 |
Yepraksya Mamikonyan
Analytical Center on Globalization and Regional Cooperation (Armenia) |
Possibilities for regional cooperation in the South Caucasus
Regional cooperation implies that the states elaborate a common position regarding
certain issues of foreign policy, economic integration, the creation of a single
system of security, a visa-free traveling regime for the citizens inside the region,
and much more. Because the ongoing conflicts in the South Caucasus remain unsettled,
it is difficult to speak about such cooperation.
Despite the differences that exist among the Karabakh, the Abkhazian and the
South Ossetian conflicts, their lack of settlement has similar consequences: namely,
the unattractiveness of the region to major foreign investors, the blockage of
the main arteries of transportation in the region (the Abkhazian and Nakhichevani
railroad branch lines, the highways connecting Armenia and Azerbaijan, etc), the
absence of any serious economic project with the participation of all three states
of the South Caucasus, and the redistribution of the states into diverse systems
of security.
The attempts of the world community, first of all of the European Union and
the US, at inclining the countries of the region toward joint implementation of
a number of international projects (for example, oil projects with the participation
of leading Western companies, and joint projects on highway and railroad construction
with the participation of the European Union) have not at this point been crowned
with success. The diametrically opposed attitudes of Azerbaijan and Armenia toward
the issue of cooperation are significant here. In Azerbaijan, it is believed that
economic cooperation with Armenia will be possible only after the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict and the recognition by Armenia of Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity. In Armenia, they are of the opinion that the economic cooperation of
the South Caucasian states is of utmost importance at this stage. It will create
an atmosphere of trust that, in its turn, can be a prerequisite for a mutually
acceptable settlement to the Karabakh conflict. Any other resolution will most
likely be accepted under the pressure of the international community and with
the forced consent of the leadership of the sides, and will not be deemed legitimized
(accepted) by the societies and the main political forces. And thus, neither the
agreements signed nor the peace established can be long-term, and the nations
will be doomed to a protracted antagonism depriving them of enormous material
resources and leading to human losses.
The implementation of major projects in the South Caucasus without Armenia's
participation (such as Baku-Ceyhan) not only will not contribute to regional integration,
but will also consolidate the dividing lines in the region, and further diminish
the chances for the establishment of regional solidarity and cooperation. Armenia
will be forced to seek alternative partners among both immediate neighbors and
remote states.
If we consider our region as a single unit, it can certainly be attractive
for major investors: it could not be otherwise with a market of 15 million people.
World experience shows that territorial disputes do not always hamper economic
cooperation. Thus, Russia and Japan have a fundamental dispute about the ownership
of the four South Kurile Islands. Although this dispute leads to serious crises
in Russian-Japanese interstate relations at times, the parties make strong efforts
to prevent political problems from having an impact on the economic cooperation
established between the two countries. Therefore, if the leaders of our states
demonstrate good will and take world experience into account, our region can start
"operating" as a single economic zone. Let me repeat: a region with
15 million people will not scare major investors away even with the presence of
unsettled (frozen) conflicts.
International organizations and the integration of the South Caucasus
Undoubtedly, the membership of the South Caucasian states in such international
organizations as the Council of Europe (CoE), the Organization on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
can play an important role in the development of regional solidarity and regional
cooperation. Standardization of legislation and legal documents in the field of
human rights, in the social, economic and financial spheres, and in taxation and
local self-government, and common principles for the establishment of security
systems and the settlement of regional conflicts put forward by this organizations
can promote mutual understanding and, as a corollary, effective regional cooperation.
Ecological issues, taking into account the relatively small territory of the region,
may also contribute to the awakening of the sense of a common home.
The parliamentary assemblies of international organizations can also play an
important role in these matters. MPs from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia could
within their mandates in the Parliamentary Assemblies of the CE and the OSCE,
for example, create a basis for cooperation in the political and legislative fields.
The development of civil societies in the states of the region, the creation of
unified taxation and customs regulations, and the establishment of a market economy
that gives small and medium businesses an opportunity to cooperate in the region
could be such basic areas. The social sphere and the labor market can also represent
a common interest, as the problems facing our countries in these areas are practically
identical.
Parliamentarians could cooperate in elaborating a necessary normative-legal
basis for the creation of a system of South Caucasian security. After all, as
elected representatives of the people, parliamentarians enjoy broad opportunities
to shape public opinion regarding the necessity of interaction in the region.
Furthermore, the nations of the South Caucasus have a great deal in common
in terms of culture and way of life, which can also promote the regulation of
multilateral cooperation among the states of the region.
In our opinion, the main obstacles on the path of regional integration lie
not in the cultural or religious differences of the South Caucasian nations but
in political discord and the fear on the part of the political elites of the states
of the region of assuming responsibility for mutual concessions.
Problems impeding regional integration
Along with the interethnic conflicts, there are a number of other problems
hindering regional cooperation. These are:
a) the unsettledness of Armenian-Turkish relations. Unfortunately, Turkey's
unwillingness to recognize the Genocide of the Armenians of 1915 on the one hand,
and Armenia's attempts to actualize the issue in the international arena on the
other, create an extremely tense situation in Armenian-Turkish relations. In 2001,
at the initiative of the US, a public commission on Turkish-Armenian reconciliation
was created, consisting of well-known public and state figures from Armenia and
Turkey. However, in the social and political circles of both Armenia and Turkey
this initiative was perceived ambiguously, and in fact the commission has been
unable to accomplish its mission. Perhaps, it would have been better to begin
with official dialogue between Yerevan and Ankara and only at the second stage
to introduce the public from both sides into the process of reconciliation. The
situation is also complicated by the fact that Turkey takes a quite one-sided,
pro-Azerbaijani stand in the Karabakh issue.
b) the strained Azerbaijani-Iranian relations over the issue of the Caspian
Sea. In the summer of 2001 these contradictions could even have grown into an
armed clash between Azerbaijan and Iran. Serious problems in Azerbaijani-Iranian
relations are also emerging in connection with rights violations against the community
of millions of ethnic Azerbaijanis who live in the northern provinces of Iran.
c) the periodic flare-ups in Russian-Georgian relations that have lately developed
into hostile acts between Russia and Georgia. This time, the dispute is over the
Pankisi gorge (Georgia), where according to various evidence and assertions camps
of armed Chechen units are located. Delays in the withdrawal of Russian military
bases from the territory of Georgia do not contribute to the normalization of
Russian-Georgian relations either (in the course of the Istanbul Summit of the
OSCE in 1999, Georgia and Russia signed an agreement on the withdrawal of Russian
military bases from Georgia by the year 2001).
A common security system is the basis for regional integration
Let us examine the military-political component of security in the region.
Where are we today in regard to this most important issue?
In 2000 Armenia reinforced its membership in the new adapted Treaty on Collective
Security of the CIS. This treaty was first signed as far back as 1992 in Tashkent
by nine states: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The new treaty was signed by six member-states of the
CIS: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. However,
due to Russia's economic weakness and the lack of sufficient resources, it is
unable at this stage to ensure the efficient implementation of the Treaty on Collective
Security, and hence, the real security of the states that have acceded to the
treaty. The absence of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan among the signatories
of the new treaty reflects the processes of the real geopolitical restructuring
of the post-Soviet space. It is no accident that these three states are members
of GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova), and that within
CIS structures they demonstrate solidarity with one another during voting on matters
of principle. GUUAM was established in 1997, and set itself a number of tasks:
securing the transportation and communication links between Europe and Asia for
reliable transportation of energy resources, as well as joint actions in the fight
against terrorism and separatism, peace-keeping activity and conflict resolution.
The almost identical stand of these states toward the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks on the US on consisted of supporting the US and in making available their
air corridors and military bases, etc.
Last September the parliament of Georgia adopted a decision regarding the necessity
of the country's joining NATO. Azerbaijan is virtually an ally of Turkey, which
in its turn is one of the most active NATO members.
This situation naturally leads to the emergence of dividing lines in the region.
Thus the interaction of the three states of the South Caucasus on issues of military-political
cooperation and the creation of a common security system will be possible only
with the rapprochement of US and Russian positions in the region.
It should be noted that since the terrorist attacks of September11, 2001, Russia
has quite definitely supported the US in its fight against international terrorism.
Thus, the Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V.
Putin on a New Relationship Between the United States and Russia signed in May
2002, states: "Our countries are embarked on a new relationship for the 21st
century, founded on a commitment to the values of democracy, the free market,
and the rule of law. The United States and Russia have overcome the legacy of
the Cold War. Neither country regards the other as an enemy or threat. Aware of
our responsibility to contribute to international security, we are determined
to work together, and with other nations and international organizations, including
the United Nations, to promote security, economic well being, and a peaceful,
prosperous, free world".
Let us also quote from the interview given by Secretary of State Colin Powell
to the Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily last October. "From relations based on mutual
intimidation we have come to relations based on mutual interests…today Russia
and the US do not fight over zones of influence, but work together in every spot
on the globe to resolve issues of concern to both sides…today the US and Russia
cooperate in the matter of reducing the tension in the relations between India
and Pakistan, consolidating peace in the Balkans, in efforts to stop the violence
in the Middle East. At the UN headquarters in New York we work hard to advance
a necessary, diplomatic process, from our point of view: namely, the new UN Security
Council resolution pointing out Iraq's failure to carry out its obligations and
introducing proposals on the reinforcement of the inspection regime", and
further: "President Putin is correct when he says that the main prerequisite
for Russia to occupy a fitting place in the 21st century will be not military
power but economic growth and the country's integration into the world economy.
This concurs with our perception of the future: we see there lasting trade relations
between Russia and the US as well as a dynamic Russia which occupies one of the
leading places in the world economy".
In working out strategic projects on regional cooperation, it is necessary
to clarify what kind of security system in the South Caucasus there should be.
Should all three states of the region belong to the same military-political organization?
Certainly, the fact of the rapprochement of Russian and US positions on security
issues, counter-terrorist activity, and problems of disarmament today provides
the opportunity for the establishment of a security system for the South Caucasus
even assuming that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia belong to different military-political
blocks.
Nevertheless, it seems to us that all three states of the region should orient
themselves concurrently toward either the security system of the CIS or NATO.
There also exists the possibility that following the creation of a common security
system in the South Caucasus, the states of the region will enter into associated
relations with these organizations. The trend of developments since the events
of September 11th, 2001 shows that even Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan - CIS member-states
where Russian military contingents are stationed - cooperate quite successfully
with the US and other NATO member-states, quartering North Atlantic military units
and equipment on their territories, and providing them air corridors and military
bases.
In conclusion, the world is rushing towards ever-closer integration prompted
mainly by the philosophy of market profitability and economic efficiency. Free
market relations between the states of the South Caucasus will push local businessmen
toward the solution of matters of interstate cooperation, and will create the
potential for the development of common approaches to the problems of regional
security.
