When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the prevailing view in the rest of the world was that nothing could fill the void left by its collapse. Few believed that any of the smaller political pieces that had been subordinate to Russia-the “republics”-were likely to find political and economic affiliation apart from Russia, away from the ill-defined Russian filter. Hundreds of times I was asked literally - how Georgia could survive without Russia? Where else could Georgia go? How could its economy function without Russian inputs? In general, few people had sufficient imagination to think beyond the Russia paradigm. The main, I would say, the strategic goal, for us at that time was to retain our independence, to ensure political sovereignty and to start painful - a very painful for a turbulent nation - state building process. We worked hard to diversify- maybe not always successfully, - our international relations to avoid slipping into a CIS “gray zone,” or even a “black hole,”- the definition of it is a matter of the analysts political taste.
From such a perspective, the subsequent development of events was quite startling. Not only did we establish new affiliations and relationships, we found them in ways that few people anticipated and GUUAM is one of those new sets of relationships.
GUUAM is the closest thing in the post-Soviet area to a strategic relationship. No, let me re-phrase that: GUUAM is a strategic relationship, even though the members of GUUAM may not be as adept at the formal constructions of strategies as, say, France or China. But we shouldn’t doubt that this is what GUUAM intends to be. It is a group of states with common problems, threat perceptions and, I hope, a common vision of the future. Many are asking: where and what is GUUAM? Is it in or out of CIS, is it pro or anti-CIS, or is it against Russia? Let me answer this question: First of all, GUUAM is beyond CIS, but it’s neither anti-CIS, nor anti-Russian. It is pro-GUUAM strategic relationship. It is not GUUAM who is introducing visa regimes with selected countries, erecting customs barriers within CIS and limiting opportunities of its members to choose their “external” economic partners.
GUUAM’s birth mother is the CFE negotiations, and its foster mother is NATO. Two of GUUAM members-Ukraine and my own country, Georgia-are direct NATO borderlands, sharing common boundaries with Poland and Turkey respectively. Moldova and Azerbaijan are indirect NATO borderlands. Moldova shares borders with Ukraine and Romania. The latter, Romania, which will probably be the next NATO member, thereby moves Moldova up to a direct NATO neighborhood. Azerbaijan shares borders with Georgia and nearly so with Turkey, with whom it is connected by ethnic and linguistic ties. Our newest member, Uzbekistan, is somewhat more distant, but it is linked to all the others via the emerging Eurasian Transport Corridor, by membership in the PfP programs, by our affiliation with the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and by common strategic needs. And I’d like to emphasize here, at the Stanford University, that today we cannot imagine our relations within GUUAM without another big U-Uzbekistan. In fact, all of these connections prove that GUUAM is an ideally placed bridge for different European Institutions to the heart of Eurasia. And it’s a two-way bridge. The members of GUUAM benefit immeasurably from walking over the bridge toward integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a number of regional organizations have been created within that space (CIS, Customs Union, Russia-Belarus Union, Eurasian Economic Union Treaty, etc.). But most of them have been established either artificially or under pressure. That’s why almost all such organizations today are defunct, and from this perspective not viable. One of the exceptions, or even the only exception, is GUUAM. The GUUAM group came up only after all of its members had already formed strong political and economic relationships with states that lie beyond the former boundaries of the USSR. In Georgia’s case, GUUAM came after we had developed dynamic relationships with our strong neighbor Turkey; with much of Europe, Israel and, of course, with the United States. The governments of Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova similarly reached out to different parts of the world before they reached inward, toward old friends who share old problems. GUUAM is the proof of our growing sense of confidence in dealing with the unpredictability in our neighborhood. But it also presents strong evidence of our growing political maturity, in seeking common regional solutions to problems that cannot be solved easily from outside of our region.
The development of GUUAM itself is evolutionary. Beginning in spring 1996, when the delegations from the four states laid the groundwork for the consultations within the GUAM format on the CFE flank issues, evolved naturally and without any coercion. Range of issues for the consultations broadened and besides security it gradually moved to cover political, commercial and economic matters and, naturally, the number of participant states also increased
[This evolutionary process of development may be the answer to your probable question why Armenia is out of GUUAM. From the regional cooperation perspective Armenia’s participation could be valuable, but this country has significantly different threat and security perception - which, as has been mentioned above, initiated the creation of this group - from the other GUUAM countries and we don’t want to artificially force the process. The viability of GUUAM, in comparison with other newly established organizations, is that all steps made within this group were thoughtful and carefully measured, in accordance with pragmatism and “real politick”].
Today this group of countries - Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova - are linked together politically, by their western orientation; economically, by their commitment to projects like Eurasian transport-economic corridor, ideas incorporated into New Silk Road Legislation, sponsored by Sen. Brownback, prospects of commercial activities within the Black Sea Basin, and strategically, by rebuffing CIS reintegration. I should admit, in this connection, that Russia, under the leadership of President Putin, is “quite successfully” rebuffing the same integration within CIS: it is suffice just to mention the newly created Eurasian Economic Union Treaty.
[Within dynamics of globalization processes, greater attention has been drawn to the development of regional links. It is evident that the advantages of the regional and sub-regional co-operation will result in more flexible, transparent and effective principles, thus expressing adequate interests of the participant countries.]
The north-south linkage that once defined Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucasus and Central Asia as separate regional issues is rapidly giving way to east-west linkages that triggered emergence of a wide belt of countries stretching from the Chinese border to the Black Sea region that share a wide range of strategic interests. These new interests may be embodied in the planned east-west trade link that will connect Central Asia to Europe and in which GUUAM will play the role of a centerpiece.
I would also cautiously underline, that economic revival and prosperity within GUUAM should be built not by “constructing the pyramid” from above, like it is the case if we prematurely introduce Free Economic Zone. First, I think we need to start laying a solid basis by pushing step by step, brick by brick, forward the legal reforms to harmonize the inter-communication of various national services, like customs, border guard and implementing relatively smaller projects to start with. By doing this, I’m convinced, the understanding of our regional responsibilities toward each other can be rapidly advanced, at the same time laying foundation for the bigger constructions like FEZ. These concerted efforts can withstand the mounting attempts of economic expansion from Russia that concerns each and every one of us so much today. They diversify tactics of political-military compulsion with the aggressively enforced energy and commercial strategies and this can only be effectively counteracted by establishing the strong economic identity of GUUAM. We are also carefully watching the ongoing debate within the Russian political and military leadership over the defining of a new Russian defense strategy. Their probable gravitation towards the conventional warfare doctrine, combined with above mentioned “commercial assault” from the north, could have its impact on Russia’s foreign policy projection in respect of its immediate neighbors.
Let me tell you about several projects that can enhance interests towards GUUAM. For example, the concept of restoration of the "Great Silk Road" has undoubtedly gained great importance. Nowadays this process is gaining pace to become multi-dimensional and multifunctional. It will rehabilitate and expand highways, railroads, air routes, air and sea ports; link the states of this new Silk Road with each other and the outer world via the most modern and sophisticated communications and information technologies, and train a new generation of personnel to make it all work in concert.
It is also apparent that the Great Silk Road or Eurasian Transport Corridor is not limited only to its transportation and commercial functions. In effect, it would become a stabilizing factor among the states of Eurasian space of former Soviet Union and would foster a creation of common market, new geo-strategic, I would say - geo-commercial alliances, as well as, facilitate the development of functioning democratic institution.
The idea of Eurasian Corridor embraces the following three components: Europe-Caucasus-Asia Transport corridor (TRACECA), East-West Strategic Energy Corridor and Telecommunications network.
The international community has found it the most attractive one. It has already stimulated rehabilitation of the main component of transport infrastructure. The diversity of ongoing cooperation ensured the elaboration of the programs of restructuring of all means of transport systems. As a result, today we witness relatively - though this could have been better - successful operation of Poti-Ilichevsk motor-ferry connection. The existence of huge energy resources in the Caspian region proved the necessity of diversification of effective links with the world markets. “Energy Diplomacy” has turned into an important part of the foreign policy of many countries of the region. The first completed regional project - Baku-Supsa pipeline - has been functioning for more than a year. I want to assure you that the implementation of this project already triggered a chain reaction of new ideas and new perspectives - at least among Georgian experts and, as far as I know, not only among them. These new ideas envisage the full participation of all GUUAM countries and other regional actors, including big powers, on commercial and economic basis, which, in the end should be the basic guarantors of security equilibrium within GUAAM and beyond it.
Sustainable transit service, safe transportation of oil and gas requires formation of a modern telecommunication infrastructure. The implementation of new technologies in this field, realization of fiber-optic cable projects represents basic part of activities to be taken in this direction. Modernization of existing technological systems is also under way.
These are the projects, that should undoubtedly strengthen the independence and sovereignty of GUUAM countries, create a new atmosphere of trust and cooperation, improve security mechanisms, which in the long run will make the democratic and market oriented reforms irreversible. It eventually will lead to the development of common understanding, perception of unity, common interests within GUUAM (which due to obvious reasons we may lack today) that will make this organization strong and viable.
What are the benefits and advantages of GUUAM? Precisely this group could emerge as the first phase of activities within the above-mentioned processes and become so called advanced group of Silk Road counties. Established framework of consultations and consensus-reaching experience within the CUUAM might serve as the solid foundation to build up new interregional cooperation. It is particularly important, when some states within this space might consider their development not quite in the same direction and I think, [no, I hope,] the accomplishments of GUUAM will set an example of success and definitely stimulate other countries to participate in practical implementation of these ideas. The GUUAM mission should bypasses the geographical boundaries of member states and reach out to a larger region. This is why GUUAM activities of the recent period were somehow redirected from strictly security and political consultations to the issues of an overall development of the Eurasian corridor.
Nevertheless, all the above mentioned can be implemented if a unified and advanced communication system (for example Silksat) is created on the entire space and the artificial obstacles, which exist as a result of an inadequate legislature and unacceptable activities of some incompetent and corrupt officials are removed. That is exactly the reason why today, contrary to any logical considerations, the majority of goods from Central Asia are transported to Europe by a substantially longer route through Russia and Baltic States. The GUUAM States are responsible to lay the groundwork for the reversal of the situation. Definite work is being done in this regard now. In the nearest future meetings of GUUAM experts will be held that will involve specialists from economic, energy and transportation sectors; representatives of customs authorities, border guards and tax revenue service. Such consultations among GUUAM experts will make the Free Trade Zone project feasible and submit to WTO.
I’d like to draw your attention to some practical ideas, such as the recently conducted computer-based simulation training in Georgia, sponsored by the US DoD. This program - S.E.N.S.E. (Synthetic Environment for National Security Estimate), which is specially designed to facilitate a high profile dialogue among the key decision-makers of the government and private sector, might be well expanded to the regional and GUUAM format level. This will help us to train new generation of decision-makers, economic advisers and NGOs to harmonize their collective efforts for the regional cooperation.
In closing, I would say, that GUUAM in the long run, should not be limited to the countries of former Soviet space. We have to be open to invite, perhaps as observers, the adjacent states, which might share the interest of the regional cooperation. Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland may be constructively engaged in discussions within the GUUAM.
Experience of the GUUAM-like groups and initiatives has been highly useful. For instance, together with my GUUAM colleagues in Washington DC we have obtained ample information about the Vyshegrad Group, Southeast European Cooperation Initiative, South Balkan Development Initiative, Council of the Baltic Sea States, Northern Europe Initiative, etc. Our experts will study them and I hope that our Presidents will have sufficient information for the GUUAM Summit in Kiev to make appropriate decisions towards formalizing this group.