Stepan Safaryan
Analyst of Legal and Political Affairs

CLOSED GATES:
THE CAUCASUS REGION IN THE LABYRINTH OF OLD SECURITY MEASURES

The collapse of the Soviet Union had a fateful impact on the destiny of the South Caucasus in general, and the countries of the region in particular. The rebirth of Armenia was perhaps the most difficult and painful among the fifteen former Soviet republics. It was compounded by the remnants of the systemic elements and the legacy of the Soviet Union and the Karabakh conflict. However, Armenia managed to survive despite all odds with a minimum level of security measures. Armenia emerged committed to democracy as reflected in its Declaration of Independence (1990) and constitution (1995).

The resolution of the Karabakh conflict is integrally linked to the security of Armenia. The no-peace, no-war situation subsequent to the 1994 ceasefire has provided a relative stability and fragile peace to the republics of Armenia and Mountainous Karabakh. The opportunity granted both entities time for reflection, to glance to their past near and far, putting the emphasis on their individual security. The South Caucasus is a newly emerging region of geographical and geopolitical significance. Unlike other parts of the Soviet Union such as the Baltic region, which after 10 years has become a full member of the European Union (EU), the Caucasus region is still mired in major security related problems.

The factors behind the Karabakh conflict are neither geographical nor historic. They are caused by the capitulation of a wide spectrum of social practices which have endangered the national identity and existence of its people through various measures adopted by the government of Azerbaijan-such as economic degradation, ethnic cleansing, and discriminatory policies in all aspects of life, cultural, linguistic, economic, and political-policies which has proven successful in Nakhijevan. Thus, at the core of the conflict are the human and societal factors/measures.

The 1994 ceasefire between the conflicting parties has granted Armenia and Karabakh to focus their attention on building democratic institutions although appearing insignificant in accomplishment in some areas. It is argued that the regional conflicts hinder the advance of democracy in the Southern Caucasus and that as long as conflicts (e.g. Karabakh, Abkhazia, So. Ossetia) remain unresolved there will never be democracy in the region. However, one can argue also that as long as the countries have not been democratized, the conflicts will not be resolved, in other words the key to the resolution of the Karabakh and other conflicts is a complete overhaul of the social order and values to guarantee the creation of a safe and secure social space under the auspices of democratic values and institutions.

The Caucasus has been inundated by dramatic developments. Fate has destined the people of the Caucasus to experience slavery, colonization, de-colonization, independence, integration, and annexation. It has always been influenced by its neighboring powers. Wars have been more prevalent than short-lived and discrete periods of peace, relative and fragile. Thus, in order for one to understand the developments with regional or global dimensions, one has to understand the mentality and mindset of the people of the region considering the complex ethnic mosaic. To complete the mosaic, it is imperative to create mutually exclusive optimal distances among the comprising ethnic groups whose security would be conditional not by closed, but by open and yet secure “gates” and “boundaries”.

The Caucasus has always been viewed as a geographical region. Its ethnic and social agents have been neglected and their potential underestimated. Raised social boundaries and “gates” have created distance among various ethno-national entities. Some of these have been dictated from the “above” very rarely from “below” both of which have served as security measures for the people of the Caucasus. The Soviets used their universalist values and socialist ideology to remove the distance and the boundaries. This artificial and distorted measure proved to be disastrous examples of which one can use in various treaties signed by the Soviets (Kars, 1921; Moscow, 1921). Efforts made from “below” conducted by ethnic groups led, unavoidably to a clash with forces from the “above”. Two such examples include the regions of Nakhijevan and Mountainous Karabakh. These two micro-geographical entities having undergone geographic and demographic distortions and exploitations eventually created under artificial “gates” and boundaries all of which contained the needs of future conflicts.

Soviet strategists and social engineers unable to resist the historical inertia unleashed in the region: 1) Policies and measures which resulted in the growth of political consciousness of the people of the two regions in the southwest (Caucasus) in particular; 2) They underestimated the historically tense and ripe conditions for security; 3) The relaxing policies of the center resulted in various manifestations of unrest by people of the respected regions. Some regions of the Soviet Union over the years (1940’s, 1960-70’s), which lacked the social “gates”, expressed themselves with high potentials.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and hence the removal of the “iron curtain” allowed the intrusions of the West to the East and South. The victory of the West in the Cold War disrupted geographic constructs. The East in its turn lost its ethno-political and ideological principles and values. The West unlike the Soviets did realize the power of ethno-national entities. The new boundaries should have been acknowledged and recognized, both socially and politically by the Soviet authorities. Future developments however proved otherwise.

All the post-Soviet republics have either embraced democracy or appear to have the manifestations of democracy, with no intention to return to the past. Despite major in-roads made in Armenia, the public remains discontent as various scientific survey results indicate. A situation of underdeveloped democratic institutions has effected the relation of the public and authorities. These, in turn are also reflected in the economy and political process despite the rosy picture painted by the government. The public finds major gaps between the economic system of Armenia and correlation between democracy and liberalism. This also indicates that the Armenian political system is not majoritarian yet, but rather is controlled by a minority. The survey results further speak of two political minorities in control of material values and those benefiting from the fruits of monopolized resources and an alienated and deeply disappointed majority.

The outcome of the above realities is that people and communities distance themselves from democracy and modernity, values symbolizing the West, and gradually become self-estranged and self-isolated. Furthermore, committees even blame the democracy for their heightened insecurity and destruction of the “gates”. Others to blame are the globalists, post-modernists, realists, and the neo-realists. Thus, some sectors of the population view the West and democracy with suspicion and skepticism. Concepts such as human rights, democracy itself, and free-market are seen as utopian visions and never achievable. Domestically, these realities translate into distrust among the people of their leaders, deprived of their rights, suffering under corruption, extreme abuse of the system, inequality, hopelessness, and finally exodus from Armenia of catastrophic proportions.

Security continues to the top of the list of people’s concern in Armenia, preceding even the economy, as manifested in the results of the scientific surveys. Resumption of war with Azerbaijan, invasion by Turkey, relations with Turkey, and the opening of borders between Armenia and Turkey are among some of the main areas of concern for the people of Armenia. A host of security issues in the context of the Karabakh conflict and relations with Azerbaijan naturally occupies the mind of the majority of the citizens of Armenia. The finding of the survey point to only one direction, retreat of the majority of the public to traditional macro geographical world, (Russia) rather to strive for democratic macro geographies (European Union). However, this trend will prove to be short-lived.

Despite the above realities there are bases for the development of close ties and rapprochement with Europe. Fresh and new reign in the political and civil sectors of the Armenian society (2003-2004) in the light of the new developments in the South Caucasus indicate a growing interest in joining the European Union, a shift toward the West. It seems that of the three Southern Caucasus republics, Armenia appears to be much better predisposed and fulfills several requirements and preconditions set by the EU. Recent developments (April 2004) have damaged Armenia’s image and won the criticism of the EU. Armenia’s pace in many areas appears to be very slow.

For Armenia to enter a true market oriented mentality, it has to resolve several issues pertaining to its territorial and social space. This includes, in addition to its ethno-national totality, a self-sufficient democracy, which is the first precondition of democratic rule.

The only way out for Armenia from this situation is becoming part of this global network and competitive policies it has to regain and revive the trust of its people in democracy. Furthermore, sooner or later, consciously or sub-consciously, countries like Armenia who find their security jeopardized in all aspects of life, social, cultural, political, will realize that its security survivability is going to be guaranteed only by macro-civilizational and macro-geographical entities, without jeopardizing its unique national character, identity, and safeguarding its boundaries and “gates.” Such is the case of all EU members who benefit from open gates and boundaries without sacrificing their national identities.

Another important factor is the distinction which should be made between nominal and factual democracies. Neo-realism is in the region of South Caucasus with its external and internal impacts has had its negative effect including endangering the democratic process. Therefore, the regions should come out of the snare of neo-realism. The only salvation for them would be in strengthening democratic institutions, independence, and sovereignty. Democracy is and will continue to be the guarantor of international security.

Concerning the Southern Caucasus in particular, regardless of the regions complex character, the boundaries instead of being obstacles to peace can serve as the source for a pluralistic democracy modeled after the EU. It is also in this spirit that the regional conflicts should be approached and resolved. The efforts made to develop democratic institutions in conflict areas such as Karabakh should be encouraged and not condemned. Not accepting Karabakh as party to the conflict will devastate democratic measures and efforts at its core and dim the prospects for its resolution. The security and peace can only flourish in the region under democracy, the lack of which will force various parties to the conflict retreat and “close” their gates and borders.

Membership in the EU for the countries of the region-Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan-will help resolve many of these issues. As members of the same entity, they would be obliged to trust each other and work together. In the meantime, they would be motivated to be more attentive and sensitive to their domestic issues, e.g., the rights of minorities and their protection, removal of the blockade in the case of Armenia and so forth. Expeditious efforts should be made within the parameters of the “enlarged Europe and neighborhood,” to make the integration of Armenia into the EU by all measures social and geographical possible. Thus far the EU has supported Armenia through various projects, loans, and grants which have been very encouraging. In its turn Armenia has also made major efforts in fulfilling various preconditions for EU membership. Armenia should stay on its course and in this process the Armenian Diaspora can and should have its input and participation.