A Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis of Weak States: the Case of the Caucasus States Yasar Sari Charlottesville, Virginia B.A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis of Weak States: The Case of the Caucasus States Yasar Sari Charlottesville, Virginia B.A., Istanbul University, 1993 M.A., Old Dominion University, 1997 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics University of Virginia December 2008 Abstract Keywords: Caucasus states, Russia, foreign policy analysis, weak state The key features of foreign policy formulation and execution in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are selected in an attempt to reveal the sources of foreign policy-behavior of new, post- Soviet (and in effect post-imperial) states during the 1990s. More specifically, this is a comparative study of the foreign policies of the Caucasus states as new states toward the Russian Federation as the ex-imperial center. The purpose of the dissertation is to verify the relative significance of internal factors and level of external assistance in shaping the foreign policy of weak states. Therefore, the key theoretical contribution of the dissertation is to understand foreign policy change in weak states during their early years of independence. The newly independent Caucasus states are weak states. The most urgent problems facing these newly independent states following their independence were domestic ones. The time period covered is between 1991 and 1999, which in turn is divided into two sub-periods: 1991- 1995, the period of confusion and 1995 to 1999, the period of consolidation. This dissertation centers upon the explanation of two factors: the level of domestic strain of weak states and their relations to the external world. In short, both domestic and external factors influence the strength of the independent variables which in turn serve as the principal explanatory elements and determinant of the foreign policy-behavior of weak states. Therefore, the weak state foreign policy behavior is best explained based on the interaction of four different variables: the strength of the new state, the role of leadership or orientation of the leaders, type of threats and external support to the new states. Moreover, these states have three possible alternative relationship with the former imperial center: balancing, bandwagoning, and omnibalancing. Acknowledgments I owe a huge debt of gratitude to professors, friends, colleagues, and students for inspiring me and helping me complete this dissertation. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my dissertation supervisor, mentor, and Chair, Professor Allen C. Lynch, whose wise counsel, support and patience over the years was crucial to this work. I also greatly appreciate his encouragement in helping me to view my dissertation with a critical eye. I am very grateful to my Committee Members, Professors William B. Quandt, Michael Smith, and Yuri Urbanovich for their invaluable feedback and advice. I would also like to thank Professor Urbanovich and his wife Angelina for their moral support. They become my family in Charlottesville. I am also very grateful to Professor Vamik Volkan for both his moral support and wise advice in the process. I warmly thank my friends and colleagues at the University of Virginia, Karadeniz Technical University, Osh Technological University, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, American University of Central Asia, and International Ataturk Alatoo University (IAAU), for their support of me in this work over the years, including Professor Erol Oral, Rector of IAAU, Professor Hayati Aktas, Dr. Osman Kadi, Halim Nezihoglu, Ismail Soygenis, Dr. Umut Uzer, Yakup Asarkaya, Rasit Telbisoglu, Supad Ghose Kumar, Dr. Djalalidin Djenbaev, Talant Turdaliev, Nadira Myrzalieva, Ikbol Tashpolatov, and Steve On, among others. Particularly thanks are due to three friends without their assistance and moral support this dissertation would not have been completed: Seyit Ali Avcu, Sureyya Yigit and W. Scott Willis. They helped me at various times with their invaluable assistance and moral support. In summer 2008, I stayed two months at Professor William B. Quandt’s and Mrs. Helena Cobban’s home. Mrs. Cobban told me that she wrote four books on the desk on which I was working for my dissertation. I would like to thank them providing a quiet place of study. Hopefully, in the near future, my dissertation may turn into a book. Finally, my family sustained me through some very tough times. I am especially indebted to my parents, Emine and Mustafa Sari, my wife, Samara Turdalieva-Sari as well as my sister and brothers for their moral support and understanding. I would especially like to thank my parents and my wife, without whose loving encouragement, assistance, support and patience this dissertation would never have been finished. I apologize in advance for any inadvertent omission of anyone I should have acknowledged. Table of Contents A. Chapter I- Introduction 1 1. Subject 1 2. Definitions 3 3. Research Questions 17 4. Literature Review 21 5. Methodological Framework 46 6. Organization of Study 52 7. Boundaries of Subject 54 B. Chapter II- A Theoretical Framework for Weak States’ Foreign Policy 56 1. Introduction 56 2. Independent Variables 60 a. Weak State 60 b. Origins of Threats 68 c. External Assistance 71 d. Leaders 75 3. Dependent Variables 79 a. Balance of Power/Threat 80 b. Bandwagoning 81 c. Omnibalancing 83 4. Building a Theoretical Framework to Understand Foreign Policies of Weak States 85 a. Hypotheses and Arguments 90 5. Applying Foreign Policy Models to the Caucasus States 96 C. Chapter III- Foreign Policy-Making in the Caucasus 108 1. Introduction 108 2. The Caucasus: General 110 a. Strength of States 110 b. Threats 122 c. Leadership 124 d. External Influence 127 e. Conclusion 139 3. Armenia 142 a. Strength of State 142 b. Threats 151 c. Leadership 158 d. External Influence 162 e. Conclusion 168 4. Azerbaijan 171 a. Strength of State 171 b. Threats 179 c. Leadership 187 d. External Influence 194 e. Conclusion 204 5. Georgia 206 a. Strength of State 206 b. Threats 215 c. Leadership 221 d. External Influence 228 e. Conclusion 235 6. Conclusion 237 D. Chapter IV- Foreign Policy-Behavior in the Caucasus 241 1. Introduction 241 2. The Caucasus: General 245 3. Armenia 251 a. Foreign Policy Making Process 251 b. Leadership Perceptions on Foreign Policy 262 c. Armenia and Russia 274 d. Other Players 279 e. Conclusion 287 4. Azerbaijan 291 a. Foreign Policy Making Process 291 b. Leadership Perceptions on Foreign Policy 304 c. Azerbaijan and Russia 316 d. Other Players 323 e. Conclusion 336 5. Georgia 342 a. Foreign Policy Making Process 342 b. Leadership Perceptions on Foreign Policy 354 c. Georgia and Russia 363 d. Other Players 371 e. Conclusion 375 6. The Caucasus and Russia 378 7. Conclusion 390 E. Chapter V- Conclusion 395 F. Bibliography 411 Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Main Regional Energy Projects 1 Chapter I 1. Subject This is a comparative study of the foreign policies of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia toward the Russian Federation in an attempt to elucidate the sources of foreign policy-behavior of new, post-Soviet (and in effect post-imperial) states. The purpose of this dissertation is to determine the relative significance of internal factors in shaping foreign policy in ways that tend to be overlooked by mainstream theories of International Relations and Foreign Policy Analysis. In chapter I, I will define the conceptual parameters and the research borders and scope of my subject. In this dissertation, I will explain the behaviors of new state foreign policies as reflecting the interaction of four variables: the strength of the new state, the role of leadership or orientation of the leaders, type of threats and external support to the new states. I also argue that in focusing on their foreign policies, new states have three options when they deal with their former imperial center: balancing, bandwagoning, and omnibalancing. My cases are the relations between Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Republic of Georgia, considered as new states, with the Russian Federation, considered as a former imperial power, from 1991 to 1999. These relationships may be represented schematically as follows: Independent Variables Intervening Variable Dependent Variables Strength of State Role of Leader Type of Threats Foreign Policy-Behavior External Support (Balancing, Bandwagoning, and Omnibalancing) 2 There are three objectives of this dissertation. The primary objective is to reveal the sources of foreign policy-behavior of the Caucasus states and their relationships with Russia that established theories of international relations tend to overlook or neglect. The secondary objective is to pay attention to effects of state strength and the role of external powers on foreign policy-behavior of new states in the post-Soviet environment. The final and third objective is to understand the influence of leaders‘ orientations and type of threats on foreign policy-behavior. The major schools of international relations lack a coherent theoretical framework for understanding how and under what conditions these variables affect the foreign policies of the post-Soviet states. It is clearly impossible to understand fundamental patterns of post-Cold War world politics without understanding these three objectives in general. A closer analysis of Armenian-Russian, Azerbaijani-Russian and Georgian- Russian relations in the context of international relations theory allows us to approach a broader question: why do new states do what they do? Theoretical constructs serve the additional purpose of initiating a more systematic analysis of relationships between Russia and post-Soviet states in general. Toward this end, region-wide dependence on Moscow and the weaknesses of the new post-Soviet states relative to Russia make Armenian-Russian, Azerbaijani-Russian and Georgian-Russian relations a good starting point for a comparative argument. In sum, the primary focus of this dissertation is the foreign policy behaviors of the Caucasian states. A secondary focus is to explain why the post-Soviet states have different foreign policies.