Study Group Information Ernst M. Felberbauer Frederic Labarre (Eds.) Building Confidence in the South Caucasus: Strengthening the EU’s and NATO’s Soft Security Initiatives 7th Workshop of the Study Group “Regional Stability in the South Caucasus” Vienna, July 2013 Imprint: Copyright, Production, Publisher: Republic of Austria / Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports Rossauer Lände 1 1090 Vienna, Austria Edited by: National Defence Academy Command Stiftgasse 2a 1070 Vienna, Austria in co-operation with: PfP Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany Study Group Information Copyright: © Republic of Austria / Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports All rights reserved July 2013 ISBN 978-3-902944-17-7 Printing: HDruckZ Stiftgasse 2a 1070 Vienna, Austria 2 Table of Contents Foreword 7 Opening Keynote Address Maia Panjikidze, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia 15 PART 1: TAKING STOCK OF INITIATIVES FOR THE SOUTH CAUCASUS: THE EU, NATO, RUSSIA AND BEYOND 21 European Union Foreign Policy and Interests in the South Caucasus Elena Mandalenakis 23 The South Caucasus and the European Security Strategy Gayane Novikova 43 Motives and Incentives for Engagement – the Russian Perspective of a Eurasian Union Elkhan Nuriyev 59 Confidence-building Initiatives: An Academic Approach Karen S. Rubinson 69 3 PART II REGIONAL COOPERATION INITIATIVES: BREAKING ISOLATION FROM WITHIN 77 Breaking Isolation Bilaterally: Contrasting NATO and EU Initiatives Rauf Rajabov 79 Breaking Isolation by Breaking Linkage Politics Stepan Grigoryan 87 Cooperation Perspectives and Challenges Across de Facto Borders Bakur Kvashilava 91 PART III GOING FORWARD: GENERATING INCENTIVES AND MOTIVES FOR COOPERATION 97 The Impact of International Mediation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict: Azerbaijan’s Standpoint Fidan Karimli 99 The Impact of International Mediation of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Armenia’s Standpoint Diana Asatryan 107 Russo-Georgian Rapprochement: A Light at the End of the Tunnel Boris Kuznetsov 115 4 Cold Cooperation: Opening the Way to Negotiation Pierre Jolicoeur 119 A Pragmatic Review of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Resolution: Could Economic Incentives Help Break the Current Stalemate? George Niculescu 131 Arab Lessons for Azerbaijan: Breaking the Vicious Circle of Impossibility? Rashad Shirinov 141 PART IV POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 155 Epilogue Frederic Labarre 157 Policy Recommendations 161 List of Authors and Editors 169 5 Foreword The seventh workshop of the Regional Stability in the South Caucasus (RSSC) Study Group was convened from 14 to 16 March 2013 in Tbilisi, Georgia. Under the overarching title of “Building Confidence in the South Caucasus: Strengthening the EU's and NATO's Soft Security Initiatives” it explored initiatives that aimed to build confidence in the South Caucasus, via the activities of the civil society, the EU and NATO. The topic of the workshop was determined thanks to the fruitful discussions held at the previous workshop, held in Reichenau, Austria in November 2012. At that meeting it appeared clear to the participants that - barring a political sea-change in the region - the regional elites seemed unable to break the impasses over the Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia conflicts. It was left to civil society, the participants felt, to move forward within the region. Certainly, the pool of participants that assembled in Reichenau, and in Tbilisi for the seventh workshop represent a microcosm of the South Caucasus – on both occasions the Study Group was enriched with experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey – and within this microcosm, exchanges, however contradictory or antagonistic, were always cordial and constructive. This suggested that absent major political change in the region, “soft power” might well inform official statecraft and international organizations’ engagement in the South Caucasus. The election of Bidzina Ivanishvili represented a sea-change of sorts in Georgia; first in attitude and then in policy approach. The seventh workshop was opened by the Deputy Minister of Defence of Georgia, Ms. Tamar Karosanidze, followed by a keynote address by the Foreign Minister of Georgia, Mrs. Maia Panjikidze. Their presence and intervention demonstrated the depth of the change in Georgia’s attitude. As they both underscored, this was the first 7 democratic and peaceful transition of government in the history of Georgia, and in the recent history of the region. This is a substantial achievement for which all Georgians can rightfully be proud. The October 2012 elections which brought Bidzina Ivanishvili to power as Prime Minister have also signalled the Georgian electorate’s weariness of Russo-Georgian tensions, but as both the Deputy Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have remarked, the pragmatism that permeates the policy-making approach in Tbilisi does not abandon the objectives of integration within Euro-Atlantic structures. The policy approach change signifies that the level of ambition will be more realistic. Without renouncing the breakaway regions which Georgia claims as its own, Georgia will nevertheless seek to smooth over relations with Russia, while seeking, as Ms. Karosanidze put it “as close a partnership with NATO and the EU as possible.” The RSSC SG and the Partnership for Peace Consortium are proud to consider Georgia as a constructive and supportive member, and the Georgian Ministries of Defence and of Foreign Affairs have been exceedingly generous in their hospitality for our Study Group. Their offer of hosting the seventh Study Group workshop is, in itself, an example of soft power. Through the intercession of the Republic of Georgia, the Study Group was provided with a safe and comfortable environment in which to debate. The constructive discussions that were entertained generated the policy recommendations which can be found at the end of this volume. When the Study Group chose to consider soft power methods, it was in support of official and international organizations’ engagement in the South Caucasus, particularly the EU and NATO. The aim of the workshop was to identify the measures to apply from the civil society point of view, to make international engagement (EU and NATO, but also the OSCE) relevant and effective. International organizations remain a vital conduit for conflict resolution – notwithstanding the current “frozen” status of the conflicts – and their activities must be bolstered. 8 The first order of business was to take stock of EU and NATO involvement in confidence-building, which was the topic of the first panel. Elena Mandalenakis’ piece presents the evolution of EU programmatic involvement in the South Caucasus in breadth and depth. Her paper represents an essential primer on EU-South Caucasus relations. She has come to a critical conclusion which is essential to convey even in an introduction: the relative efficiency of the EU in the South Caucasus depends in great measure on the awareness by the South Caucasus public of the EU’s efforts and programmes. The EU’s current priorities are mainly on its Southern flank and in the Middle East. EU soft security measures can therefore be forgiven for not benefitting the region more than they have. However, this is not good news for the South Caucasus; neglect begets isolation, and isolation begets indifference. One of the Study Group’s objectives is to foster the image of a South Caucasus as a vibrant and self-contained strategic entity in order for the region not to be characterised forever as a “troubled region.” One of the questions that this workshop raised was whether there were extra-regional initiatives taking place outside the EU and NATO’s remit. Karen Rubinson, president of the American Research Institute on the South Caucasus (ARISC), presented her organization as just such an initiative. Dr. Rubinson offers a vision of cross-regional cooperation that is based on the common past of the South Caucasus countries. This kind of cooperation, anchored on patient and diligent cultivation of cultural and historical ties, helps a consortium of American universities raise interest in the South Caucasus as an area of research. The focus of ARISC’s research is anthropological and pre-historical, themes apparently far removed from the issue of human, military and national security that the Study Group is used to discuss. Nevertheless, it is no small irony that Dr. Rubinson felt compelled to define the South Caucasus along the lines of the Achaemenid Empire, giving proof that it might be possible to consider the region as a self-contained strategic entity. 9 In the second panel, the Study Group sought to reconcile the achievements of international organizations with attempts to “break isolation from within.” Rauf Rajabov’s and Stepan Grigoryan’s texts, respectively from Azerbaijan and Armenia, show that any progress is dependent upon official policy-making. Rajabov sees NATO and EU soft security initiatives as levers for Azerbaijan’s policy diversification. Grigoryan shows the same tendency in Armenia, which is involved in both NATO (as a partner) and the CSTO, two organizations that many are quick to identify as antagonistic. Bakur Kvashilava presents the Georgian experience of civil society cooperation across de facto borders as the evidence that ordinary people do not manifest the animosity demonstrated by policy leaders and officials in Tbilisi, Tskhinvali or Sukhumi. His text shows what steps contribute to making an already