DOCSLIB.ORG

Georgian Abkhaz Youth Dialogue Workshop

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Editors’ Note: This is one of six discussion papers on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict commissioned to three Armenian and three Azerbaijani authors by Conciliation Resources as part of its “Karabakh 2014” project, funded by the UK government Conflict Prevention Pool through the Consortium Initiative and presented in London at a meeting on July 10, 2009 by the authors. Conciliation Resources will publish updated versions of the papers in the autumn and is planning a series of round tables to discuss them in the region. KARABAKH 2014: A forecast on power sharing and power transformation By Rashad Shirinov 1. Introduction Recent developments around the Nagorny Karabakh (NK) conflict have opened up windows of opportunity for all sides to engage in a genuine peace-building initiative. The optimism and recent enthusiasm comes largely from the developments appearing lately on the global scene, major elements of it being the new US administration’s decision to improve damaged relations with Russia, Turkey, and Iran. As the situation around the South Caucasus becomes more favourable, the major powers have decided to invest more into the resolution of regional conflicts. Matthew Bryza, US co-chair of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk group stated that the meeting of Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Prague on 7 May brought new positive developments in the peace process, something qualitatively new during his tenure as a co-chairman.1 Ilham Aliyev, in his interview to the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency and Rossiya TV channel talked about the necessity of providing security for population of Nagorno-Karabakh. He said: “We understand Armenia’s wish to have a land connection with NK. We see no problem in that. An effective solution of Lachin corridor issue is possible and this should not worry people who currently reside there and Azerbaijanis, who will settle there in the future”.2 In this forecast analysis I would like to elaborate on possible scenarios assuming a peace- treaty is signed later this year or possibly in 2010. I would like to focus on domestic power 1 Exclusive interview with Matthew Bryza (in Azeri), Radio Liberty, 8 May 2009; http://www.azadliq.org/content/article/1623751.html 2 Ilham Aliyev on Lachin Corridor (in Azeri), Radio Liberty, 19 April 2009; http://www.azadliq.org/content/article/1611659.html - 1 - structures, sources of decision and policy-making and their capacity to take conflict resolution forwards or backwards. As we are all aware, signing a peace accord is an important step but only the beginning of a complex process called conflict resolution. The paper assumes that non-governmental pro-peace forces are weak and immature, and that civil society or people’s diplomacy are not in a position to influence the signing of a peace treaty. Thus, the only way that a peace treaty could possibly be signed is through the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan and mediation efforts of the international community. That means, by themselves, societies are not motivated enough to bring about or trigger any significant change in terms of conflict resolution. However, I would like to stress that this does not mean they will not resist a settlement they disagree with and any unacceptable move could spur a wave of discontent, disobedience, and even resistance. Furthermore, after signing an accord, a broad range of issues related to confidence-building, social transformation (including transformation of power relations), physical infrastructure building, resettlement of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) and various other issues needs to be addressed. In this article, first of all, I would like to identify possible “peace-makers” in Azerbaijan by specifying what sources, institutions and actors would be the most appropriate to address the above-mentioned problems after the peace treaty is signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I will make a stakeholder analysis and will also look at the possibilities of a broader coalition of pro-peace forces and organizations, for some kind of “peace and reconciliation movement,” emerging within Azerbaijani society. So far, this has not been the case, although smaller civil society initiatives have taken place across the border. Secondly, I would also like to identify possible “trouble makers” for the peace process, actors, and forces that could oppose the peace agenda and would declare “justice” and not “peace” as a primary goal. My final objective will be to consider these stakeholders within a possible scenario of post- conflict development. Along these lines I will also try to look at this from the perspective of the liberal theory of democratic peace. The theory suggests that democracies do not fight each other as the political elite as well as citizens on both sides possess the skill to manage conflicts and establish contracts, which in turn requires an ability to make compromises. 2. Stakeholder analysis Stakeholders that could influence the post-war reconciliation process in Azerbaijan vary across the political spectrum, and across social as well as generational divides. The following stakeholders can be identified in Azerbaijan: Civil society groups and NGOs Since the 1990s non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been involved in cross-border initiatives between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Almost all conflict-resolution and confidence-building projects in the region have been supported by international sponsors mainly from Western Europe and the USA. Since initiatives between the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides were viewed by their governments negatively, initial projects took place - 2 - more within a regional South Caucasus framework, also including Georgia. This format was logical, since conflicts also exist in Georgia. The reason why these groups have become important was that they saw that they could attract financial resources to their NGOs using a peace-building agenda and international cooperation. This is what I would call the “commercialization of peace”. We cannot say that all the groups had a genuine interest only in peace, since at some point NGO work started to become a sort of business activity aimed at channelling funding into the solution of goals set by regional partners. However, some genuine peace supporters exist and in a more favourable environment they could turn into catalysts of positive post-conflict developments. Certainly every classification could be open to misrepresentation, but we can still identify two civil society groups to be addressed if we want to elaborate on possible peace actors: - The older generation raised and educated during Soviet times, when the Soviet Union was a place where ideology of “friendship among nations” dominated. It was an ideology, which resembled modern western ideas of tolerance and social cohesion. Among these groups is the Russian-speaking intelligentsia, including scholars and artists; - Youth groups, student movements, and youth NGOs involved in cross-border cooperation, supported by international organizations. Although the majority of young people are still sceptical about the possibility of peace and many feel aggressive towards the “enemy”, over the last few years a special youth agenda with local and international support has been implemented among active civil society youth groups. Youth civil society groups are probably the most dynamic part of Azerbaijani and Armenian societies and they use every opportunity to travel and engage in international projects and attend international events where they can meet each other within various formats, although not necessarily to discuss peace between the two nations per se. In general, if the peace process continues and the governments embark on a path of making an ongoing commitment to people and processes that may take years to come to fruition, civil society organizations will emerge as organizations equipped with the tools of multi-track diplomacy. As mentioned above, two groups are really important: the older intelligentsia and young pro-western groups. Civil society organizations (CSOs) will be engaged in both: in cooperation across the border as well as the facilitation of transformation inside their respective societies. Moreover, equally important is that civil society initiatives possess more flexibility in selecting actors and involve social groups, which so far have had no role in the formal peace process – the internally displaced population in Azerbaijan and the Karabakh Armenians. Of course, this is going to happen only if governments agree on basic principles of solution and that they are committed to peace. The positive development is that the governments have actually started to realize that second track diplomacy can be instrumentalized as a useful tool. This happened for the first time in June 2007 when a delegation comprised of prominent university rectors from Baku, headed by Azerbaijani ambassador to Russia, Polad Bulbuloglu, visited NK and Armenia. The delegation met senior officials in both Armenia and NK. The visit to Armenia and NK was a testing of the water and confirmation that the Azerbaijani authorities can be in charge of various types of initiative towards conflict settlement. In July 2009 this initiative was repeated by Polad Bulbuloglu with the Armenian ambassador to Russia, Armen Smbatyan. - 3 - There is also a fresh new initiative by the Helsinki Citizens Assembly South Caucasus Network, which brings together civil society representatives from Armenia, Azerbaijan and both
Recommended publications
  • Security Aspects of the South Stream Project

    Security Aspects of the South Stream Project

    BRIEFING PAPER Policy Department External Policies SECURITY ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH STREAM PROJECT FOREIGN AFFAIRS October 2008 JANUARY 2004 EN This briefing paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is published in the following language: English Author: Zeyno Baran, Director Center for Eurasian Policy (CEP), Hudson Institute www.hudson.org The author is grateful for the support of CEP Research Associates Onur Sazak and Emmet C. Tuohy as well as former CEP Research Assistant Rob A. Smith. Responsible Official: Levente Császi Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department BD4 06 M 55 rue Wiertz B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Publisher European Parliament Manuscript completed on 23 October 2008. The briefing paper is available on the Internet at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN If you are unable to download the information you require, please request a paper copy by e-mail : [email protected] Brussels: European Parliament, 2008. Any opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. © European Communities, 2008. Reproduction and translation, except for commercial purposes, are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and provided the publisher is given prior notice and supplied with a copy of the publication. EXPO/B/AFET/2008/30 October 2008 PE 388.962 EN CONTENTS SECURITY ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH STREAM PROJECT ................................ ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................iii 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 2. THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE................................................................................... 2 2.1.
  • Designate Matthew J. Bryza by Senator Barbara Boxer (#1) Senate Foreign Relations Committee July 22, 2010

    Designate Matthew J. Bryza by Senator Barbara Boxer (#1) Senate Foreign Relations Committee July 22, 2010

    Questions for the Record Submitted to Ambassador – Designate Matthew J. Bryza by Senator Barbara Boxer (#1) Senate Foreign Relations Committee July 22, 2010 Question: On June 18, a violent clash took place near Nagorno-Karabakh that left four ethnic Armenian troops and one Azerbaijani soldier dead. During your confirmation hearing, you suggested that Azerbaijani soldiers moved across the “Line of Contact.” If this is the case, why hasn’t the U.S. government been more forceful in its condemnation of Azerbaijan? Is the Government of Azerbaijan actively trying to escalate the conflict with Armenia? Answer: As Secretary Clinton made clear during her recent trip to the Caucasus, the United States condemns the use of force and regrets the loss of life that resulted from the incident during the night of June 18-19, 2010. The full details of what occurred on June 18 are not known. Regardless, the U.S. government believes strongly in the inadmissibility of the use of force or the threat of force and reiterates the need to remain engaged in the Minsk Group Process in pursuit of a peaceful settlement of the conflict. With active mediation by the United States and its French and Russian counterparts in the OSCE’s Minsk Group, President Aliyev and Sargsian have established an ongoing dialogue in an effort to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict and the parties have come far towards reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. In June, 2010 the Presidents of the Minsk Group Co-Chair countries (France, Russia, and the United States) issued a joint statement calling on the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to “take the next step and complete the work on the Basic Principles to enable the drafting of a peace agreement to begin.” If confirmed as Ambassador, I will urge President Aliyev to maintain his commitment to the Minsk Group process and do everything possible to support the U.S.
  • The View from Abkhazia of South Ossetia Ablaze

    The View from Abkhazia of South Ossetia Ablaze

    Central Asian Survey Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2009, 235–246 The view from Abkhazia of South Ossetia ablaze Paula Garbà Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine, USA The Abkhazian and South Ossetian perspectives on the fighting between Georgians and South Ossetians in August 2008 could not be heard above the noise generated around the geopolitical implications of the larger Russian–Georgian clash. The population of Abkhazia experienced the violence in South Ossetia as though it was occurring on their own territory. This confirmed their complete lack of trust in the Georgian government’s commitment to peaceful resolution of the conflicts. In addition, they were disappointed with what they regarded as the international community’s absence of criticism of Georgia’s actions and lack of concern for the safety and well-being of the South Ossetians. Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence has taken the question of Georgia’s territorial integrity off the negotiation table indefinitely. It also has set back the formal peace process with both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. An essential way forward, toward establishing trust as a necessary foundation for progress in the political negotiations, would be for the US and other interested countries to engage with the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia at all levels, demonstrating credible and consistent concern for the safety and well being of all the people affected by the conflict. Keywords: conflict; culture; Abkhazia; South Ossetia Introduction Georgian–Abkhazian official relations since the end of the 1992–1993 war have offered little common ground for a mutually acceptable resolution.
  • Russia-Georgia Conflict in August 2008

    Russia-Georgia Conflict in August 2008

    = :88.&8*47,.&=43+1.(9=.3=:,:89=,**2a= 439*=9=&3)=251.(&9.438=+47=_ _=39*7*898= .2=.(-41= 5*(.&1.89=.3= :88.&3=&3)=:7&8.&3=++&.78= &7(-=-`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= -.0+2= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress :88.&8*47,.&= 43+1.(9=.3=:,:89=,**2a=439*=9=&3)= 251.(&9.438=+47=__= 39*7*898= = :22&7>= In the early 1990s, Georgia and its breakaway South Ossetia region had agreed to a Russian- mediated ceasefire that provided for Russian “peacekeepers” to be stationed in the region. Moscow extended citizenship and passports to most ethnic Ossetians. Simmering long-time tensions escalated on the evening of August 7, 2008, when South Ossetia and Georgia accused each other of launching intense artillery barrages against each other. Georgia claims that South Ossetian forces did not respond to a ceasefire appeal but intensified their shelling, “forcing” Georgia to send in troops. On August 8, Russia launched air attacks throughout Georgia and Russian troops engaged Georgian forces in South Ossetia. By the morning of August 10, Russian troops had occupied the bulk of South Ossetia, reached its border with the rest of Georgia, and were shelling areas across the border. Russian troops occupied several Georgian cities. Russian warships landed troops in Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia region and took up positions off Georgia’s Black Sea coast. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, serving as the president of the European Union (EU), was instrumental in getting Georgia and Russia to agree to a peace plan on August 15-16.
  • Azerbaijan: Recent Developments and U.S

    Azerbaijan: Recent Developments and U.S

    Azerbaijan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs February 22, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 97-522 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Azerbaijan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests Summary Azerbaijan is an important power in the South Caucasus by reason of its geographic location and ample energy resources, but it faces challenges to its stability, including the unresolved separatist conflict involving Nagorno Karabakh (NK). Azerbaijan enjoyed a brief period of independence in 1918-1920, after the collapse of the Tsarist Russian Empire. However, it was re-conquered by Red Army forces and thereafter incorporated into the Soviet Union. It re-gained independence when the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991. Upon independence, Azerbaijan continued to be ruled for a while by its Soviet-era leader, but in May 1992 he was overthrown and Popular Front head Abulfaz Elchibey was soon elected president. Military setbacks in suppressing separatism in the breakaway NK region contributed to Elchibey’s rise to power, and in turn to his downfall just over a year later, when he was replaced by Heydar Aliyev, the leader of Azerbaijan’s Nakhichevan region and a former communist party head of Azerbaijan. In July 1994, a ceasefire agreement was signed in the NK conflict. Heydar Aliyev served until October 2003, when under worsening health he stepped down. His son Ilkham Aliyev was elected president a few days later. According to the Obama Administration, U.S. assistance for Azerbaijan aims to develop democratic institutions and civil society, support the growth of the non-oil sectors of the economy, strengthen the interoperability of the armed forces with NATO, increase maritime border security, and bolster the country’s ability to combat terrorism, corruption, narcotics trafficking, and other transnational crime.
  • EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN in UNCHARTED WATERS: Perspectives on Emerging Geopolitical Realities

    EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN in UNCHARTED WATERS: Perspectives on Emerging Geopolitical Realities

    EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN IN UNCHARTED WATERS: Perspectives on Emerging Geopolitical Realities EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN IN UNCHARTED WATERS: Perspectives on Emerging Geopolitical Realities Prof. Michaël Tanchum Editor All rights reserved. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Derneği Türkiye Temsilciliği Ahmet Rasim Sokak No: 27 06990 Çankaya-Ankara Tel.: +90-312-440 40 80 Fax: +90-312-440 32 48 E-Mail: [email protected] www.kas.de/tuerkei This publication reflects the views of the authors only which had the freedom to choose any terminology they wanted to express their free opinion. Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Walter Glos Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 Ercan Çitlioğlu The Geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean Crisis: A Regional System Perspective on the Mediterranean's new Great Game ................................................................................................ 7 Michaël Tanchum TRNC-RoC Cooperation: A Critical Missing Piece for Eastern Mediterranean Stability .............. 18 Mustafa Çıraklı The Eastern Mediterranean as an Emerging Crisis Zone: Greece and Cyprus in a Volatile Regional Environment ................................................................................................................. 25 Ioannis N. Grigoriadis Turkey in an Increasingly Complex Eastern Mediterranean:
  • Arctic Geopolitics Reconsidered: Pathways to Conflict and Cooperation

    Arctic Geopolitics Reconsidered: Pathways to Conflict and Cooperation

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons CUREJ - College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal College of Arts and Sciences 6-20-2020 Arctic Geopolitics Reconsidered: Pathways to Conflict and Cooperation Christopher Tremoglie [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/curej Part of the Eastern European Studies Commons, and the Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies Commons Recommended Citation Tremoglie, Christopher, "Arctic Geopolitics Reconsidered: Pathways to Conflict and Cooperation" 20 June 2020. CUREJ: College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, University of Pennsylvania, https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/250. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/250 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Arctic Geopolitics Reconsidered: Pathways to Conflict and Cooperation Abstract The Arctic region is widely considered to be one of the planet’s last frontiers. As the world’s countries competed for Earth’s resources, few areas of the world were left unscathed; the Arctic was one of those regions. However, as climate change accelerates the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, previously inaccessible areas, believed to contain an abundance of natural resources such as minerals, natural gas, and oil, will soon become available for extraction. This race for resources has created tension among the actors in the Arctic. As such, this paper asks: what conditions would be necessary for the current tense relations between the key actors - United
  • Energy in the Eastern Mediterranean: Promise Or Peril?

    Energy in the Eastern Mediterranean: Promise Or Peril?

    ENERGY IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN: PROMISE OR PERIL? EGMONT PAPER 65 ENERGY IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN: PROMISE OR PERIL? Joint Report by the Egmont Institute and the Atlantic Council Sami ANDOURA and David KORANYI (EDS.) May 2014 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision-making process. President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc OTTE Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxessmaes.be ISBN 978 90 382 2376 6 D/2014/4804/162 U 2237 NUR1 754 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the permission of the publishers.
  • Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S

    Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S

    Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs May 1, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33453 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications Summary The United States recognized the independence of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia when the former Soviet Union broke up at the end of 1991. The United States has fostered these states’ ties with the West in part to end their dependence on Russia for trade, security, and other relations. The United States has pursued close ties with Armenia to encourage its democratization and because of concerns by Armenian Americans and others over its fate. Close ties with Georgia have evolved from U.S. contacts with its pro-Western leadership. Successive Administrations have supported U.S. private investment in Azerbaijan’s energy sector as a means of increasing the diversity of world energy suppliers. The United States has been active in diplomatic efforts to resolve regional conflicts in the region. As part of the U.S. global counter-terrorism efforts, the U.S. military in 2002 began providing equipment and training for Georgia’s military and security forces. Troops from all three regional states have participated in stabilization efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The South Caucasian troops serving in Iraq departed in late 2008. The regional states also have granted transit privileges for U.S. military personnel and equipment bound for Afghanistan. Beginning on August 7, 2008, Russia and Georgia warred over Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
  • Oil Wealth Has Been a Mixed Blessing the Country Stands Ested in Making Economic Suc- Exchange Rate

    Oil Wealth Has Been a Mixed Blessing the Country Stands Ested in Making Economic Suc- Exchange Rate

    AZERBAIJAN FINANCIAL TIMES SPECIAL REPORT | Friday January 25 2008 www.ft.com/azerbaijan2008 Oil wealth has been a mixed blessing The country stands ested in making economic suc- exchange rate. We will manage it cess Ð not just in oil Ð the back- well and invest it, so there is at a crossroads, ground for his election victory”. long-term economic growth.” report Leyla Boulton Western diplomats and local Greater wealth, however, officials say that Mr Aliyev, who weakens incentives for an and Isabel Gorst succeeded his late father, Hey- authoritarian regime to liberalise dar, a former Soviet politburo the economy and society, in zerbaijan, the newest member, in 2003, understands the sharp contrast with Azerbaijan’s supplier of oil and gas to dangers of oil wealth. poorer neighbour, Georgia. Europe, faces an historic The question is whether this “The crucial difference is that choice. It either escapes former deputy head of Socar, the Georgia doesn’t have Azerbai- Aor succumbs to the “oil curse”, national oil company, can act on jan’s money,” says the senior the combination of corrupt gov- the lessons of the past. western diplomat. ernment and lopsided economic “The good news is that the “With this money the Azerbai- development that afflicts many president understands the histor- janis have become more confi- oil producers. ical lessons, but intention is one dent. They have a much stronger This year is decisive, because state, and they have the means what is already the world’s fast- to buy off critics who are sound- est-growing economy expects a Wealth weakens the ing early warnings.
  • The Relations Between the Republic of Turkey and the United States of America at the Present Stage

    The Relations Between the Republic of Turkey and the United States of America at the Present Stage

    Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy June 2018, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-6 ISSN: 2333-5866 (Print), 2333-5874 (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/jirfp.v6n1a1 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jirfp.v6n1a1 The Relations between the Republic of Turkey and the United States of America at the Present Stage E. Makaradze1 & B. Makaradze2 Abstract At the end of XX century and in the first decade of XXI century the relations between Turkey and the United States of America attracted the attention of the international community. Since the end of the Cold War, the relationship between the Republic of Turkey and the United States has been mainly focused on security. The foreign policy of the two countries, from time to time was conducted in completely different directions. Parallel to this, the periods of ups and downs had an impact on economic relations as well. It was the security policy that carried out mutual cooperation between the two countries. On the one hand, it was the USA – one of the leaders of the Cold War, and, on the other hand, Turkey - very important in the region, but the most dependent on the US. Despite being in the NATO bloc together with the USA, Turkey has never felt secure itself. Assessing Ankara's domestic and foreign policy, it is necessary to take into account the relationship with the United States, as it has had the biggest impact on Turkey’s policy. Although the real and potential power of these two countries was not equal, during the Cold War Turkey became a stronghold of NATO and the West bloc against the Soviet Union.
  • Nagorno-Karabakh: Getting to a Breakthrough

    Nagorno-Karabakh: Getting to a Breakthrough

    Policy Briefing Europe Briefing N°55 Baku/Yerevan/Tbilisi/Brussels, 7 October 2009 Nagorno-Karabakh: Getting to a Breakthrough I. OVERVIEW create new security threats. Notably, there is concern even among some government officials that Armenia is being pressured to give up something tangible – the occupied A preliminary breakthrough in the two-decades-old territories – in exchange for mere promises of security. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict – a framework agreement These feelings are especially acute in Nagorno-Karabakh. on basic principles – may be within reach. Armenia and Azerbaijan are in substantial accord on principles first The presidents are believed to have broadly agreed on outlined by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation the need for an eventual pullout of ethnic Armenian in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group in 2005. A basic prin- forces from districts of Azerbaijan outside of Nagorno- ciples agreement, while only a foundation to build on, Karabakh they currently control. Azerbaijan has also is crucial to maintain momentum for a peace deal. given indications that it is not opposed to a corridor Important differences remain on specifics of a subse- linking Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. There have quent final deal. Movement toward Armenia-Turkey been differences on a timetable for the return of ethnic rapprochement after a century of hostility has brought Azeri refugees to Nagorno-Karabakh. The most conten- opportunity also for ending the Nagorno-Karabakh tious issue, however, is the region’s final status. There stalemate. Sustainable regional peace requires compro- has been some movement towards defining an “interim mises on all the quarrels, but there is backlash danger, status” for Nagorno-Karabakh, but Azerbaijan still insists especially in Armenia, where public discontent could that it must always remain legally part of its territory, derail the Nagorno-Karabakh framework agreement.