VZCZCXYZ0012
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKB #0256/01 0741024
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 141024Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY BAKU
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4976
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA 2709
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0746
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 0773
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC

C O N F I D E N T I A L BAKU 000256 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/01/2025 
TAGS: PREL MARK MASS PBTS NATO AJ
SUBJECT: NATO ROSE-ROTH SEMINAR ATTRACTS DIVERSE 
PARTICIPATION 
 
Classified By: DCM Donald Lu for reasons 1.4 (b,d). 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY:  NATO's 68th Rose-Roth Seminar, focused on 
"Security in the Caspian Region," was held in Baku March 6-8. 
 Speakers included a range of parliamentarians, scholars and 
government officials from Europe, the Caucasus and Central 
Asia; this was the first time that Central Asian states 
participated in the seminar.  The GOAJ's primary goal in 
hosting the conference seemed to be raising support for 
Azerbaijan's position vis-a-vis the Nagorno Karabakh 
conflict, fully consistent with the GOAJ's broader foreign 
policy objectives.  While the conference provided 
participants a good overview of some of the issues related to 
the South Caucasus, the atmospherics were far more 
interesting, with large and vocal delegations from Serbia and 
Russia using almost every opportunity to present their 
anti-NATO talking points.  The diverse, often contentious 
debates also highlighted the challenges in promoting 
Euro-Atlantic integration throughout the broader Eurasia 
region.  END SUMMARY. 
 
AZERBAIJAN 
---------- 
 
¶2. (U) Azerbaijan used the Rose-Roth Seminar to highlights 
its own efforts to promote regional integration, and to 
advance its perspectives regarding the Nagorno Karabakh 
conflict.  Azerbaijani Speaker of Parliament Oqtay Asadov 
opened the conference with remarks that hailed Azerbaijan's 
continuing cooperation with NATO and Azerbaijan's 
contributions to European security, particularly through GOAJ 
peacekeepers in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He noted Azerbaijan's 
participation in NATO's Individual Partnership Action Plan 
(IPAP) process and Azerbaijan's the ongoing reforms in the 
security sector, including the transformation of the 
Azerbaijani armed forces, which he noted included the 
movement to civilian control of the military.  The second 
half of Asadov's comments focused on the Nagorno Karabakh 
conflict and the resulting security and humanitarian 
implications.  The Ambassador attended the opening session. 
 
¶3. (U) The Azerbaijani MFA's Director of Policy Planning, 
Tofiq Musayev, lauded the great progress, and "real, 
practical results" that have taken place in the GUAM 
organization during Azerbaijan's chairmanship (2007-2008). 
When pressed to provide details, Musayev responded that 
Azerbaijan is trying to foster a "dialogue of civilizations" 
and also is trying to strengthen communication links between 
the GUAM countries.  Azerbaijan's prospects for NATO 
membership also were discussed during the conference.  In a 
somewhat surprising turn of events, Azerbaijani Member of 
Parliament - and member of the Security and Defense 
Commission - Zahid Orujov - asked NATO Special Representative 
for the South Caucasus Robert Simmons when NATO was planning 
to offer Azerbaijan membership in the alliance.  Simmons 
noted that Azerbaijan has not decided to ask for membership 
in the alliance and has not taken the steps necessary to be 
considered for the alliance. 
 
KEYNOTE ADRESS 
--------------- 
 
¶4. (U) UK-based scholar natol Lieven delivered the keynote 
address, an iteresting, balanced presentation which 
highlighted the importance of independence for the southern 
post-Soviet countries.  He condemned scholars, analyses of 
Central Asia and the South Caucasus as a "great game" and 
"chessboard," arguing that this approach is dangerous because 
it implies that only the U.S. and Russia are competitors 
while both China - particularly through the Shanghai 
Cooperation Organization (SCO)- and India play important 
roles in the region.  He noted that it was not inconceivable 
that India could "step outside the U.S. framework" and forge 
its own links with Central Asia and Iran.  He also stressed 
the great impact of a potential detente with Iran on energy 
markets and energy plans. 
 
¶5. (U) Lieven's speech was well-received and prompted a 
lively debate about NATO's role in the region, 
narco-trafficking in Afghanistan, the role of the European 
Union, and future energy prospects and routes.  Most of the 
other speakers presented general overviews about energy, 
security or country specific issues from a historical 
 
standpoint, and were general in nature.  The most interesting 
and polarizing comments came from the Russian and Serbian 
delegations. 
 
RUSSIANS 
-------- 
 
¶6. (C) The Russian delegation was represented by six Duma 
members, Vladimir Komoedov and Yuly Kvitsinskiy of the 
Communist Party and Nikolay Kovalev, Khozh Magomed Vakhiyev, 
Anatoly Korendyasev and Anatoly Starodubets of United Russia. 
 Kovalev did most of the speaking, and he presented various 
non-sequiturs and historical anecdotes which appeared aimed 
at embarrassing NATO and specifically NATO's role in 
Afghanistan.  Kovalev reminded the participants that Russia 
had applied for membership to NATO in 1954, arguing that 
Russia in the past had tried to embrace NATO.  He blasted 
NATO as an ineffective and weak organization, arguing for 
example, that 93 percent of global heroin production hails 
from "NATO-controlled countries."  He said that there is, in 
his view, a positive correlation between NATO's role in 
Afghanistan and the increased heroin production, implying 
that NATO was involved in drug running. 
 
SERBIANS 
-------- 
 
¶7. (C) Bozidar Delic of the Radical Party and Dragan Sormaz 
of the Democratic Party represented Serbia at the conference. 
  Sormaz's interventions - regardless of the topic - focused 
on three themes.   First, he thanked (on three separate 
occasions) the Azerbaijani government for its refusal to 
recognize Kosovo's  independence, noting that Serbia would be 
"forever grateful" for this stance.  He said that Serbia 
views the Georgian separatist regions and Nagorno Karabakh in 
the same way as Azerbaijan does.  He urged all those in 
attendance who have recognized Kosovo to rescind their 
decision.  He was critical of NATO operations in Qanistan, 
highlighting an alleged increase in narcotics coming from 
Afghanistan, and  claiming that the main drug traffickers of 
Afghan heroin were Kosovars.  He also was quick to point out 
that the U.S. had recognized the Kosovo Liberation Army as a 
terrorist group who had been in cooperation with al-Qa'ida, 
and noted that various people from the KLA are currently part 
of or associated with the Kosovo leadership.  Finally, 
Sormaz, playing to the local audience, noted that the 
destruction of Serbian cultural heritage is akin to the 
destruction of Azerbaijan's cultural heritage in Nagorno 
Karabakh.  He noted that Serbia was prepared, as the EU said 
it was, to invest one billion Euros into Kosovo.  Sormaz was 
interrupted each time he spoke by the moderator, noting that 
needed to stick to the topic.  One time he was cut off 
altogether. 
 
CENTRAL ASIANS 
-------------- 
 
¶8. (C) The open, independent views of Lieven were in sharp 
contrast to the presentations made by representatives from 
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.  The Kazakhstani delegation, which 
was led by Sat Tokpakbayev, during the first opportunity inQich the floor was open for discussion proceeded to read 
from prepared remarks, which lasted approximately 20 minutes, 
on the glories of Kazakhstan, the Kazakhstani leadership, 
foreign policy, energy policy, Kazakhstan's tolerance for all 
civilizations of the world, and its desire to workQth all 
partners.  The speech was not NATO-related and elicited 
snickers throughout the conference hall.  Similarly, the 
Uzbekistani scholar Ravshan Alimov, from the "Institute of 
World Economy" in Uzbekistan presented a similarly 
sycophantic presentation about the great "development" of 
Uzbekistan under President Islam Karimov.  Nigina Sattorova, 
the project coordinator of the "Information Education & 
Cultural Center" in Tajikistan, gave a power point 
presentation which consisted of tourist-type pictures of 
Tajikistan, noting the natural beauty of the country. 
 
REGIONAL BICKERING 
------------------ 
 
¶9. (SBU) On occasion, members of the diverse audience were 
unable resist opportunities to quibble over regional 
conflicts.  Turkish Justice and Development Party member 
 
Mehmet Ceylan reprimanded keynote speaker Lieven for using 
the word "Kurdistan" to describe areas populated by ethnic 
Kurds.  Lieven ignored him.  Similarly, one of the members of 
the Greek delegation reprimanded another speaker who used the 
word "Macedonia" when describing the Former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia.  The Greek representative referred to FYR 
Macedonia as the "country which Skopje is in;" this 
suggestion too was ignored. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶10. (C) While the conference provided participants a good 
overview of some of the issues related to the South Caucasus, 
the atmospherics were far more interesting and also 
highlighted the challenges in promoting Euro-Atlantic 
integration throughout the broader Eurasia region.  Although 
the participation of Central Asian states in this seminar was 
a notable first, their representatives' scripted and 
politically safe remarks were a clear indication of how far 
these countries remain from embracing brQer NATO goals of 
democracy and transparency.  We note with some concern that 
the seminar was used effectively by the Serbian and Russian 
delegations to further their own political interests at the 
expense of NATO.  Their anti-NATO remarks were reported by 
the large contingent of local media present at the seminar. 
DERSQ