainder of the international community. It believes like all major international organizations that Nagorno-Karabakh is the territory of Azerbaijan and that Armenia has to withdraw unconditionally from the occupied Azeri territories.
On Abkhazia, Turkey, like almost all countries except the Russian Federation, is in favour of a peaceful solution within the framework of the territorial integrity of Georgia. The continuation of this conflict harms Turkey’s interests because of the pressure of very strong ethnic Abkhazian and ethnic Georgian communities in Turkey.
IV – Black Sea as an Area of Cooperation
a) The Military importance of the Black Sea
The role of the Black Sea region as an energy corridor and an area of frozen conflicts make it an important region from the military standpoint, but it also offers huge potentials for cooperation both militarily and economically.
After two of the littoral countries of the Black Sea, namely Bulgaria and Romania have become members of NATO and EU, the security and stability of the region has become a Euro-Atlantic issue at the same time. Other developments such as 9/11, the Iraqi war and the uranium enrichment program of Iran made the region all the more important.
As far as the security is concerned, we may talk of risks rather than threats in the Black Sea region. It is not beyond the capacity of the littoral countries to cope with these risks. There are two indigenous initiatives to address such risks: Blackseafor and Operation Black Sea Harmony. These initiatives are based on two pillars:
– The ultimate goal of the initiatives is to attain all littoral countries of the Black Sea.
– The maritime security of the region should be complementary to the Euro-Atlantic security system, because the maritime security is indivisible.
These two initiatives are recognized at present as major security providers in the Black Sea maritime area.
· The Blackseafor
Originating from a Turkish initiative BLACKSEAFOR (Black Sea Naval Cooperation Task Group) was created in 2001 with the participation of all the littoral States. It aims at contributing to friendship, good relations and mutual understanding in the region through enhancement of cooperation and interoperability among the naval forces of the littoral States. Operations and tasks of BLACKSEAFOR range from counter-terrorism to search and rescue, humanitarian assistance, environmental protection, mine-counter measures, goodwill visits and any other task to be agreed by all parties.
All littoral States of the Black Sea have the common understanding that the security in the Black Sea constitutes vital importance for the littoral States and that, therefore, they should take primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and stability in the area through engagement of their common assets and capabilities. BLACKSEAFOR is an instrument in place that can be used for the achievement of this objective.
Currently, with a view to better responding to new risks to security, BLACKSEAFOR is undergoing a transformation process.
· Operation Black Sea Harmony
This initiative was launched by Turkey initially as a national operation to deter, disrupt and prevent the threat of terrorism and illicit trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and related materials in the Black Sea. The Operation is now open to all Black Sea countries. Russian Federation and Ukraine have already joined the operations of the Black Sea Harmony. The aims of these operations are to:
– Demonstrate naval presence;
– Exchange of information on suspected merchant vessels;
– Conduct reconnaissance operations; and
– Trail or shadow suspected merchant vessels.The operation consists of regular patrols with frigates and patrol boats in pre-defined surveillance areas in the Black Sea. Helicopters, submarines, maritime patrol aircraft and coast guard vessels assist in this activity.
Operation Black Sea Harmony is conducted in cooperation with the ongoing NATO Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean.
In addition to these initiatives, a meeting is held in Istanbul in 2006 with the participation of the coast guards commanders of the littoral countries. They signed during this meeting a document under the title of “Agreement on Black Sea Coast and Border Guards Cooperation Forum”.
There is also an initiative launched by Bulgaria. It is the creation of an institution called Black Sea Border Coordination and Information Centre. This Centre is established in Burgas in 2003 and is aimed at the maritime security of the littoral coastguards.
2. Black Sea as an area of economic cooperation
The complementarities between the economies of countries surrounding the Black Sea offer enormous potentials for cooperation. The cooperation initiatives in the military fields are explained in the previous chapter. As to the cooperation in the economic field, the most concrete initiative in this area is the establishment of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation.
- The Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)
The establishment of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) was the very first initiative to capitalize on the new parameters that were emerging in the region after the fall of the Soviet Union. BSEC was established on the idea that stronger economic cooperation among the Black Sea countries would enhance stability in the region by helping the member States to achieve sustainable economic structures. Thus, its institutional framework was set up with the underlying motive of integrating the region into the world economy. Taking economic cooperation as a common denominator, the founders of the Organization had the far-reaching objective of turning diverse approaches in the region into a common understanding of peace, stability, democracy and the spirit of conciliation. In this context, BSEC has come a long way towards helping the member States’ ongoing process of transformation.
It cannot be claimed that BSEC has met all the expectations in its 15 years of existence. However, a new spirit of cooperation has started to emerge between the member States. Several reasons might explain why BSEC could not achieve the desired level of effectiveness in its initial phase.
– Frozen conflicts in the region are perhaps the most important reasons.
– Lack of concrete, project-based achievements, which would have made BSEC more meaningful to all concerned; and
– Failure to draw up attainable short-term strategies, which might have given the Organization more visibility and credibility.
These shortcomings could be attributed to the fact that BSEC was the first example of an institutionalised and widely inclusive multilateral cooperation platform in the Black Sea region consisting of member countries with divergent economic and social experiences, as well as different visions and agenda for their future.
Consequently, a total consensus on the side of the members could not easily be reached with regard to their expectations from the Organization. However, recently, the Organization has achieved a visible degree of progress with the common efforts of all its members. This is due to a growing understanding among the members on the essentiality of BSEC, as a regional cooperation platform and a common determination towards shifting to a project-oriented and result-based approach within the Organization. These facts demonstrate that in its fifteen-year evolution process BSEC has been able to gather its members around common ideas, goals and policies that, itself, is sufficient proof of the success of the Organization.
The growing local and international interest in the Black Sea region imposes on BSEC the obligation to play a more active role and the re-emerging spirit of cooperation between the members gives the BSEC the chance to respond positively to new opportunities and challenges.
The BSEC area includes a population of 330 million inhabitants and an area of 20 million square kilometres with dynamic human potential and rich natural resources including oil and natural gas.
The BSEC needs to be restructured to ensure a more effective decision-making mechanism as well as due and rapid implementation of the decisions taken at the top level. This restructuring cannot be achieved by amending the regulations or by adopting a number of decisions. Instead, BSEC should be transformed into an organisation with a certain degree of flexibility to be able to respond quickly to new challenges in an ever-changing global environment.
Deepening of existing cooperation with other organizations, such as OECD and UNDP, and effective implementation of ongoing partnership projects should also be regarded as a priority.
Another main pillar is the endorsement of a sector by sector approach, which will also correspond with the project-oriented vision that BSEC has recently adopted. At the level of a given sector, priority should be given to making further progress in the fields of trade and investment, transport, energy, environment and combating organized crime.
The EU is closely interested in the region and more specifically in the activities of the BSEC. The European Parliament adopted on 10 July 2008 a Resolution on the EU Commission’s 2007 Enlargement Strategy Paper. In this Resolution there is a specific reference to the Black Sea region and more specifically to the BSEC. It reiterates the “importance of devising a more sophisticated and comprehensive EU Strategy for the Black Sea region that goes beyond the current synergy initiative and envisages the establishment of a Black Sea Cooperation Agreement, which should include the EU, Turkey, all Black Sea littoral States as equal partners, while seeking the full involvement of Russia, and which could, at a later stage, develop into a Union of the Black Sea”. The EU believes that such a multilateral framework would offer the countries involved the possibility of strengthening their cooperation with the EU across a wide variety of policy fields.
V – Conclusion
The Black Sea basin is a region full of not only opportunities but challenges as well. The frozen conflicts constitute an obstacle for the full utilisation of these opportunities. The potential cannot be mobilized with the efforts of individual countries however effective their means may be.
The littoral countries would surely be the first to benefit from enhanced cooperation and fuller utilization of the potential, but they clearly will not be the only ones in our time and age of globalization.
Before opening the floor to the questions, I should like to draw your attention once more to the fact that, after Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession to NATO and EU, the Black Sea has become an area of direct interest for the West. Closely connected to this however is the point that, any initiative which fails to take account the regional balances and sensitivities is not likely to succeed.