Tweet
WHAT MAKES US DIPLOMATS TALK OF CAUCASUS CRISIS-2014?
The Voice of Russia
June 16 2014
US experts and diplomats have been warning of a new security crisis
that could break out in the South Caucasus in autumn of 2014. How good
is the forecast and is there any evidence the region is really headed
for a new war? Or is it rather a threat aimed at disrupting these
countries' ties with Russia? We are discussing the issue with Razi
Nurullayev, Azerbaijani political analyst and the head of "Region"
International Analytical Centre, and Sevak Sarukhanyan, deputy head
of the Noravank think tank in Yerevan.
On October 5, 2012, Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian presented a lecture
in Los Angeles titled "Arab Awakening, The Turkish Role in The Region
and The Future of Armenians in the Middle East". According to the 'USA
Armenian Life' reporting, he claimed that "2014 is a potentially deadly
deadline for Armenia and Armenians worldwide imposed by Azerbaijan." He
sternly cautioned Diaspora Armenians about the so-called "Azerbaijan
deadline" for political settlement of the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict
by 2014... He tersely warned that a formidable military buildup by
Azerbaijan spelled trouble for Armenia.
This year Ambassador Richard Morningstar, the US envoy to Azerbaijan,
issued a similarly stern warning to Baku, promising it a "Maidan"
if the government doesn't loosen its grip on the opposition.
In both cases, the Ambassadors suggested that Armenia and Azerbaijan
had to adopt more "open" policies towards the West and scale down
their contacts with Russia. Or face the consequences?
Razi Nurullayev, Azerbaijani political analyst and the head of "Region"
International Analytical Centre:
I would say the Caucasian explosion is always pending. The Caucasus
is a very sensitive area, both geopolitically and economically. And
that is why I think it is not only the matter of autumn, but that is
a matter of all the time.
We remember the case of war between Georgia and Russia in 2008, in
August. And after that a lot of things happened in the Caucasus. And
the Caucasus has been the point of interest not only for Russia that
comes from the fact that it is its political, but also for the West,
including the US and the EU country.
And of course, we cannot forget about the issue of Turkey. Turkey also
is very bound to the Caucasus region historically and it also has
its own interests. And Turkey's interests in the Caucasus are being
implemented with the help of Azerbaijan, both brotherly countries.
So, in autumn the Caucasian explosion may happen, but I can't say on
what perspective Mr. Ambassador has said that. Georgia is going to
conclude the association agreement with the EU this month, Ukraine
does the same and Armenia is going to join the Eurasian Union. So,
this tangles this paradox of the developments in the Caucasus and
really creates such an environment in which an explosion might happen.
Another point, Azerbaijan is also invited to the Eurasian Union and,
on the other hand, the EU has a big pressure on Azerbaijan to sign
an association agreement with the EU. So, in this context I think
the interests have collided between Russia and the West.
So, it may depend on the further developments and I would actually
put more focus on the Ukrainian events. It depends on how Ukraine
is going to get out of the situation which it found itself in. And
depending on that situation the fate of Caucasus may also be cleared.
Actually, with the Ukrainian events the eastern partnership initiated
by the EU has been severely damaged. The other countries of the
eastern partnership, including Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus
feel that the EU is more of an economic union and when it comes to
conflicts and the collision of interests with Russia, the EU cannot
defend either of the countries, which has now produced a radical
change in the minds of the countries, in their policies.
The Azerbaijan President said in last December that Azerbaijan would
not in any way sign an association agreement with the EU and Azerbaijan
would prefer an equal strategic partnership between the two sides,
in which the EU is not interested.
So, here the connection is - if Russia is more confident and keeps the
status quo as it is now in Ukraine, then it would somehow pursue the
successful policy in the Caucasus as well. If the West - the US and
the EU countries - are successful in Ukraine (which I can't believe
can ensure its territorial integrity and bring peace to its eastern
provinces), then it might give a motivation to the other eastern
partnership countries to pursue the European integration policy,
which I believe is a hard task for now.
So, Ukraine in this context is a point where all the other countries
look at and draw the lessons from there.
Of course, we know that Caucasus is an extremely important region, and
at the same time, it is a very delicate region in terms of balances
that are now kept, but could so easily be tipped. Who of all players
could really be interested in creating a stir in that region, in
destabilizing it?
Actually, it is a very hard question and it is not very easy to just
simply answer it. I think the Caucasus is now a place of the war of
interests between Russia and the West. That is why at the moment,
it is my personal view, Russia would be interested in the Caucasus
to be peaceful, to be economically and geopolitically stable unless
it answers its interests.
So, if Russia has an influence over the Caucasus and Russia's
interests are pursued and ensured in the Caucasus, then Russia would
be interested in bringing the stability to Caucasus, and would also
be interested in the resolution of the frozen conflicts.
As far as the EU is concerned, broadly speaking the EU and the US,
until now they did not seem to be active and very interested in peace
in the Caucasus. It was out of their very close point of interest.
They wanted peace, but never did anything for peace in the region.
But now, after the Ukrainian events the West thinks that the unstable
and conflict-fledged Caucasus solely serves the Russian interests. In
this context the West, and in particular the US have mobilized their
efforts for peace in the Caucasus.
In particular, I remember some high-ranking officials' statements
from the US about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. So, they now have become
more active and try to bring the sides to the round table and find
the solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which I think is not
possible without the Russia's consent and participation."
Sevak Sarukhanyan, deputy head of the Noravank think tank in Yerevan:
"To my mind, just now I don't see any reasons for a sudden blast,
because the world and the region is quite busy with the things which
are going on in Ukraine. And now every country in the region and also
the international actors, they cannot provide any kind of forecast
for what will happen in the Caucasus if anything happens. That's why
there are no international actors who are interested in any kind of
instability here.
And in 2014 I don't see any kind of reasons for that, if we talk
about countries, Georgia is quite stable after the presidential and
parliamentary elections. Armenia is on its route of integration into
the Eurasian Union and Azerbaijan is trying to find its new place
in the European and American market out of the Ukrainian crisis,
because Azerbaijan is becoming part of the total European interest
in the non-Russian natural gas and oil. From this point of view each
country in the region is not interested in such kind of a blast.
But of course the processes which are going on in the wider region,
I mean, for example, Syria, Iran, somehow Turkey, they can also
influence and bring something sudden, which cannot be forecasted just
now, at this moment."
In one of his recent interviews US Ambassador to Baku Richard
Morningstar was warning of a possible 'Maidan' scenario in Baku....
Actually, I must say that for example Azerbaijan has a lot of
differences in comparison with Ukraine, because Azerbaijan is a
more eastern country with more government control over political
and economic processes in the country. And from this point of view,
of course, Aliev is better controlling the situation than Yanukovych
did in Ukraine, which limits the possibilities of the opposition to
organize something.
And from the other point of view the opposition doesn't have the
freedom of action, because the political process is not democratic, as
in many countries in the former Soviet Union. To my mind the American
approach is dictated by the Baku's policy, which is that Aliev doesn't
want to chose any kind of geopolitical side, because his policy is
quite pro-Western, but it is not an anti-Russian, actually.
And Azerbaijan's decision now is a decisive one for Caspian region
new energy project. For example, if the West needs Turkmen gas or gas
from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, oil from Kazakhstan passing not through
the territory of Russia, Azerbaijan's decisions must be considered
as the most important ones, because Azerbaijan is the main transit
route for the Caspian energy resources.
>From this point of view I think the American embassy's approach is
somehow dictated by the fact that Azerbaijan now doesn't want to take
any kind of direct anti-Russian steps, which means that Azerbaijan
doesn't want to make the process of construction of pipelines through
this territory in a fast way.
So, I think Azerbaijan, if it keeps its policy of tossing between
powers, will get more critics from Washington and from the West. But,
at the same time, Azerbaijan is a reliable partner of the West in
energy resources export and import. The whole situation is that the
West wants from Baku more than Baku can give.
And from this point of view I think that the critics over Azerbaijan's
democracy and human rights processes in this country will become more
and more from the Western side. But actually I don't see any reasons
for the Maidan movement, because, I must repeat, the Government of
Azerbaijan is controlling the situation.
Of course, there is a small part of processes which are out of control,
but they have no connection with the West. I'm speaking, first of
all, about the new Islamic movements which are now Azerbaijan. Mostly
Iran was supporting the Shia resistance and the renaissance of Shia
Islam in Azerbaijan. And some Islamic groups are out of control of
the Azerbaijani Government.
Of course, they have a lot of other religious organizations which
are supported from Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi groups. And we see a
lot of people fighting in Syria. And these groups also are in some
kind of opposition to the Government, which is a secular one. But
to talk about them in terms of Maidan is not correct, because they
are living in other kind of political ideology. And their opposition
can be wilder than what was in Kiev, but in Kiev we also had a lot
of victims of the protests.
It is interesting that you've just mentioned the presence of the
Islamist factor. Do I get you right that it has been growing over
the past years?
It is growing and it is a logical process for these countries, because
these things like Islamism and radicalism, they are becoming more
competitive in the areas where the level of education and the level
of society is going down. Of course, the socio economic situation
and the conditions for the majority of the population are creating
relevant grounds for the renaissance of such kinds of movements.
And the post-Soviet Union territory is somehow a new territory for
Islamic radicalism. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and all the other states are somehow suffering from that. I
think that the only tool to provide secularism in these counties is
to promote real democratic institutions, because if you are closing
officially secular political parties because they are in opposition
to you, you are creating a good fundament for the radicals who can
take the place of these secular oppositionists.
The thing which happened in Iran, before the revolution the last
Iranian Shah was arresting the oppositionists - the liberals,
the democrats - and in the 1970 the people who were against the
government, they found that the only secure places for meetings
were mosques. And that is why the political Islam became the main
instrument of protesting the government and creating any kind of base
for the opposition.
So, I think that the Islamic fundamentalists are getting more positions
in the region because of two reasons - bad socio-economic conditions
of the population and the non-democratic character of the governance.
And in that sense I cannot help asking you a question about another
huge Islamic country with an increasingly Islamist government, which
is Turkey. If we have been talking about the Shia groups present in
Azerbaijan, Turkey has got a huge Sunni influence. Is it active in
the region too?
Actually, it is active. But the Turkish political Islam is an
interesting one because it is part of a political process. We should
say that not the people of religion are doing politics in Turkey, but
the politicians who are religious are creating the political process.
That is a very big difference of Turkey when we compare this country
with Iran.
>From this point of view, it has some advantages and disadvantages. For
example, for the Iranians it is quite easy to enter the region
through the religious organizations. But for the Turks, for example,
the official political institutions and economic activities, they
are the most effective tools for entering the region.
The Turks in that sense, for example, in Georgia are huge, especially
in the Adjara region. They have a very high level of cooperation
with Azerbaijan. But at the same time, we should say that for
example the Azeri investments in Turkey are higher than the Turkish
investments are in Azerbaijan. The construction of the TANAP pipeline,
the Trans-Anatolian pipeline, which is going to be constructed for
Azeri investments. The level of Azerbaijani investments in Turkey
will become higher.
So, at this moment we cannot say that Turkey has some kind of decisive
influence on the Azerbaijani Government, because Azerbaijan has its own
share of influence in Turkey. And also the Turks have some limitation
of entering the region, because the closed Armenian-Turkish border,
it is a closed border for the Turkish entrance to the region.
You can invest a lot, you can be active in Azerbaijan, in Georgia,
but if your border is closed with Armenia, it makes you not a regional
country. You are partly a part of the region, because Armenia is
a quite important country from the geographic point of view. And
for Turkey, from the economic point of view, Armenia is much more
important than Georgia, because Armenia and Turkey are now connected
with railways, they are connected with high voltage transmission lines.
So, if we compare Turkey, for example, with Iran, Iran is more
effective in the region as a region, because Iran has investments both
in Armenia, Azerbaijan, in Georgia. But in the case of Turkey there is
only a triangle - Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Somehow it is also
a geopolitical alliance which does not let us to talk that Turkey has
a joint or a common south Caucasian strategy. The south Caucasus for
Turkey is only Georgia and Azerbaijan, which is also limiting the
Turkish possibilities and instruments of influence in the region."
Ekaterina Kudashkina
http://voiceofrussia.com/radio_broadcast/25298789/273601295/
The Voice of Russia
June 16 2014
US experts and diplomats have been warning of a new security crisis
that could break out in the South Caucasus in autumn of 2014. How good
is the forecast and is there any evidence the region is really headed
for a new war? Or is it rather a threat aimed at disrupting these
countries' ties with Russia? We are discussing the issue with Razi
Nurullayev, Azerbaijani political analyst and the head of "Region"
International Analytical Centre, and Sevak Sarukhanyan, deputy head
of the Noravank think tank in Yerevan.
On October 5, 2012, Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian presented a lecture
in Los Angeles titled "Arab Awakening, The Turkish Role in The Region
and The Future of Armenians in the Middle East". According to the 'USA
Armenian Life' reporting, he claimed that "2014 is a potentially deadly
deadline for Armenia and Armenians worldwide imposed by Azerbaijan." He
sternly cautioned Diaspora Armenians about the so-called "Azerbaijan
deadline" for political settlement of the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict
by 2014... He tersely warned that a formidable military buildup by
Azerbaijan spelled trouble for Armenia.
This year Ambassador Richard Morningstar, the US envoy to Azerbaijan,
issued a similarly stern warning to Baku, promising it a "Maidan"
if the government doesn't loosen its grip on the opposition.
In both cases, the Ambassadors suggested that Armenia and Azerbaijan
had to adopt more "open" policies towards the West and scale down
their contacts with Russia. Or face the consequences?
Razi Nurullayev, Azerbaijani political analyst and the head of "Region"
International Analytical Centre:
I would say the Caucasian explosion is always pending. The Caucasus
is a very sensitive area, both geopolitically and economically. And
that is why I think it is not only the matter of autumn, but that is
a matter of all the time.
We remember the case of war between Georgia and Russia in 2008, in
August. And after that a lot of things happened in the Caucasus. And
the Caucasus has been the point of interest not only for Russia that
comes from the fact that it is its political, but also for the West,
including the US and the EU country.
And of course, we cannot forget about the issue of Turkey. Turkey also
is very bound to the Caucasus region historically and it also has
its own interests. And Turkey's interests in the Caucasus are being
implemented with the help of Azerbaijan, both brotherly countries.
So, in autumn the Caucasian explosion may happen, but I can't say on
what perspective Mr. Ambassador has said that. Georgia is going to
conclude the association agreement with the EU this month, Ukraine
does the same and Armenia is going to join the Eurasian Union. So,
this tangles this paradox of the developments in the Caucasus and
really creates such an environment in which an explosion might happen.
Another point, Azerbaijan is also invited to the Eurasian Union and,
on the other hand, the EU has a big pressure on Azerbaijan to sign
an association agreement with the EU. So, in this context I think
the interests have collided between Russia and the West.
So, it may depend on the further developments and I would actually
put more focus on the Ukrainian events. It depends on how Ukraine
is going to get out of the situation which it found itself in. And
depending on that situation the fate of Caucasus may also be cleared.
Actually, with the Ukrainian events the eastern partnership initiated
by the EU has been severely damaged. The other countries of the
eastern partnership, including Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus
feel that the EU is more of an economic union and when it comes to
conflicts and the collision of interests with Russia, the EU cannot
defend either of the countries, which has now produced a radical
change in the minds of the countries, in their policies.
The Azerbaijan President said in last December that Azerbaijan would
not in any way sign an association agreement with the EU and Azerbaijan
would prefer an equal strategic partnership between the two sides,
in which the EU is not interested.
So, here the connection is - if Russia is more confident and keeps the
status quo as it is now in Ukraine, then it would somehow pursue the
successful policy in the Caucasus as well. If the West - the US and
the EU countries - are successful in Ukraine (which I can't believe
can ensure its territorial integrity and bring peace to its eastern
provinces), then it might give a motivation to the other eastern
partnership countries to pursue the European integration policy,
which I believe is a hard task for now.
So, Ukraine in this context is a point where all the other countries
look at and draw the lessons from there.
Of course, we know that Caucasus is an extremely important region, and
at the same time, it is a very delicate region in terms of balances
that are now kept, but could so easily be tipped. Who of all players
could really be interested in creating a stir in that region, in
destabilizing it?
Actually, it is a very hard question and it is not very easy to just
simply answer it. I think the Caucasus is now a place of the war of
interests between Russia and the West. That is why at the moment,
it is my personal view, Russia would be interested in the Caucasus
to be peaceful, to be economically and geopolitically stable unless
it answers its interests.
So, if Russia has an influence over the Caucasus and Russia's
interests are pursued and ensured in the Caucasus, then Russia would
be interested in bringing the stability to Caucasus, and would also
be interested in the resolution of the frozen conflicts.
As far as the EU is concerned, broadly speaking the EU and the US,
until now they did not seem to be active and very interested in peace
in the Caucasus. It was out of their very close point of interest.
They wanted peace, but never did anything for peace in the region.
But now, after the Ukrainian events the West thinks that the unstable
and conflict-fledged Caucasus solely serves the Russian interests. In
this context the West, and in particular the US have mobilized their
efforts for peace in the Caucasus.
In particular, I remember some high-ranking officials' statements
from the US about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. So, they now have become
more active and try to bring the sides to the round table and find
the solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which I think is not
possible without the Russia's consent and participation."
Sevak Sarukhanyan, deputy head of the Noravank think tank in Yerevan:
"To my mind, just now I don't see any reasons for a sudden blast,
because the world and the region is quite busy with the things which
are going on in Ukraine. And now every country in the region and also
the international actors, they cannot provide any kind of forecast
for what will happen in the Caucasus if anything happens. That's why
there are no international actors who are interested in any kind of
instability here.
And in 2014 I don't see any kind of reasons for that, if we talk
about countries, Georgia is quite stable after the presidential and
parliamentary elections. Armenia is on its route of integration into
the Eurasian Union and Azerbaijan is trying to find its new place
in the European and American market out of the Ukrainian crisis,
because Azerbaijan is becoming part of the total European interest
in the non-Russian natural gas and oil. From this point of view each
country in the region is not interested in such kind of a blast.
But of course the processes which are going on in the wider region,
I mean, for example, Syria, Iran, somehow Turkey, they can also
influence and bring something sudden, which cannot be forecasted just
now, at this moment."
In one of his recent interviews US Ambassador to Baku Richard
Morningstar was warning of a possible 'Maidan' scenario in Baku....
Actually, I must say that for example Azerbaijan has a lot of
differences in comparison with Ukraine, because Azerbaijan is a
more eastern country with more government control over political
and economic processes in the country. And from this point of view,
of course, Aliev is better controlling the situation than Yanukovych
did in Ukraine, which limits the possibilities of the opposition to
organize something.
And from the other point of view the opposition doesn't have the
freedom of action, because the political process is not democratic, as
in many countries in the former Soviet Union. To my mind the American
approach is dictated by the Baku's policy, which is that Aliev doesn't
want to chose any kind of geopolitical side, because his policy is
quite pro-Western, but it is not an anti-Russian, actually.
And Azerbaijan's decision now is a decisive one for Caspian region
new energy project. For example, if the West needs Turkmen gas or gas
from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, oil from Kazakhstan passing not through
the territory of Russia, Azerbaijan's decisions must be considered
as the most important ones, because Azerbaijan is the main transit
route for the Caspian energy resources.
>From this point of view I think the American embassy's approach is
somehow dictated by the fact that Azerbaijan now doesn't want to take
any kind of direct anti-Russian steps, which means that Azerbaijan
doesn't want to make the process of construction of pipelines through
this territory in a fast way.
So, I think Azerbaijan, if it keeps its policy of tossing between
powers, will get more critics from Washington and from the West. But,
at the same time, Azerbaijan is a reliable partner of the West in
energy resources export and import. The whole situation is that the
West wants from Baku more than Baku can give.
And from this point of view I think that the critics over Azerbaijan's
democracy and human rights processes in this country will become more
and more from the Western side. But actually I don't see any reasons
for the Maidan movement, because, I must repeat, the Government of
Azerbaijan is controlling the situation.
Of course, there is a small part of processes which are out of control,
but they have no connection with the West. I'm speaking, first of
all, about the new Islamic movements which are now Azerbaijan. Mostly
Iran was supporting the Shia resistance and the renaissance of Shia
Islam in Azerbaijan. And some Islamic groups are out of control of
the Azerbaijani Government.
Of course, they have a lot of other religious organizations which
are supported from Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi groups. And we see a
lot of people fighting in Syria. And these groups also are in some
kind of opposition to the Government, which is a secular one. But
to talk about them in terms of Maidan is not correct, because they
are living in other kind of political ideology. And their opposition
can be wilder than what was in Kiev, but in Kiev we also had a lot
of victims of the protests.
It is interesting that you've just mentioned the presence of the
Islamist factor. Do I get you right that it has been growing over
the past years?
It is growing and it is a logical process for these countries, because
these things like Islamism and radicalism, they are becoming more
competitive in the areas where the level of education and the level
of society is going down. Of course, the socio economic situation
and the conditions for the majority of the population are creating
relevant grounds for the renaissance of such kinds of movements.
And the post-Soviet Union territory is somehow a new territory for
Islamic radicalism. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and all the other states are somehow suffering from that. I
think that the only tool to provide secularism in these counties is
to promote real democratic institutions, because if you are closing
officially secular political parties because they are in opposition
to you, you are creating a good fundament for the radicals who can
take the place of these secular oppositionists.
The thing which happened in Iran, before the revolution the last
Iranian Shah was arresting the oppositionists - the liberals,
the democrats - and in the 1970 the people who were against the
government, they found that the only secure places for meetings
were mosques. And that is why the political Islam became the main
instrument of protesting the government and creating any kind of base
for the opposition.
So, I think that the Islamic fundamentalists are getting more positions
in the region because of two reasons - bad socio-economic conditions
of the population and the non-democratic character of the governance.
And in that sense I cannot help asking you a question about another
huge Islamic country with an increasingly Islamist government, which
is Turkey. If we have been talking about the Shia groups present in
Azerbaijan, Turkey has got a huge Sunni influence. Is it active in
the region too?
Actually, it is active. But the Turkish political Islam is an
interesting one because it is part of a political process. We should
say that not the people of religion are doing politics in Turkey, but
the politicians who are religious are creating the political process.
That is a very big difference of Turkey when we compare this country
with Iran.
>From this point of view, it has some advantages and disadvantages. For
example, for the Iranians it is quite easy to enter the region
through the religious organizations. But for the Turks, for example,
the official political institutions and economic activities, they
are the most effective tools for entering the region.
The Turks in that sense, for example, in Georgia are huge, especially
in the Adjara region. They have a very high level of cooperation
with Azerbaijan. But at the same time, we should say that for
example the Azeri investments in Turkey are higher than the Turkish
investments are in Azerbaijan. The construction of the TANAP pipeline,
the Trans-Anatolian pipeline, which is going to be constructed for
Azeri investments. The level of Azerbaijani investments in Turkey
will become higher.
So, at this moment we cannot say that Turkey has some kind of decisive
influence on the Azerbaijani Government, because Azerbaijan has its own
share of influence in Turkey. And also the Turks have some limitation
of entering the region, because the closed Armenian-Turkish border,
it is a closed border for the Turkish entrance to the region.
You can invest a lot, you can be active in Azerbaijan, in Georgia,
but if your border is closed with Armenia, it makes you not a regional
country. You are partly a part of the region, because Armenia is
a quite important country from the geographic point of view. And
for Turkey, from the economic point of view, Armenia is much more
important than Georgia, because Armenia and Turkey are now connected
with railways, they are connected with high voltage transmission lines.
So, if we compare Turkey, for example, with Iran, Iran is more
effective in the region as a region, because Iran has investments both
in Armenia, Azerbaijan, in Georgia. But in the case of Turkey there is
only a triangle - Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Somehow it is also
a geopolitical alliance which does not let us to talk that Turkey has
a joint or a common south Caucasian strategy. The south Caucasus for
Turkey is only Georgia and Azerbaijan, which is also limiting the
Turkish possibilities and instruments of influence in the region."
Ekaterina Kudashkina
http://voiceofrussia.com/radio_broadcast/25298789/273601295/