Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. This diversity led some scholars to speak of many existing “postsocial- isms.” See C. M. Hann, Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Practices in Eurasia (London; New York: Routledge, 2002). 2. Armen Aivazian, Essential Elements for Armenia’s National Security Doctrine: Part I (Erevan: 2003). Quoted in Eddie Arnavoudian, Review of “Essential Elements for Armenia’s National Security Doctrine; Part I” by Armen Aivazian (Armenian News Network/Groong, 2004 [cited July 2004]). 3. Khachik Der-Ghoukasian and Richard Giragosian. 4. Aivazian, Essential Elements for Armenia’s National Security Doctrine. 5. Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998), pp. 422–423. 6. Alexander Rondeli, “Regional Security Prospects in the Caucasus,” in Crossroads and Conflict: Security and Foreign Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia, ed. Gary K. Bertsch, Cassady B. Craft, and Scott A. Jones (New York: Routledge, 2000), p. 51. 7. Rick Fawn, Ideology and National Identity in Post-Communist Foreign Policies, 1st ed. (London; Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2003). Jeanne A. K. Hey, Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003), Efraim Inbar and Gabriel Sheffer, The National Security of Small States in a Changing World (London; Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 1997). 8. N. O. Oganesian, The Foreign Policy of the Republic of Armenia in the Transcaucasian-Middle Eastern Geopolitical Region (Yerevan: Noyan Tapan, 1998). Gayane Novikova, Orientiry Vneshney Politiki Armenii: Sbornik Analiticheskikh Statey (Erevan: “Antares,” 2002). Samvel Oganesian and David Petrosian, Armeniia, Evropa, Aziia: Koridory I Perekrestki [Armenia, Europe and Asia: Corridors and Crossroads] (Yerevan: Armenian Center for National and International Studies, 2001). 9. Gerard J. Libaridian, The Challenge of Statehood: Armenian Political Thinking since Independence, 1st ed., Human Rights & Democracy (Watertown, MA: Blue Crane Books, 1999). 180 Notes 10. Ronald Grigor Suny, “Provisional Stabilities: The Politics of Identities in Post-Soviet Eurasia,” International Security 24, no. 3 (Winter, 1999–2000), p. 147. 11. Levon Abrahamian, Armenian Identity in a Changing World, Armenian Studies Series, No. 8 (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2006), p. xii. 12. Razmik Panossian, The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), p. 175. 13. M. Papadakis and H. Starr, 1987. “Opportunity, Willingness, and Small States: The Relationship between Environment and Foreign Policy,” in Charles F. Hermann, Charles W. Kegley, and James N. Rosenau, New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987), pp. 420–421. 14. Robert Keohane, “Lilliputian Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics,” International Organization 23, no. 2 (1969): 210–219; Robert L. Rothstein, Alliances and Small Powers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968). 15. Papadakis and Starr, “Opportunity, Willingness, and Small States,” p. 430. 16. Ibid., p. 420. 17. Stefano Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold (London; New York: Routledge, 1998). 18. I am indebted to Nicholas Onuf for the insights on this point; Damian Fernandez, “Cuba: Talking Big, Acting Bigger,” in Latin American and Caribbean Foreign Policy, ed. Frank O. Mora and Jeanne A. K. Hey (Rowan & Littlefield, 2003). 19. Walter Carlsnaes, “The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis,” International Studies Quarterly 36, no. 3 (1992): 261. 20. Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity, and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations, Cambridge Studies in International Relations 69 (Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 166. 21. Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wμver, The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? (London; New York: Routledge, 1997). 22. Janice Belly Mattern, “The Difference That Language-Power Makes,” in Language, Agency, and Politics in a Constructed World, ed. Franðcois Debrix (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2003), p. 154. 23. Sanjoy Banerjee, “The Cultural Logic of National Identity Formation: Contending Discourses in Late Colonial India,” in Culture & Foreign Policy, ed. Valerie Hudson (Boulder, CO: L. Rienner Publishers, 1997), p. 33. 24. Jef Huysmans, “Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: The Normative Dilemma of Writing Security,” Alternatives 27, Special Issue (2002); Buzan, Waever, and Wilde, Security. 25. Peter J. Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New Directions in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996). Notes 181 26. Efraim Karsh, “Cold War, Post–Cold War: Does It Make a Difference for the Middle East?,” Review of International Studies 23 (1997). 27. Barry Buzan and Ole Wμver, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, Cambridge Studies in International Relations 91 (Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 44. 28. Ibid., p. 48. 29. Ibid., p. 52. 30. Panossian, The Armenians, p. 189. 31. Richard G. Hovannisian, The Republic of Armenia, vol. 4 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p. 192. 32. Ibid., p. 407. 33. Panossian, The Armenians, p. 248. 34. This book uses the term “Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh” to signify the irregular units composed of Armenians from Armenia and diaspora and the regular Nagorno-Karabakh army that was officially formed in summer 1992. Its structure and military command is distinct from the army of the Republic of Armenia. 35. Ronald Grigor Suny, Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), p. 4. 36. Abrahamian, Armenian Identity in a Changing World, p. 10. 37. Sankaran Krishna, “Mimetic History: Narrating India through Foreign Policy,” in Handcuffed to History: Narratives, Pathologies, and Violence in South Asia, ed. S. P. Udayakumar (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001), p. 43. 38. William Bloom, Personal Identity, National Identity, and International Relations, Cambridge Studies in International Relations 9 (Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 80. 39. Armen Aivazian, “Possible Solutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh Problem: A Strategic Perspective,” in The Making of Nagorno-Karabagh: From Secession to Republic, ed. Levon Chorbajian (Houndmills [England]; New York: Palgrave, 2001), p. 210. 40. Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy, p. 233. 41. Abrahamian, Armenian Identity in a Changing World, p. 260. 42. Eviatar Zerubavel, Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), p. 89. 43. Levon Mikaelyan, “Vechni Lish Natsiya I Rodina” [Nation and homeland are eternal categories], Golos Armenii, May 27, 2004. 44. Johan Galtung, “The Construction of National Identities for Cosmic Drama: Chosenness-Myths-Trauma (Cmt) Syndromes and Cultural Pathologies,” in Handcuffed to History: Narratives, Pathologies, and Violence in South Asia, ed. S. P. Udayakumar (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001), p. 67. 45. Ibid. 46. Aivazian, “Possible Solutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh Problem,” p. 207. 47. “Global Trends 2015,” (CIA, 2004). 182 Notes Chapter 1 1. Sergei Arustamian, Khroniki Smutnogo Vremeni, vol. 1 (Erevan: Izd-vo. RAU, 2002), p. 14. 2. Ruben Shugarian, “The Idea of Regional Cooperation in the Context of Foreign Policy of Armenia,” in Orientiry Vneshneæi Politiki Armenii: Sbornik Analiticheskikh Statei, ed. Gayane Novikova (Erevan: Antares, 2001), p. 12. 3. Aivazian, “Possible Solutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh Problem: A Strategic Perspective,” p. 227. 4. Francois Debrix, “Language, Nonfoundationalism, International Relations,” in Language, Agency, and Politics in a Constructed World, ed. Francois Debrix (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2003). 5. Suny, Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, p. 18. 6. Tony Halpin and John Hughes, “Living with Big Brother: Armenia-Russia Relations Are Based on Language, Culture and, Lately, Economics,” ArmeniaNow.com, May 19, 2006. 7. Panossian, The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars, p. 191. 8. Ronald Suny tellingly describes the Armenian dilemma of 1918: Of the three major nationalities of Transcaucasia, the Armenians were in greatest danger in the spring 1918. The Azerbaijanis stood to benefit from a Turkish victory that would eliminate the Armenian threat and restore Baku to the control of the Muslims. The Georgians were willing to deal with the Turks and the Germans for guarantees that Georgian lands would not be annexed by Turkey. But the Armenians were an obstacle to the realization of the Pan-Turkic plans of a Muslim state stretching from Istanbul through Caucasia to Central Asia. The Dashnaktsutyun was in extremely vulnerable position. The party was opposed to separation from Russia, but Russia was now unable to aid the Armenians against the Turks. Therefore the party leaders in Tiflis reluctantly went along with the Georgian Mensheviks, and the Azerbaijanis and gave into Turkish pressure to declare Transcaucasia an independent state on April 22, 1918. About the same time the Dashnaks of Baku a city then firmly in the hands of a Bolshevik-led Soviet, opposed the Seim’s declaration of independence and recognized Soviet Russian authority. Suny, Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, pp. 124–125.