Tweet
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
Armenian Studies Program
1080 S. University, Suite 4640
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106
Tel: (734) 764-0350
Fax: (734) 764-8523
Contact: Sara Sarkisian
Email: [email protected]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ARMENIAN STUDIES PROGRAM/UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR
FOUR DAY CONFERENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LOOKS AT PAST AND FUTURE OF
SOUTH CAUCASUS AND KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS
Participants from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and eight other countries
discuss foreign policy challenges and conflicts
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus was the site of an unprecedented,
four-day conference on ~SArmenia/The South Caucasus and Foreign Policy
Challenges~T from October 21 to 24. Organized by the Armenian Studies Program at
the University of Michigan, the conference brought together scholars and
diplomats from Armenia (3), Georgia (3), Azerbaijan (2), Russia (3), Iran (3),
Turkey (2), Finland (1), the United Kingdom (2), Belgium (1), Canada (1), and
the United States (12).
The purpose of the international conference was to review the foreign policies
of the South Caucasus republics during the past twelve years of independence and
in view of developments in the region and in international relations as well as
to analyze conflict resolution processes with special emphasis on the Nagorno
Karabakh problem. It was hoped that a thorough and joint exploration of these
issues might prompt specialists of the region and experienced diplomats to
pursue new approaches that avoid the mistakes of the past.
The conference had the enthusiastic support of the University and was
co-sponsored by the Center for Russian and East European Studies, the Center for
Middle Eastern and North African Studies, the International Institute, and the
departments of History, Political Science and Near Eastern Studies.
The first session of the conference was held at 5 PM, Thursday, October 21.
Following welcoming remarks by Prof. Gerard Jirair Libaridian (Department of
History, University of Michigan), Prof. Mark Tessler (Director of the
International Institute and professor of Political Science, University of
Michigan) introduced the goals and characteristics of the conference which had
brought together scholars and diplomats to study a region of increasing
strategic significance.
The opening presentations were followed by the first panel, ~SEvolving
International Relations and the South Caucasus,~T chaired by Professor Barbara
Anderson, Director of the Center for Russian and East European Studies. Three
speakers addressed the following questions: How have the collapse of the USSR
and events of worldwide significance since affected our understanding of
international relations and relations between states? What has been the impact
of these changes on the way states
Such as those in the South Caucasus integrate in the world community? How have
perceptions of the South Caucasus changed considering developments in the Near
East?
Dr. Vitaly Naumkin of Moscow, Director of the International Center for Strategic
and Political Studies and professor of Political Science, presented a paper on
~SThe South Caucasus: A New Geo-Political Paradigm;~T Professor Hadi Semati,
from the International Relations Department, Tehran University and currently at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC discussed the
problems of ~SDealing with Strategic Complexities: Security, Democracy and
Economic Development in a Changing Region;~T and Professor Michael Kennedy,
Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, analyzed ~SExplicit
and Implicit Trajectories of International Relations Since the Collapse of the
USSR.~T
Following the first session of the conference a reception was held at the
William Clements Library of the University of Michigan. Dr. John Dann, Director
of the Library, and Professor Kevork Bardakjian, Director of the Armenian
Studies Program, addresses the participants and guests.
The second day of the conference, Friday October 22, opened with the second
panel of the conference, titled ~SArmenian Foreign Policy in Historical
Context,~T chaired by professor Sonya Rose, Chairperson of the Department of
History, the University of Michigan. The four speakers were asked to address the
following questions: Can one speak of recurring foreign policy problems that
have characterized Armenian history? Are there patterns in the way Armenians
have perceived, developed and practiced foreign policy during the past two
centuries? In what way are these questions relevant to post-Soviet Armenia? What
role has the Diaspora played in the making of Armenian foreign policy? Dr. Ashot
Sargsyan, Senior Researcher in History at the Matenadaran and Senior Archivist,
at the President Ter-Petrossian Archives and Library, Armenia, analyzed
~SForeign Policy as a Derivative of a Value System;~T Professor Kevork
Bardakjian of the Near Eastern Studies Department, and Director of the Armenian
Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented a paper titled
~SUnifying the Armenian World? Armenia and Diaspora Relations in Modern and
Contemporary Times;~T Professor Ronald Suny of the Department of History,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, raised the issue of ~SLiving in a Dangerous
Neighborhood: Armenia~Rs Foreign Relations in the Short Twentieth Century:
1918-1991;~T and a paper by Dr. Razmik Panossian, Director, Policy and Programs,
Rights and Democracy, Montreal, discussed ~SForeign Policy and the Diaspora~T
Speakers on the third panel, titled ~SThe World as Seen by the South Caucasus~T
and chaired by professor Bruno Coppieters of the Free University of Brussels,
addressed the following questions: How do Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia
perceive their region in relation each other, to their neighbors, and to the
larger community of states? What do they see as their main challenges in their
foreign policy agenda? Mr. Ivlian Haindrava, a member of the Foreign Relations
Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, Tbilisi, addressed these issues in his
paper titled ~SThe South Caucasus: Split Identities,~T while the paper by
Ambassador Rouben Shugarian, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia,
focused on ~SThe South Caucasus: Search for a New Identity.~T A third
participant, Mr. Araz Azimov, deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan,
had withdrawn his name before the conference convened.
Professor Charles King of Georgetown University chaired the fourth panel, The
South Caucasus as Seen by the Regional Powers,~T dealing with the policies of
the three major powers neighboring this region--Russia, Turkey and Iran~Wtoward
the south Caucasus, the role of the region in the overall foreign policies of
these three states and the effect of the South Caucasus on their relations with
other states. Prof. Hossein Seifzadeh of the International Relations Department,
Tehran University presented a paper on the ~SConflicting Values and Interests:
Iran~Rs Cautious, Pragmatic Approach to the South Caucasus;~T Prof. Ahmet Han,
International Relations Department, Bilgi University, Istanbul, discussed
~STurkish Foreign Policy in the South Caucasus: History vs. Real Politics;~T and
Dr. Evgueny Kozhokin, Director, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Moscow,
focused on ~SThe Essence of Conflicts in the South Caucasus and Ways to Resolve
Them.~T
The last panel of Day 2 covered the topic ~SThe South Caucasus as Seen by the
West.~T Chaired by Dr. Leila Alieva, Director of the Center for National and
International Studies in Baku, Azerbaijan, the session aimed at answering the
following questions: What are the policies of Europe and the US toward the South
Caucasus? What is the role of the region in the overall foreign policies of the
West and how does it affect their relations with other states? Dr. Tamara
Dragadze, scholar and lecturer based in London, covered the subject in her paper
~SThe South Caucasus through Western Eyes; a Fluid View;" Ambassador Terhi
Hakala, Ambassador of Finland to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and former
Karabakh mediator, discussed the subject of ~SEnhancing European Union Relations
with the South Caucasus;~T and Mr. John Fox, Director of Caucasus and Central
Asia Affairs, US Department of State titled his presentation ~SThe US Policy in
the South Caucasus: The Evolving Challenge.~T
The third day of the conference, Saturday October 23, began with the sixth
panel, ~SThe Impact of the South Caucasus on the Study of International
Relations.~T Chaired by Professor Ahmet Han of Bilgi University, Istanbul, the
session focused on developments in the South Caucasus since
independence~Wincluding problems of economic and political transformation,
conflicts, and energy transportation issues. The questions the speakers were
asked to address were: Do these developments compel us to revise our
understanding of international relations and, Are accepted models of relations
between states adequate to explain the South Caucasus? Prof. Charles King of the
Political Science Department, Georgetown University, Washington DC, addressed
these issues in his paper ~STheories and Realities in the South Caucasus;~T
Prof. Stephen Jones, Department of Political Science, Mount Holyoke College,
Massachusetts, focused on
~SGeorgia: A Little Different, But Not Much,~T and Mr. Asbed Kotchikian, Ph.D.
student in the Political Science Department of Boston University presented
~S(Re)defining Small States: The South Caucasus in the New World Order.~T
Dr. Razmik Panossian of Rights and Democracy, Montreal, chaired the following
session on ~SThe World of Conflicts.~T Here the specialists were asked to
address the following questions: How do we explain the high concentration of
conflicts in the South Caucasus? What are the similarities and differences
between them? Which, if any, of the conflict resolution approaches apply to the
region? Is international mediation the proper means to resolve these conflicts?
The four speakers on this panel were: Dr. Ghia Nodia, Director, Center for
Democracy and Peace, Tbilisi, (~SInternational Players and ~QFrozen
Conflicts:~R Ways to Solution or Perpetuation~T); Prof. Bruno Coppieters,
Political Science Department, Free University of Brussels, (~SGeorgia and Its
neighbors: Weak Statehood and Shifting Center-Periphery Relations~T); Mr. Arman
Grigorian, Ph. D. student in International Relations, Columbia University and
Lecturer at Wesleyan University, Conn., (~SThe Fewer the Merrier: Why and When
One Mediator is Better than Two or Three~E~T; and author Tom de Waal of the
Institute for War and Peace Studies, London
(~SCaucasian Conundrums: Internally Driven or Manipulated?~T)
Mr. Tom de Waal also chaired the last session of the third day, ~SNagorno
Karabakh: A Case Study in Conflict Resolution.~T The presentations addressed the
following questions: How did the international community perceive the conflicts
in the region, especially the problem of Nagorno Karabakh? What was right and
what went wrong with the OSCE Minsk Group process charged with the resolution of
that conflict? What lessons can be learned from that process? And, How does the
leadership of Nagorno Karabakh perceive the problem and the solution?
The first speaker on this panel was Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov (retired),
former Karabakh negotiator for Russia, Moscow, who offered ~SAlternatives of
Karabakh Settlement;~TAmbassador Ömer Ersun (retired), former Karabakh
negotiator for Turkey, Ankara (retired) explained ~SWhy We Failed to Devise a
Conclusive Peace Plan for the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict?~T Ambassador Joseph
Presel of Washington, DC, (retired) former Karabakh negotiator for the US, also
focused on ~SWhy the Minsk Process Failed~T
Dr. Mahmood Vaezi, Deputy Director, Center for Strategic Research, Tehran and
former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and former Karabakh negotiator,
offered his views by forwarding a paper on the Iranian mediation efforts.
The views of the mediators were complemented by presentations by Ambassador
Tofik Zulfugarov, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Karabakh conflict
negotiator, Azerbaijan (~SArmenia~Rs Foreign Policy Toward Nagorno Karabagh:
Critical View From Baku,~T) and Ambassador David Shahnazaryan, former Minister
and Karabakh negotiator for Armenia (~SNew Challenges and Conflicts in the South
Caucasus: The Nagorno Karabakh Conflict as the Key Conflict in the Region.~T)
The final speaker on this session was Mr.Ashot Ghoulian, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Nagorno Karabakh, Stepanakert, who discussed ~SThe Nagorno Karabakh
Republic Factor in the South Caucasus Region.~T
The ninth and final session of the conference was held on Sunday morning,
October 24. Titled ~SReconciling the Past and the Future~T and chaired by
Professor Libaridian of the University of Michigan, the panel addressed the
following questions: How can we assess the path traveled by the South Caucasus
republics? What are the main similarities and differences in their foreign
policies? Is there need and/or room for a common foreign policy? What should be
the main focus at this time?
Following a summary of issues raised during the three preceding days of the
conference presented by the chair, Dr. Leila Alieva, President, Center for
National and International Studies, Baku, Azerbaijan, discussed ~SPost-Soviet
Foreign Policy Strategies in the Caucasus;~T Dr. Archil Gegeshidze, Senior
Research Fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International
Studies, Tbilisi and foreign policy adviser to former President E. Shevardnadze
of Georgia, analyzed ~SThe South Caucasus: Politics and Interests of the
Regional Actors;~T and Professor Edward Walker of the Political Science
Department, University of California, Berkeley concluded with his paper titled
~SGlobalization, Terrorism, and the Future of the Nation-State in the South
Caucasus.~T
The conference was attended by a large number of students and faculty from the
University of Michigan and universities across the US, guests from Europe, as
well as members of the community. All sessions were followed by a question and
answer period and lively debates.
Participants and members of the audience alike considered the conference a
unique event in its scope and depth. ~SIt is a source if deep satisfaction,~T
stated Professor Libaridian, ~Sthat so much scholarly and diplomatic experience
came together in one conference, that so many experts and diplomats from all
relevant countries were willing to present their views and see them challenged
for the benefit of a better understanding of the South Caucasus. It is
inevitable that both formal presentations and informal discussions during those
four days have produced a better understanding of the challenges facing the
region; it is also possible that these discussions will generate new ideas and
approaches.~T
To assist the participants and audience, the organizers of the conference have
produced a resource book of 64 pages which includes descriptions of the programs
sponsoring the conference, the program of the conference, biographies of the
speakers, a bibliography, a chronology of events and maps. Copies can be
obtained by writing to Prof. G. J. Libaridian, Department of History, 1029 Tisch
Hall, 435 S. State Street, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003 or
from the website of the Armenian Studies Program (www.umich.edu/~iinet./asp/).
Available papers and audio proceedings of the conference will also be posted on
this website within a short period of time.
--Boundary_(ID_W7vX7mr/N8JU3jVzLLFadg)--
Armenian Studies Program
1080 S. University, Suite 4640
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106
Tel: (734) 764-0350
Fax: (734) 764-8523
Contact: Sara Sarkisian
Email: [email protected]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ARMENIAN STUDIES PROGRAM/UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR
FOUR DAY CONFERENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LOOKS AT PAST AND FUTURE OF
SOUTH CAUCASUS AND KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS
Participants from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and eight other countries
discuss foreign policy challenges and conflicts
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus was the site of an unprecedented,
four-day conference on ~SArmenia/The South Caucasus and Foreign Policy
Challenges~T from October 21 to 24. Organized by the Armenian Studies Program at
the University of Michigan, the conference brought together scholars and
diplomats from Armenia (3), Georgia (3), Azerbaijan (2), Russia (3), Iran (3),
Turkey (2), Finland (1), the United Kingdom (2), Belgium (1), Canada (1), and
the United States (12).
The purpose of the international conference was to review the foreign policies
of the South Caucasus republics during the past twelve years of independence and
in view of developments in the region and in international relations as well as
to analyze conflict resolution processes with special emphasis on the Nagorno
Karabakh problem. It was hoped that a thorough and joint exploration of these
issues might prompt specialists of the region and experienced diplomats to
pursue new approaches that avoid the mistakes of the past.
The conference had the enthusiastic support of the University and was
co-sponsored by the Center for Russian and East European Studies, the Center for
Middle Eastern and North African Studies, the International Institute, and the
departments of History, Political Science and Near Eastern Studies.
The first session of the conference was held at 5 PM, Thursday, October 21.
Following welcoming remarks by Prof. Gerard Jirair Libaridian (Department of
History, University of Michigan), Prof. Mark Tessler (Director of the
International Institute and professor of Political Science, University of
Michigan) introduced the goals and characteristics of the conference which had
brought together scholars and diplomats to study a region of increasing
strategic significance.
The opening presentations were followed by the first panel, ~SEvolving
International Relations and the South Caucasus,~T chaired by Professor Barbara
Anderson, Director of the Center for Russian and East European Studies. Three
speakers addressed the following questions: How have the collapse of the USSR
and events of worldwide significance since affected our understanding of
international relations and relations between states? What has been the impact
of these changes on the way states
Such as those in the South Caucasus integrate in the world community? How have
perceptions of the South Caucasus changed considering developments in the Near
East?
Dr. Vitaly Naumkin of Moscow, Director of the International Center for Strategic
and Political Studies and professor of Political Science, presented a paper on
~SThe South Caucasus: A New Geo-Political Paradigm;~T Professor Hadi Semati,
from the International Relations Department, Tehran University and currently at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC discussed the
problems of ~SDealing with Strategic Complexities: Security, Democracy and
Economic Development in a Changing Region;~T and Professor Michael Kennedy,
Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, analyzed ~SExplicit
and Implicit Trajectories of International Relations Since the Collapse of the
USSR.~T
Following the first session of the conference a reception was held at the
William Clements Library of the University of Michigan. Dr. John Dann, Director
of the Library, and Professor Kevork Bardakjian, Director of the Armenian
Studies Program, addresses the participants and guests.
The second day of the conference, Friday October 22, opened with the second
panel of the conference, titled ~SArmenian Foreign Policy in Historical
Context,~T chaired by professor Sonya Rose, Chairperson of the Department of
History, the University of Michigan. The four speakers were asked to address the
following questions: Can one speak of recurring foreign policy problems that
have characterized Armenian history? Are there patterns in the way Armenians
have perceived, developed and practiced foreign policy during the past two
centuries? In what way are these questions relevant to post-Soviet Armenia? What
role has the Diaspora played in the making of Armenian foreign policy? Dr. Ashot
Sargsyan, Senior Researcher in History at the Matenadaran and Senior Archivist,
at the President Ter-Petrossian Archives and Library, Armenia, analyzed
~SForeign Policy as a Derivative of a Value System;~T Professor Kevork
Bardakjian of the Near Eastern Studies Department, and Director of the Armenian
Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented a paper titled
~SUnifying the Armenian World? Armenia and Diaspora Relations in Modern and
Contemporary Times;~T Professor Ronald Suny of the Department of History,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, raised the issue of ~SLiving in a Dangerous
Neighborhood: Armenia~Rs Foreign Relations in the Short Twentieth Century:
1918-1991;~T and a paper by Dr. Razmik Panossian, Director, Policy and Programs,
Rights and Democracy, Montreal, discussed ~SForeign Policy and the Diaspora~T
Speakers on the third panel, titled ~SThe World as Seen by the South Caucasus~T
and chaired by professor Bruno Coppieters of the Free University of Brussels,
addressed the following questions: How do Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia
perceive their region in relation each other, to their neighbors, and to the
larger community of states? What do they see as their main challenges in their
foreign policy agenda? Mr. Ivlian Haindrava, a member of the Foreign Relations
Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, Tbilisi, addressed these issues in his
paper titled ~SThe South Caucasus: Split Identities,~T while the paper by
Ambassador Rouben Shugarian, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia,
focused on ~SThe South Caucasus: Search for a New Identity.~T A third
participant, Mr. Araz Azimov, deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan,
had withdrawn his name before the conference convened.
Professor Charles King of Georgetown University chaired the fourth panel, The
South Caucasus as Seen by the Regional Powers,~T dealing with the policies of
the three major powers neighboring this region--Russia, Turkey and Iran~Wtoward
the south Caucasus, the role of the region in the overall foreign policies of
these three states and the effect of the South Caucasus on their relations with
other states. Prof. Hossein Seifzadeh of the International Relations Department,
Tehran University presented a paper on the ~SConflicting Values and Interests:
Iran~Rs Cautious, Pragmatic Approach to the South Caucasus;~T Prof. Ahmet Han,
International Relations Department, Bilgi University, Istanbul, discussed
~STurkish Foreign Policy in the South Caucasus: History vs. Real Politics;~T and
Dr. Evgueny Kozhokin, Director, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Moscow,
focused on ~SThe Essence of Conflicts in the South Caucasus and Ways to Resolve
Them.~T
The last panel of Day 2 covered the topic ~SThe South Caucasus as Seen by the
West.~T Chaired by Dr. Leila Alieva, Director of the Center for National and
International Studies in Baku, Azerbaijan, the session aimed at answering the
following questions: What are the policies of Europe and the US toward the South
Caucasus? What is the role of the region in the overall foreign policies of the
West and how does it affect their relations with other states? Dr. Tamara
Dragadze, scholar and lecturer based in London, covered the subject in her paper
~SThe South Caucasus through Western Eyes; a Fluid View;" Ambassador Terhi
Hakala, Ambassador of Finland to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and former
Karabakh mediator, discussed the subject of ~SEnhancing European Union Relations
with the South Caucasus;~T and Mr. John Fox, Director of Caucasus and Central
Asia Affairs, US Department of State titled his presentation ~SThe US Policy in
the South Caucasus: The Evolving Challenge.~T
The third day of the conference, Saturday October 23, began with the sixth
panel, ~SThe Impact of the South Caucasus on the Study of International
Relations.~T Chaired by Professor Ahmet Han of Bilgi University, Istanbul, the
session focused on developments in the South Caucasus since
independence~Wincluding problems of economic and political transformation,
conflicts, and energy transportation issues. The questions the speakers were
asked to address were: Do these developments compel us to revise our
understanding of international relations and, Are accepted models of relations
between states adequate to explain the South Caucasus? Prof. Charles King of the
Political Science Department, Georgetown University, Washington DC, addressed
these issues in his paper ~STheories and Realities in the South Caucasus;~T
Prof. Stephen Jones, Department of Political Science, Mount Holyoke College,
Massachusetts, focused on
~SGeorgia: A Little Different, But Not Much,~T and Mr. Asbed Kotchikian, Ph.D.
student in the Political Science Department of Boston University presented
~S(Re)defining Small States: The South Caucasus in the New World Order.~T
Dr. Razmik Panossian of Rights and Democracy, Montreal, chaired the following
session on ~SThe World of Conflicts.~T Here the specialists were asked to
address the following questions: How do we explain the high concentration of
conflicts in the South Caucasus? What are the similarities and differences
between them? Which, if any, of the conflict resolution approaches apply to the
region? Is international mediation the proper means to resolve these conflicts?
The four speakers on this panel were: Dr. Ghia Nodia, Director, Center for
Democracy and Peace, Tbilisi, (~SInternational Players and ~QFrozen
Conflicts:~R Ways to Solution or Perpetuation~T); Prof. Bruno Coppieters,
Political Science Department, Free University of Brussels, (~SGeorgia and Its
neighbors: Weak Statehood and Shifting Center-Periphery Relations~T); Mr. Arman
Grigorian, Ph. D. student in International Relations, Columbia University and
Lecturer at Wesleyan University, Conn., (~SThe Fewer the Merrier: Why and When
One Mediator is Better than Two or Three~E~T; and author Tom de Waal of the
Institute for War and Peace Studies, London
(~SCaucasian Conundrums: Internally Driven or Manipulated?~T)
Mr. Tom de Waal also chaired the last session of the third day, ~SNagorno
Karabakh: A Case Study in Conflict Resolution.~T The presentations addressed the
following questions: How did the international community perceive the conflicts
in the region, especially the problem of Nagorno Karabakh? What was right and
what went wrong with the OSCE Minsk Group process charged with the resolution of
that conflict? What lessons can be learned from that process? And, How does the
leadership of Nagorno Karabakh perceive the problem and the solution?
The first speaker on this panel was Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov (retired),
former Karabakh negotiator for Russia, Moscow, who offered ~SAlternatives of
Karabakh Settlement;~TAmbassador Ömer Ersun (retired), former Karabakh
negotiator for Turkey, Ankara (retired) explained ~SWhy We Failed to Devise a
Conclusive Peace Plan for the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict?~T Ambassador Joseph
Presel of Washington, DC, (retired) former Karabakh negotiator for the US, also
focused on ~SWhy the Minsk Process Failed~T
Dr. Mahmood Vaezi, Deputy Director, Center for Strategic Research, Tehran and
former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and former Karabakh negotiator,
offered his views by forwarding a paper on the Iranian mediation efforts.
The views of the mediators were complemented by presentations by Ambassador
Tofik Zulfugarov, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Karabakh conflict
negotiator, Azerbaijan (~SArmenia~Rs Foreign Policy Toward Nagorno Karabagh:
Critical View From Baku,~T) and Ambassador David Shahnazaryan, former Minister
and Karabakh negotiator for Armenia (~SNew Challenges and Conflicts in the South
Caucasus: The Nagorno Karabakh Conflict as the Key Conflict in the Region.~T)
The final speaker on this session was Mr.Ashot Ghoulian, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Nagorno Karabakh, Stepanakert, who discussed ~SThe Nagorno Karabakh
Republic Factor in the South Caucasus Region.~T
The ninth and final session of the conference was held on Sunday morning,
October 24. Titled ~SReconciling the Past and the Future~T and chaired by
Professor Libaridian of the University of Michigan, the panel addressed the
following questions: How can we assess the path traveled by the South Caucasus
republics? What are the main similarities and differences in their foreign
policies? Is there need and/or room for a common foreign policy? What should be
the main focus at this time?
Following a summary of issues raised during the three preceding days of the
conference presented by the chair, Dr. Leila Alieva, President, Center for
National and International Studies, Baku, Azerbaijan, discussed ~SPost-Soviet
Foreign Policy Strategies in the Caucasus;~T Dr. Archil Gegeshidze, Senior
Research Fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International
Studies, Tbilisi and foreign policy adviser to former President E. Shevardnadze
of Georgia, analyzed ~SThe South Caucasus: Politics and Interests of the
Regional Actors;~T and Professor Edward Walker of the Political Science
Department, University of California, Berkeley concluded with his paper titled
~SGlobalization, Terrorism, and the Future of the Nation-State in the South
Caucasus.~T
The conference was attended by a large number of students and faculty from the
University of Michigan and universities across the US, guests from Europe, as
well as members of the community. All sessions were followed by a question and
answer period and lively debates.
Participants and members of the audience alike considered the conference a
unique event in its scope and depth. ~SIt is a source if deep satisfaction,~T
stated Professor Libaridian, ~Sthat so much scholarly and diplomatic experience
came together in one conference, that so many experts and diplomats from all
relevant countries were willing to present their views and see them challenged
for the benefit of a better understanding of the South Caucasus. It is
inevitable that both formal presentations and informal discussions during those
four days have produced a better understanding of the challenges facing the
region; it is also possible that these discussions will generate new ideas and
approaches.~T
To assist the participants and audience, the organizers of the conference have
produced a resource book of 64 pages which includes descriptions of the programs
sponsoring the conference, the program of the conference, biographies of the
speakers, a bibliography, a chronology of events and maps. Copies can be
obtained by writing to Prof. G. J. Libaridian, Department of History, 1029 Tisch
Hall, 435 S. State Street, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003 or
from the website of the Armenian Studies Program (www.umich.edu/~iinet./asp/).
Available papers and audio proceedings of the conference will also be posted on
this website within a short period of time.
--Boundary_(ID_W7vX7mr/N8JU3jVzLLFadg)--