ATTENTION, CONFLICT BREWING!

The Romanian analyst Iulian Chifu has first-hand knowledge of conflicts in the post-Soviet area. As a professor at the National School of Political and Administrative Studies in Bucharest and Director of the Conflict Prevention and Early Warning Centre, he is the author of numerous studies on hot spots around the world. In an interview with our magazine, Professor Iulian Chifu shared his views on several conflicts, many of which he thinks could have been prevented.

- Professor, are there many cases in history when conflict was prevented by humankind? And if this has happened, how was it achieved?

- A lot! The literature is full of examples and ways that conflicts have been prevented. Just choose a geographical zone and we can find dozens. On the other hand, there were conflicts that could not be prevented and there were conflicts for which the decision makers and the international community had all the warnings but didn't have the interest or means or will to intervene in time. And failures are as numerous as achievements here. For instance, even in the case of 9/11 there were all the warning signs that an attack on the World Trade Centre would happen, but those signs were not "read" altogether. For us, it is important to learn from everybody's failures and achievements in order to adapt our own institutions to the possibility and capacity to react in those conditions.

- Are there fewer conflicts now than in the past or is there a tendency towards more and more conflict across the world?

- It is about figures and facts. There are fewer conflicts in terms of violent conflicts, but there are other types of conflicts occurring. For example, there are more cyber attacks, there are more energy related conflicts, there are several commercial and trade conflicts, and there are other fields in which conflict is increasing. I am sure that with the multiplicity of actors and capabilities in the globalized world, there are more divergent interests that cannot be solved by purely diplomatic means, but via different types of aggression and violence, expressed in different areas. This doesn't mean that there is more shooting.

- Do you think that the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia could have been prevented at the very beginning?

- Yes, of course. But neither the Soviet Union at that moment, nor the Soviet republics, had the ability the means, the institutions or the knowledge to do so. And when it broke out, they couldn't stop the war very quickly. It is true that the Soviet Union and its prioritising of the ideological war and bipolar rivalry put all the other conflicts, old and new alike, that appeared during the Soviet era, to sleep. With the arrival of Perestroika, Glastnost and all the union states regaining their national identity, these conflicts emerged and quickly became wars.

- We would like you to analyze the similarities and differences between the post-Soviet conflicts and other contemporary conflicts, for instance, Kosovo.

- Kosovo is a special case, in which the international community reacted to the genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place in the former Serbia and Montenegro. The UN Security Council suspended Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo and took over its administration. Then, in February 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence and some states recognized it. Romania refused to recognize Kosovo without a formal agreement with Belgrade, the sovereign state administration. But the intervention was not carried out for territorial gain by the US, NATO and the international community, but to fix a situation recognized as genocide and condemned by the UN Security Council through Resolution 1244. This was not the case in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, since Russia, as a neighbouring country, invaded Georgia in order to change internationally recognized borders in its own favour by force. As you know, with the final declaration of the NATO summit in Bucharest, we supported the "sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan", a statement that can also be found in the Lisbon summit's final declaration.

For a thorough analysis on the particularities of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, many books and reports have been written.

- The Caucasus seems to be a region of conflict. Will it ever be possible to observe stability in this region?

- Stability is not always security, and sometimes we need to put in place a mechanism to balance and eliminate tensions in order to achieve this stability and achieve sustainable security by democratic means. But the rules of the game are democracy, legitimacy, the credibility of leaders, dialogue with all the forces in the region and observance of minority rights - ethnic and religious alike, so that this may lead to sustainable peace and security in the region. But the Caucasus also means the North Caucasus; things are less clear and the situation is less optimistic there in the short and medium term, and the threats are very present, especially if there is no direct and clear intervention. The situation is far too complicated to be explained here in a few lines, and the conditions exist for new conflicts of higher or lower intensity.

- By the way, you mentioned energy conflicts. What do you think about the prospects for the much disputed NABUCCO gas pipeline project?

- There are good prospects, but they depend on there being enough gas available for the project. And here Azerbaijan plays a crucial role.

- Regarding Romania's decision to install some elements of the US missile defence system on its territory as a member of NATO and an independent state, Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi said during his visit to Baku that this would strengthen Romania's security and strategic partnership. In this case, who and what is this system a defence against?

- If it is about defence, it is not "against" anybody. It is about the defence of the country against one particular threat, meaning ballistic missiles. We expect that NATO will take on the burden of the system in order to defend the territories of all member states. Any state that wants to attack the territory of the Alliance with ballistic missiles should be warned that its missiles will be destroyed in upper space. It is a deterrence instrument, not a weapon that can attack anybody. Moreover, it is not aimed or designed to counter the general balance of nuclear weapons or to counter Russia, since there are only 10 interceptor missiles. So Russia, with its arsenal of thousands of weapons and missiles, cannot be troubled by 10 interceptor missiles. The purpose is to respond to a nuclear attack, and I assume that no offensive missile will be launched by Russia against any NATO ally. And since the policy of resetting and partnership between Russia and NATO also involves anti-ballistic missile cooperation, there are no concerns about this particular actor, a partner of NATO.