Could dissolution of CFE treaty herald outbreak of conflict in the Caucasus? By David Petrosian in Yerevan (CRS No. 402 19-Jul-07)
Special Report: Military Build-Up in the Caucasus
The sharp rise in defence budgets and accompanying militarization of the countries of the South Caucasus is alarming the international community. Growth in military spending in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia now exceeds GDP growth by 20 to 40 times.
For every million inhabitants of the South Caucasus, there are 75 tanks and 85 artillery pieces. This is a much larger proportion than in the three big neighbours of the region, Iran, Russia and Turkey. If you factor in the number of weapons in the three unrecognised separatist territories in the region, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorny Karabakh, the figures rise by around a third.
However, the militarisation of the region needs to be put in a wider perspective. The Stockholm peace institute, SIPRI, calculated that last year world military spending reached 1.2 trillion US dollars, a rise of 3.5 per cent on the year before.
That suggests that, despite the end of the Cold War and efforts to put in place a new international security framework, most countries still believe that the best means of preserving their security is maintaining an effective army.
Armenia's military budget for 2007 was just over 271 million dollars, or 3.5 per cent of GDP. The spending is based on a perceived actual military threat from Azerbaijan and a potential one from Turkey.
The Armenian government rejects accusations that it is exceeding the military quotas set by the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, or CFE, and says that it is keeping to the limits and preventing a new arms race in the Caucasus. (Azerbaijan for its part accuses the Armenians of maintaining weaponry outside CFE in Nagorny Karabakh. See accompanying article).
International inspectors, including many from Armenia's traditional foe Turkey, have confirmed that the Republic of Armenia is not exceeding its quotas on offensive weapons as set out by the CFE.
Armenia has been accused of militarising the region by receiving Russian weaponry transferred from the former base of the 62nd army in Akhalkalaki in Georgia - now closed - to the Russian military base in Gyumri in northern Armenia.
Armenian officials responded to this by saying that most of the equipment transferred was vehicles and ammunition and that all equipment in the Gyumri base remains the property of the Russian armed forces, not of Armenia. They say that the whole process was transparent and agreed with the Georgian government and that it complies with CFE quotas.
Armenia is watching as Azerbaijan sharply increases its military budget year on year and says that their neighbour is breaking its CFE commitments. For example, in 2006 Azerbaijan declared that it possessed 217 tanks and bought 41 tanks from Ukraine and Belarus, thereby exceeding its CFE quota by 38 tanks.
Former Armenian defence minister Vagarshak Harutiunian said, "It's far from clear to what extent the OSCE and NATO can force Baku to keep to the quotas set out in the CFE. In this situation, it is obvious that Azerbaijan should either leave the CFE or observe it properly."
The Armenians say that Azerbaijan is trying to use its enhanced defence budget, based on increased oil revenues, to try to force them to make unilateral concessions in negotiations over the Nagorny Karabakh peace process. However, they say increased military spending by Azerbaijan is a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving success should fighting resume.
It is worth noting that it is quite likely that a substantial part of Azerbaijan's military expenditure is being directed towards naval forces in the Caspian Sea – and therefore not against Nagorny Karabakh or Armenia. Disputes over this large and energy-rich basin are a potential source of conflict in the future. Baku is also compelled to keep some of its forces in other parts of the country, such as the southern border, to repel other potential threats.
"The Armenian side in response to Azerbaijan's purchase of expensive offensive weaponry is giving its preference to cheaper defensive weapons systems," said Sergei Minasian, a military expert who is deputy director of the Caucasus Media Institute in Yerevan.
"[Armenia] is also using sensibly its membership of the CIS Collective Security Pact and its alliance with Russia. For example at the end of 2006, Baku bought expensive modern MiG-29 fighter aircraft from Ukraine. And just around the same time there was an announcement that the Russian-Armenian anti-aircraft system on the territory of Armenia had been replaced by a more up-to-date system and put on a state of battle alert."
Both NATO and Russia are contributing to the increased militarisation of the South Caucasus. The argument can be made that both NATO and the CIS Collective Security Pact have their place in the region and the two are in a state of competition for allegiance rather than outright hostility. NATO's activities in the region have been met with understanding in Armenia, which has hosted NATO training exercises.
However, up till now, relative stability has been guaranteed in large part due to a military balance, whose cornerstone has been the CFE treaty. If the CFE treaty begins to unravel that could lead to a destabilisation and rise in tension in the South Caucasus, with the threat of unresolved conflicts flaring up again.
David Petrosian is a political observer for the Noyan Tapan news agency in Yerevan.
From Institute for War & Peace Reporting: Caucasus Reporting Service on July 18, 2007, 4:00pm
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)