CIAO DATE: 04/04

International Involvement in the South Caucasus

Natalie Sabanadze

February 2002

European Centre for Minority Issues

Introduction

The South Caucasus represents one of the most diverse and conflict-ridden regions in the world. It includes the three former Soviet states Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as numerous ethnic minorities and small nations within these states. The term South Caucasus is relatively new and has been used to replace the older term Transcaucasia. According to Valery Tishkov, there is a strong drive of national elites to separate the region from Russia and dismantle old ties to the point of changing names. "It is noteworthy," wrote Tishkov, "that the historical name of the region Transcaucasus has been questioned by the proponents of new political correctness who wish to create a mantle distance from Russia. Consequently, the region is being renamed the South Caucasus" (Tishkov 1999:4). It is, however, worthy of mention that the earlier name Transcaucasus (Za Kavkazye in Russian) reflected the Russian geographical position and literally meant 'beyond or behind the Caucasus', as the three republics were seen from the northern perspective of Russia. Recently, the term South Caucasus has came into use in order to more accurately describe the region and as Tishkov rightly points out, to de-link it from Russia.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the South Caucasus has turned into a scene of heightened ethnonationalism, ethnopolitical conflicts, power-political games and sheer misery for the peoples involved. As Stephen Jones has observed, the South Caucasus has traditionally been characterized by "the internal conflict, fragmentation, and marginality tendencies encouraged and exploited by its larger neighbors" (Jones 2001:1). This pattern has been reactivated since the recent independence of the South Caucasian states and has led to three types of rivalries: "… firstly between the regional hegemons Iran, Turkey, and Russia; secondly between the Caucasian states themselves; and thirdly between nations within the states" (Jones 2001:1). This paper is primarily concerned with the third type of rivalry characterizing it as ethnopolitical conflict between national minorities and their respective states. However, a closer look at the region reveals that the three types of rivalries are strongly intertwined and cannot be fully comprehended without an overlapping analysis of the intra-regional political dynamics, ethnopolitical struggles and external involvement of great powers and international organizations.

Ethnopolitical rivalries have been part and parcel of Caucasian politics since the end of the Cold War and have resulted in three armed conflicts. The first conflict occurred in the Armenian populated enclave Nagorno-Karabakh located within the territorial boundaries of Azerbaijan. The two other conflicts occurred in Georgia between the Georgian central authorities of Tbilisi and the autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In all three cases, the ceasefire agreements were reached without final settlements, turning the South Caucasus into an area of frozen conflicts and fragile stability. The region has attracted increasing international attention and a great deal of effort has been directed at the resolution of the existing ethnopolitical confrontations. This paper attempts to compare patterns of international involvement in the three cases of South Caucasian conflicts, identify what the general impact of such involvement has been and examine how it has varied across the cases and across time.

The subject is important for three main reasons. First of all it goes to the heart of one of the most intense debates in international law and political philosophy over the conflicting rights of self-determination and territorial integrity. In addition, it deals with such controversial issues as group rights vs. rights of an individual, protection of ethnic minorities vs. preservation of civic cohesion and state integrity, democratic management of multiethnic states vs. the moral right to secede. All of these issues represent a complex and problematic reality of the post-Communist South Caucasus that awaits sustainable solutions. Resolution of South Caucasian type ethnopolitical conflicts and related problems in a peaceful and democratic way indeed serves the interests of the international community, as it tries to avoid bad precedents and their potential replication in other parts of the world.

Secondly, international involvement in the South Caucasus has been targeted at broader issues of democratization and economic and political transformation, which raises interesting questions with regard to the applicability of some western norms and ideas to the multiethnic, post-Communist societies. It shows how the more traditional and well developed Western concepts such as self-determination, as well as relatively new ones such as power-sharing, multiculturalism, minority rights and group differentiation translate themselves into local realities. As Neil MacFarlane has observed, studying international involvement in the region "provides an important opportunity to assess the broader issue of the transferability of political, social, and economic norms and practices developed in one cultural context to other very different ones" (MacFarlane 1999:2).

Finally, the resolution of ethnopolitical conflicts in the post-Communist space has important practical implications and concerns the overall stability of the post-Cold War world. It has been widely accepted that the ideological conflicts between capitalism and socialism have been replaced with the resurgence of ethnonational conflicts around the world. According to Will Kymlicka, "resolving these disputes is perhaps the greatest challenge facing democracies today" (Kymlicka 1996:1). Therefore, the experience of the South Caucasus may well provide valuable insights and lessons for the resolution of similar problems elsewhere and for the promotion of a just and peaceful world order.

The author argues here that international involvement in the South Caucasus has had practical, normative and ideational dimensions that together contributed to the overall international impact on the region. The practical side consisted of mediation efforts aimed at the resolution of ethnopolitical conflicts, in which international organizations such as the OSCE and the UN took the lead. In addition, the mediation efforts were supplemented by general assistance schemes and programmes targeted not only at the conflict zones but also at entire countries undergoing political and economic transition. Here the practical considerations of economic development and political stabilization, which would open up local markets for international businesses, were also underpinned by the normative principles of democracy, respect for human rights and minority cultures. In some cases normative and practical aspects of international involvement reinforced, in other cases contradicted each other. This contradiction became particularly apparent when external powers such as Russia or the United States, tried to pursue their interests in the region and when economic or geopolitical considerations outbalanced concerns of successful democratization or respect for human rights.

In addition to practical and normative aspects of international involvement, the author also wishes to stress its ideational aspect, which has gained particular importance in regulating ethnopolitical tensions in the region but continues to be relatively underemphasized. In this regard, the author refers to the impact of western ideas such as self-determination, group differentiation, power-sharing etc. on the local political and social realities of the region. Most of these ideas are highly contested and generate heated debates around the world, including in the West. There has been no clear consensus reached on the best way of managing multiethnic states, taming or promoting ethnic affiliations and equating self-determination with independence or reinterpreting it as a form of cultural and political autonomy. However, despite a lack of consensus, some ideas have tended to gain greater recognition than others and have become translated into policy prescriptions of influential international agencies. Therefore, they are likely to have a profound impact on countries in regions such as the South Caucasus where these policies and ideas may be implemented and tested in a specific local environment.

Thus, this paper uses the concept of international involvement in its broadest sense and concentrates on the efforts and activities of both international organizations and external powers. There is one definitional difficulty, however, which is worth pointing out and which concerns the interpretation of the term 'international'. Should we consider international involvement as primarily Western involvement or should we also include in the analysis non-western members of the international community? If international involvement is defined only in terms of Western involvement, then countries such as Russia, Turkey, or Iran require separate investigations and would have to be excluded from the current analysis. If, however, the term 'international' also includes non-western members of the international community then the question is whether the international community ought to be held responsible for the actions of countries such as Russia. Technically Russian involvement in the region qualifies as 'international' since after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is an external power to the region, however, it has often acted in defiance of internationally accepted rules and norms. Perhaps, this contradiction has to be resolved within the international community. The author has written this paper from the perspective of the South Caucasus and has therefore included in the analysis policies of Russia that were often contradictory to those of other international actors. A separation would have been artificial since ethnopolitical problems in the South Caucasus are closely intertwined with geopolitical considerations and are likely to have a significant impact on the final settlement of existing ethnopolitical conflicts. Similarly, cooperation or rivalry between Russia and other external powers in the region such as the United States or to a lesser extent Turkey and Iran are to be considered as part and parcel of 'international involvement' and need to be included in the overall evaluation of such an involvement.

The main argument presented in this paper is that international involvement in the three South Caucasian states has been largely similar and replicable across cases but it has varied substantially across time. The author singles out three main stages of international involvement, which would include the first stage of international neglect and Russian dominance; the second stage of international organizations and an increase in their activities; and the third current stage of US involvement and balancing Russia. The common characteristic of all three stages is the crucial role of geopolitical considerations affecting and often complicating the existing ethnopolitical confrontations. The striking difference is the increase of these geopolitical interests throughout the three stages, which started from Russia's dominance and ended up involving not only Russia, but also Turkey, Iran and the United States. Although South Caucasian states have largely welcomed increasing international attention and associated with it hopes of the final resolution of the existing conflicts, the results have so far been mixed. On the one hand, conflict resolution efforts intensified as the United States and other Western countries put greater stake in the stability of the region due to oil exploration and transportation projects. On the other hand, involvement of a greater number of interested parties further complicated the negotiation process and exacerbated intra-regional divisions to the point of creating hostile alliances. In the sections that follow, the author briefly describes the origins of South Caucasian ethnopolitical conflicts and the international responses they have been generating over the past ten years. The analysis also stresses geopolitical as well as normative and ideational factors that have played role in defining the overall nature of international involvement.

Full text (PDF format, 41 pages, 203 KB)