THE UNITED STATES AND GUAM: FROM TACTIC TO PARTNERSHIP
Abstract
The relationship between the United States and GUAM has undergone a remarkable evolution over the decade of that group’s existence. Prior to the 11 September terrorist attacks, Washington viewed GUAM as a key element in Western efforts to secure access to the oil and gas of the Caspian basin and the demon Tage of the post-Soviet world. And GUAM viewed Washington as a key supporter in the efforts of both the organization and its member states to gain effective independence from Moscow. But in the years since those attacks, both Washington and GUAM have changed their focus. Washington has come to see GUAM less in terms of these two initial goals than as a major player in the war against terrorism, and GUAM has come to view Washington less as its primary source of outside support and more as one resource among many which can help the organization and member countries achieve their goals.
For both sides at the present time, this relationship is both less important and more than it was, a paradoxical situation that helps to explain why some analysts view GUAM as an organization certain to acquire even greater importance in the and why others view it as one that arose as a result of the specific conditions of the collapse of the Soviet Union and that is destined to disappear as the significance of some unified post-Soviet space declines.
Rather than trace the evolution of GUAM itself there are many useful studies available, including others featured in this issue1—the present essay examines the factors at work on both sides in defining the initial relationship between GUAM and its member states and the very different set of factors affecting the United States and GUAM that not only define this bilateral relationship at the present time but which are likely to do so over the next five to ten years.
Downloads
References
For the basic history, see: T. Kuzio, “The Decade of GUAM,” available at [http://www.taraskuzio.net/media/
df/DECADE_OF_GUAM.pdf], and his article “Geopolit-ical Pluralism in the CIS: The Emergence of GUUAM,”European Security, Vol. 9, No. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 81-114 (cf.: Yu. Kochubei, “GUUAM and Equal Regional Cooperation,” Central Asia and the Caucasus, No. 2 (14),2002; P.C. Latawski, “The Limits of Diversity in the Post-Soviet Space: CIS & GUUAM,” CSRC, March 2001,available at [http://www.csrc.ac.uk/pdfs/G93-chap18.pdf]).
For a run of this publication, see: [http://www.guuam.org/general/browse.html].
D. Binder, “U.S. Supports Anticrime Group in the Caucasus and Central Asia,” The New York Times, 26 January,2003.
See: C. Bigg, “GUAM—A Regional Grouping Comes of Age,” RFE/RL, 24 May, 2006.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2008 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
