POLITICAL PROBLEMS OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
Excerpts from the online conference
November 19 - November 22, 2002
November 19
Laura Baghdasaryan
Director, The "Region" Research Center
GREETING
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am delighted to welcome you to this regional conference,
in the course of which I hope we will be able to discuss a number of pressing
problems for the South Caucasian region. I am grateful to all who have accepted
our invitation and have kindly agreed to share their views over this virtual space.
If we compare the positions of the authors who have discussed the subjects
of integration and security in the South Caucasus, we can draw two main conclusions:
1. Integration and the creation of a common security system are the guarantee
of the development of the South Caucasian region into a united political and economic
zone, the guarantee of the security of each of the three states of the South Caucasus.
2. Integration and the creation of a common security system will be possible only
after overcoming the mutually stipulated contradictions. That is, either never,
or in the rather distant future.
In practice, all the attempts of the states of the region to individually
break through toward times more favorable in every respect, have predictably failed.
Consequently, the states of the South Caucasus either have not completely realized
the impossibility of maintaining any bilateral relationship without taking into
account the interests of the third state, or they imagine that it is possible
to violate the classic format of the region, and to make political adjustments
to their own advantage. Is that so?
I would also like to draw the attention of the participants attention to the
fact that the integration of the countries of the region into various international
organizations has from the outset been directed at the consolidation (or the formation
or restoration - depending on the objectives of the organization in question)
of the sense of regionalism in the states of the South Caucasus. Suffice it to
recall the tendency of these organizations to admit the states of the South Caucasus
into their ranks simultaneously, even though not everything in these countries
yet corresponds to the standard requirements of any candidate for membership.
In other words, the international organizations "admitted" not Armenia,
Georgia or Azerbaijan taken individually, but the region of the South Caucasus.
Stepan Grigoryan
Armat Center for Democracy and Civil Society Development (Armenia)
Dear Nugzar,
I do not think that all the plots in the region are devised by Russia, but I agree
that Russia far from always plays a constructive role in the region. It reacts
exceptionally over-sensitively to the loss of its positions in the Caucasus. This
was particularly clearly manifested in connection with the problem in the Pankisi
gorge. An attempt was made to put pressure upon Georgia. And the reason, it seems
to me, was that Georgia is quite obviously orienting itself toward Western values.
In your article, you also addressed the subject of the constructiveness of the
Armenian parliament of 1999. I must admit that I am not so sure about the constructiveness
of this institution. This parliament was elected under the aegis of the leaders
Karen Demirtchyan and Vazgen Sargisyan. Today, those who came to the parliament
thanks to these politicians vote against their views.
Alexander Rusetsky
The South Caucasus Institute of Regional Security (Georgia)
This is an interesting theme. I am glad that the idea of regional integration
is becoming popular. I have especially liked the references to the experience
of the Rome Club. The optimism of the participants is inspiring. Indeed, a new
dimension is necessary for the resolution of ongoing conflicts. The majority of
these conflicts can be settled just within the South Caucasian dimension. The
process of regional integration is taking place irrespective of whether it pleases
anybody or not. The biggest problem, I think, is the problem of the existence
of a high degree of ethnocentrism as a collective egoism. Transition to a supra-ethnic
perception and analysis of the existing problems is the condition for the creation
of new purposes that are oriented to peaceful coexistence and take into account
the interests of the many actors in our region. We must take into consideration,
for example, the opinion of both a zealous Abkhazian separatist and a person forcefully
displaced from Abkhazia.
November 20
Sergei Shakaryants
Armenian Center for Strategic and National Studies
Is the integration of the region an end in itself? Suppose Azerbaijan (both,
the government and the society as a whole) declines the integration of the region
by laying down preconditions. What does this mean? It means that Azerbaijan, contrary
to the opinion of one of our participants on the necessity of accepting the existing
realities, intends somehow to return to the antebellum status quo of 1988.
But how? Through peaceful means? I doubt it… By the way, the same concerns
Georgia. Who, in your opinion, distinguished colleagues, has voluntarily relinquished
his RIGHT GAINED THROUGH WAR? Nobody… Then what? A new war? And then? Another
one? Or they hope in Azerbaijan that, say, here, now we will "crush"
the Armenians at somebody's expense - and it is over! Afterwards we will offer
them friendship and cooperation!?
Excuse me, but any recurrent war, ladies and gentlemen, will lead to a domino
principle. At that time the defeated side will strive for MILITARY REVENGE. This
is a postulate. What does the "supra-ethnic approach" mean!!?? Excuse
me; I and millions of Armenians simply do not accept it! We've had enough! The
USSR was exactly the supra-ethnical approach. Let us stop experimenting with living
people, eh? At least this time let us try it out on monkeys!
Alexander Rusetsky
For Stepan Grigoryan:
Dear Stepan, I agree with you that besides the conflict between Azerbaijan
and Armenia there is a conflict between Azerbaijan and NKR. At the same time I
would like to draw your attention to the fact that a conflict exists inside Nagorno
Karabakh - the conflict between its two communities-- the Armenian and the Azerbaijani,
which was forcefully expelled from the territory of its permanent residence and
which is a party to the conflict.
For Laura Baghdasaryan: I agree that the determination of the subject of the
conflict is a major task. Unfortunately, the subjects in many of our conflicts
are defined not objectively, in accordance with some conjuncture. This creates
problems for the negotiating formats and for settlement in general. As far as
responsibility is concerned, nobody takes it, and here I cannot avoid mentioning
in this connection the extremely negative role of international organizations,
for example, the UN. About history. I think that the historical aspects must be
thoroughly examined, and we shouldn't overlook them. It is necessary to put at
the forefront not the historian-adventurers but those historians who want to promote
the settlement of the conflicts, not their escalation. And here a holistic approach
is needed, one that is employed by the experts of the Rome Club. This is an important
subject that I suggest discussing. Regarding Russia, NATO and so on. If we could
influence them it would not be bad. For example, ideally I see some sort of a
South Caucasian society, which contributes to the resolution of problems between
the neighbor-giants. I would promote the acceleration of the process of integration
of Russia into NATO, in order that the rules of the game be the same. And this
is more important for me than to "knock" on NATO's door, etc. One should
not pray to one or another, one should pray to GOD. One should reinforce the identity,
the self. We are South Caucasians (and not Trans-Caucasians, nevertheless). Then,
they will take us into consideration, and not divide us into zones to rule over,
moreover crudely, barbarically.
Sergei Shakaryants
Ethno-egoism… Well, today we know, not through hearsay, what "non-ethno-egoism"
leads to. To war… What kind of fashion is this to accuse Russia of imperial ambitions?
And at that to forget about the ambitions of MINI-EMPIRES! For that matter if
we condemn ethno-egoism let us do it at all levels.
After all the egoism of an ethnic group is not only the demand of independence
of the "insurgent" territories of Trans-Caucasus. The egoism of an ethnic
group is also the unwillingness of the "imperial" nations of the Trans-Caucasus
to grant this very independence to those who desire it! In other words, even the
ethno-egoism in our region is a two-sided, not a one-sided phenomenon… Isn't this
a reason that we cannot find more points of tangency through which it is possible
to search for COMMON interests? Let us also think about this, ladies and gentlemen!...
Laura Baghdasaryan
SECURITY AND INTEGRATION. Today we, like our states, are in the stage of the
search for better security formulas for our countries. It is obvious, which is
natural, that each proceeds from the priorities of his or her country. As the
practice of interstate relations in our region shows, as does the course of our
discussion on the first subject of regionalism, the manifestations of the understanding
of the necessity of security, and in the first place interregional integration,
are thus far declarative, and in no way connected with real politics. I think
it's no accident that the debates on the formula of this regional security in
the course of our discussion were so active; the participation of which countries
may in reality suit the security of both the region as a whole, and each of its
components. It is also clear that when we speak of the South Caucasus we should
not forget about the adjoining states - Russia, Turkey, Iran, and also the US.
The latter seems to be "bordering" any country in this world. What causes
anxiety is that whatever the understanding in our countries of the necessity of
the settlement of relations within the region may be, in reality, not many take
seriously that where a threat to the security of one country emerges, along with
it comes a threat to the other two countries of the region. It doesn't matter
whether we call this a result of globalization or something else.
November 21
Yepraksya Mamikonyan
Analytical Center on Globalization and Regional Cooperation (Armenia)
When discussing geopolitical issues, it seems we should not proceed from the
interests of big states. The point of departure for us should be the priorities
of our states and the desire to find a fitting place in the globalizing world.
I think that if we cooperate with the world community taken as a whole, this will
consolidate the strategic positions of our states in the world. One cannot but
agree with the esteemed Mr. Gogorishvili, that in the case of dissociation and
division into a number of parts, the region will become easily accessible to those
who wish to get hold of it. We need to take into consideration the lessons taught
by history, and in order to ensure progress, we need to take a sober view of the
real world. The model proposed by the esteemed Mr. Rauf Radjabov, which he conditionally
calls a "broad economic axis" capable of uniting Russia, the US and
the European Union, in the sense of the concurrence of their geopolitical interests
in the South Caucasus, is worthy of attention.
Rauf Radjabov
Simurg Cultural Association (Azerbaijan)
Laura,
I too adhere to the position that the internationalization of conflicts does not
bring about anything good, since however ingenious the mediators are, we are to
decide and we must decide. "God helps the persistent", says one of the
scriptures, and another one, the Talmud, states, "We see things not the way
they are, but the way we are". I am convinced that the nations of the South
Caucasus have all that is necessary to be able to solve their problems by themselves.
There are many such examples in the history of our region. One should simply disengage
from the fact that one is a part of the problem and should solve it, and not pretend
that one is solving it by the sweat of one's brow. The resolution of the problem
lies not in mutual and at the same time mutually exclusive demands and conditions,
but in the strong conviction that one should not live according to the principle
that "defeat is only a learning tool, only a step toward victory, triumph".
Arif Yunusov
Chair of the Department of Conflict Resolution and Migration, Institute of
Peace and Democracy (Azerbaijan)
…When I read what was discussed earlier, a question involuntarily came up:
shouldn't I spoil your mood? Here, I read that after September 11, "the world
has changed, a new world order has been created, Russia and the US work in the
South Caucasus (in Armenia - TransCaucasia)", etc. At one moment I learn
that at the end of the 1980s, when the idea of demolishing the Soviet Union was
conceived, "the genie was set free", those who were sitting in the Kremlin
"deliberately" gave weapons to the "wicked Chechens", and
to us as well, so we began to slaughter each other. At another moment, one of
the participants says that it is enough to dance to the tune of the "geopolitical
actors", especially the US and Russia, another insists pessimistically that
we are pawns in a great game and we should, in essence, adjust ourselves to it
without great prejudice against ourselves. But I have a question for everyone:
don't you think that in fact the processes taking place in the South Caucasus
are NATURAL? Namely: the processes of establishing nation-states, something that
took place in Europe (16th-19th centuries)? That nobody in the Kremlin, in fact,
DELIBERATELY kindled the ethnic conflicts in the USSR, that the time machine returned
us to 1918-1920, when history for the first time gave us a chance to build our
nation-states. But we were weak then, we acted like children and Russia quickly
came to its senses and restored its power anew. And in the end of the 1980s this
process revived. A wild period of creating our own states began and everybody
seized whatever territories came to hand. Today in Armenia and Azerbaijan, nation-states
- not democratic, of course - have at the very least been created. Georgia, to
my great regret, has not done so yet. How can we talk about geopolitical interests,
if we have not clearly determined our place in the world and in the region, if
we do not know how to build our relations with neighbors, who they are - friends,
foes, neutral states? And there is no need to make declarations. Today all rulers
and politicians in our region, and not only in ours, speak about democratic values
without even having a clear idea of what they are. That is why at this forum we
can propose excellent ideas about regional cooperation, collaboration, and so
on. But these are beautiful illusions only. For me it is absolutely unequivocal
from the point of view of military history that, for example, the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict over Karabakh will last no less than 20-25 years and we must be prepared
for this. This does not mean that there will necessarily be military operations;
a Cyprus variant of "no peace, no war" which has lasted for almost 30
years may occur. Or, perhaps a war will start. It is too early to tell.
Rauf Radjabov
Nobody can deny the fact that the Chechens have gotten their weapons from the
Kremlin "minds" themselves. One should put this question to Shakhrai,
Burbulis, Gaydar, Khasbulatov, Yeltsin and others, but not to the Americans or
the French. A military expert will tell you how much weaponry, military equipment,
and ammunition was "donated" (sold) to the peaceful residents of Chechnya.
It is not worth talking about the results of this brilliant operation. The subsequent
events have developed ingeniously - we have opened up military operations with
everybody. As a result, the conflict is at hand and luckily there is a "friend"
who can come to help, to separate us, to establish its military base and wait.
They themselves at that time have done everything in their power to remind the
world again that they are a world power. Though possessing nuclear weapons hardly
means that one is a super power. I would prefer if we were surprised at their
economic, moral and legal might. Isn't it repugnant, gentlemen, to step on the
same rake twice? I think that's enough.
November 22
Stepan Grigoryan
Dear conference participants,
When I expressed a positive opinion about certain states, I was guided by a single
criterion: how do people live there, what is their welfare degree, can they in
their countries freely express their opinions, and so on. From this point of view,
the US and the European countries are quite pleasing to the eye.
Thus, it turns out that democratic systems "function" more efficiently
and ensure a more advantageous economic system, as well as the security of their
nations. And even if in these countries, the elements of pressure from the government
are manifested, civil society enters into the game (that is exactly what we are
missing), i.e. political parties, NGOs, powerful independent mass media. Arif,
I would like to agree with you that the Soviet Union broke up for objective reasons.
I do not completely agree with the assertion that no concrete proposals have been
sounded at the conference. Indeed, conflict resolution experience in the world
shows that settlements are delayed for decades. But what is preventing us from
trying to cooperate, for example in the economic sphere?
Nugzar Gogorishvili
Chairman, NGO "Peaceful development of the South Caucasus" (Georgia)
The grounds for legitimacy? It is hard for me to discuss this question, as
I myself participated (even though in the capacity of a medical officer) in the
overthrow of the legally elected president, Gamsakhurdia. Armenia and Azerbaijan
went through similar experiences. As regards Georgia, people elected political
leaders without realizing that a political leader and a statesman cannot always
be combined in one person. Besides, in the course of the preceding two years,
a situation-information background was persistently being created for securing
a certain election, but made by the people. To my deep regret, the internal political
events taking place in Georgia today are reminiscent of the events of 1990-1992.
The causes lie, no doubt, within us. We were not prepared for living in a free
society. We were not used to personal responsibility. We were electing LEADERS,
not because we were understood everything and entirely trusted them, but to have
somebody to lay the blame on afterwards.
Yepraksya Mamikonyan
Since the collapse of the USSR and the declaration of independence by our
republics, we have for twelve years striven for the creation of new statehood,
a new political regime, taking as a basis the principle of democratic development.
A new leadership that was undoubtedly supposed to promote the correct resolution
of the Karabakh problem, a new economy that was supposed to ensure the dignity
of the people, a new society - these were three dreams that captivated the imagination
of people in Armenia. However, over the past years a very peculiar democracy has
appeared, and today we cannot speak about a sustainable and internally logical
democratic system, but about a collection of some occurences: elections at various
levels, the existence of political parties and political struggle, the existence
in the state of a free - of course with considerable reservations - press, a not
very "free" economy, etc. In the meantime, mature and healthy democracy
would unquestionably accelerate the formation of our state. However, by virtue
of the lack of experience in statehood (in its contemporary sense), we stumbled
upon new problems, which we tried to solve in "our way", which, unfortunately,
differed from true democratic values. That is exactly why today we have problems
with the legitimacy of power.
Nugzar Gogorishvili
For Sergei Shakaryants
I completely agree with the statement, "there is no need for any 'big
brother', do you understand? Absolutely no need. It is simply necessary to STRAIN
our brain. It is necessary to draw more or less precisely the scale of our NATIONAL
values. In order afterwards to calculate with the same scrupulousness to what
extent our national interests contradict or coincide with the interests of surrounding
states" - if after such an approach we will not start to hog the blankets
again, if we will not exclude a categorical tone from our dialogue, if literally
in a minute's time we will not contradict ourselves. "There are also several
other substantial factors indicative of the general unsettledness of interethnic
relations in the South Caucasus. These are the Mengrelian, the Adjarian, the Kistinian,….
Georgian-Azerbaijani problems." There also exist in Georgia Kakhetinians,
Imeretinians, Kartlians, Svans… we cannot enumerate them all. These are nook-regions
of Georgia. Don't you think that you in some way contribute to the creation of
a conflict? Perhaps you know about the already elaborated new scenario of the
escalation of tension in the South Caucasus? If so, and if you deal with conflict
resolution processes, let us not allow that. Unfortunately there are many similar
lapses, that is why I accept your wish to meet. I will certainly visit you at
first invitation, and I am confident that despite many differences, or just because
of them, our joint work will create serious and effective results in peace making
activity.
