DOCSLIB.ORG

Hate, Fear and Neo-Imperialism a Research Into the Failure of the Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hate, Fear and Neo-Imperialism a Research Into the Failure of the Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process Hate, Fear and Neo-Imperialism A research into the failure of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process Master Thesis in International Relations: Global Conflict in the Modern Era Leiden University By Maurits Foorthuis S1263498 Supervisor: Dr. L. Milevski June 29th, 2018 Word count: 14,960 words “The only solution to the conflict would be if we could invent a medicine that would kill all Azeris” - Artur, taxi driver in Yerevan, January 2018 2 Table of contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Literature review………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 Theoretical framework……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Timeframe 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 Timeframe 2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..25 Timeframe 3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31 Timeframe 4……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..37 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………42 Appendix 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..44 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45 3 Introduction Nagorno-Karabakh is an autonomous province in Azerbaijan of which, up until 1988, the majority of inhabitants was Armenian. During the Soviet period, the Christian Armenians felt discriminated against by the Muslim Azeri’s, and as such, in 1988, they demanded permission to the Azeri Soviet authorities to merge with the Armenian Soviet Republic. The Azeri authorities refused, which led to demonstrations and clashes in the fertile province of Nagorno-Karabakh. The clashes escalated into a full-scale war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1991, resulting in Armenia occupying most of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as parts of its neighboring provinces. Currently, Armenia occupies around twenty percent of Azeri territory (Brown, 2002: 67). Nagorno-Karabakh has declared itself independent as the ‘Republic of Artsakh’, however it operates de-facto as an Armenian autonomous province. Throughout the history of the conflict, Russia has operated as a mediator between the fighting parties, successfully resulting in a ceasefire reached in 1994. The ceasefire froze the conflict, but despite various mediation efforts, the conflict remains frozen today. However, despite the ceasefire, minor clashes erupt between the Armenian-backed armed forces of Nagorno- Karabakh and the Azeri army on almost a monthly basis (The Economist, 2013). In April 2016, these clashes escalated into a four-day war, resulting in dozens of casualties on both sides of the conflict, both soldiers and citizens (The Economist, 2016). As it was the case in 1994, in 2016 it was again Russia who managed to broker a ceasefire. However, despite repeated diplomatic interventions, Russia has failed to create a lasting sustainable peace between the two nations. Azerbaijan and Armenia have, despite participating in several peace negotiations with each other, not been able to reach a sustainable peace agreement either. Throughout the course of the conflict, there have been several important peace conferences in which both countries participated. The most important peace conference took place in 2001 in Key West, Florida. However, none of these conferences have led to any significant change in the status quo of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This master thesis will examine why that is so, looking both at local actors as well as at Russian interests in the region. The research question of this master thesis will be: “In what way has a peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict been obstructed by local actors and/or by Russia’s lasting influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan?” 4 Russia’s influence in the southern Caucasus will be examined with the help of neo-imperialism. In order to examine the level of obstruction by local actors, the symbolic politics approach will be used. The local actors that will be researched in this master thesis will be Armenia, Azerbaijan and the unofficial government of the so-called ‘Republic of Artsakh’. The scope of this master thesis is limited to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its impact on Armenia and Azerbaijan from 1988 to 2016. 5 Literature review The question ‘In what way has a peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict been obstructed by local actors and/or by Russia’s lasting influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan?’ can be answered in different ways. There is a debate going on amongst scholars about whether it is mainly the Kremlin who obstructs and obstructed a peaceful solution to the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict, or whether it is mostly local populations, governments and elites who are the obstructers. In order to examine the different points of view in this debate, a literature review of the debate will be conducted. This literature review will be grouped according to the two different stances in the debate. First, literature from scholars who believe that Russia is the main obstructer of a peaceful solution will be reviewed. In the second part of this literature review, scholars who believe that it is mainly local actors who are to blame for the obstruction of a peaceful solution to the conflict will be reviewed. One answer to the research question would be that Russia is obstructing a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, for it is not “genuinely interested in a resolution” of the conflict (Nixey, 2012: 4). James Nixey argues that the mediation efforts as made by Russia are meant to increase Russian leverage over Armenia and Azerbaijan, not to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict. Nixey uses the fact that Russia refuses to install an international peacekeeping mission in Karabakh, and instead opts for installing a Russian peacekeeping mission, as an argument to support his claim. He argues that Russia wants to install Russian troops in Nagorno-Karabakh in order to increase its influence in the region. Nixey draws the conclusion that Russia is interested in maintaining the current status quo. Furthermore, he argues that Russia is not interested in an escalation of the conflict due to its interests and investments in the region. British professor Mary Kaldor describes in a book on oil wars how, during the Azeri-Armenian war from 1988 to 1994, Russia was very involved in the conflict. She describes how Russia was supporting the Armenian army while at the same time was setting up Azeri brigades in order to fight in Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, she describes how Russia set up self defence forces, which included Russian mercenaries (Kaldor et al., 2007: 170). Kaldor argues that the conflict was likely “manipulated for political purposes” (Ibid: 172). She describes how in Azerbaijan, radical anti-Russian nationalists were defeated and replaced by pro-Russian communists as a result of the conflict. When the pro-Russian government was installed, 6 Azerbaijan joined the Commonwealth of Independent States. Kaldor argues that Russia obstructed all the peacekeeping efforts in order to maintain their influence in the region. A second motivation for Russia to obstruct a peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is, according to Kaldor, the Azeri (conflict-related) blockade of Armenia. The blockade makes Armenia very dependent on Russia, which is in the interest of Russia. The main reason as to why the conflict has not been resolved yet, Kaldor argues, is because Armenia and Azerbaijan are rentier states. Armenia is very dependent on the Armenian diaspora in both Russia and the USA. Azerbaijan on the other hand is very dependent on the oil market. Since Russia has a great influence on this market, it gives Moscow leverage over the country. Furthermore, both Armenia and Azerbaijan are very dependent on Russian military assistance, giving Russia all the more reasons to obstruct the peace process in Nagorno-Karabakh. Nona Mikhelidze argues that Russia maintains a “stable instability” in Nagorno-Karabakh and exploits the conflict to maintain its influence (Mikhelidze, 2010). On Russian influence in the Caucasus, Alexander Mansourov argues that Russia’s foreign policy under president Putin can be explained with the help of neo-imperialism (Mansourov, 2005: 151). According to Mansourov, Russia makes use of the divide-and-rule tactics in order to “undermine the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors and to solidify imperial control over the former Soviet lands” (Ibid: 160). A second group of scholars argue that it is not Russia who is obstructing the peace process in Nagorno-Karabakh. According to these scholars, local elements are responsible for the continuation of the conflict. Thomas de Waal, arguably the most prominent scholar on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, seems to think this is the case. When in April 2016 the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict erupted once again, Western leaders blamed Russia for provoking the conflict. De Waal however very much doubts that Russia was responsible for the April 2016 war (New York Times, 2016). He argues that Armenia and Azerbaijan were to blame for the recent outbreaks of violence, not Russia. According to De Waal, it is mainly Azerbaijan who breaks the ceasefire, for it is very much unsatisfied with the status quo. De Waal also emphasized that the Kremlin recently came up with a new peace plan to solve the ongoing conflict. The significance of the Russian peacekeeping efforts is something that is also emphasized by Yoko Hirose and Grazvydas Jasutis. Both authors argue that, although the conflict might not 7 have frozen without the ceasefire agreement negotiated by Russia in 1994,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ambassador Rudolf V. Perina
    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project AMBASSADOR RUDOLF V. PERINA Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Interview Date: December, 2006 Copyright 200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Born in zechoslovakia, raised in Morocco, Switzerland, and the United States University of hicago, olumbia University Foreign Area Fellowship, Munich, (ermany 1970,1972 Marriage .ntered the Foreign Service in 1974 Ottawa, anada0 1otation Officer 1974,1972 Solzhenitsyn visa case 1elations .nvironment State Department0 .uropean Bureau, Military,Political Officer 1972,1978 NATO onference on Security and ooperation in .urope 5 S .6 Belgrade Meeting US and Soviets on Human 1ights Helsinki Final Act 1efuseniks State Department, FSI8 1ussian language training 1978,1979 Moscow, Soviet Union0 Political Officer, .9ternal 1979,1981 Soviet military activities Soviet Afghanistan invasion 1elations Soviets and uba US boycott of Soviet Olympics Sino,Soviet split Harassment Living environment Poland Berlin, (ermany8 Protocol/ Senate Liaison Officer 1981,1985 1 Liaison with Soviets on Berlin Polish aircraft hijackings US Strategic Defense Initiative 1elations with US .ast Berlin .mbassy Terrorist gangs Brussels, Belgium8 NATO Political Officer and Deputy 1985,1987 Political ommittee Nuclear and Space talks Sharing with Soviets SDI and INF deployment National Security ouncil, Soviet issues 1987,1989 Iran ontra fallout 1eagan's "tear down the wall" speech Views on Soviet collapse 1eagan's Moscow visit 1eagan and (orbachev 1omania visit onference on Security and ooperation in .urope 5 S .6 1989 London Information Forum Paris onference on Human Dimension Vienna, Austria0 Deputy Head of US delegation to S .. 1989,1992 Negotiations on onventional Forces in .urope 5 F.6 NATO and Aarsaw Pact Forces Negotiations with Soviets (ermany reunified .uropean Union/US relations The French 1ussians Aarsaw Pact disintegration (ermany and NATO .astern vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael S. Gorham P
    Michael S. Gorham P. O. Box 115565 Gainesville, Florida 32611-5565 USA Phone: 352-273-3786 E-Mail: [email protected] Homepage: http://people.clas.ufl.edu/mgorham Last updated: May 2021 EMPLOYMENT Full-time Positions 2015–present Professor of Russian Studies, Dept. of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Florida 2017–2019 University of Florida Term Professor of Russian Studies, Dept. of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Florida 2014-2015 Robin and Jean Gibson Term Professor, Dept. of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Florida 2003-2015 Associate Professor of Russian Studies, Dept. of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Florida 1996-2005 Assistant Professor of Russian Studies, Dept. of Germanic and Slavic Studies, University of Florida Visiting Appointments 2013 Visiting Research Fellow, Uppsala Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University, Sweden 2010 Visiting Professor, Department of Slavic Literature and Culture, University of Passau, Germany 2008 Visiting Research Fellow, Department of Foreign Languages, University of Bergen, Norway Editorships 2007-2019 Associate Editor, The Russian Review. (top-tier journal producing 4 issues annually, with international area-studies readership). Primary responsibility for soliciting and vetting manuscripts in Literature (all areas) and Cultural Studies. 2005-2017 Associate Editor, Russian Language Journal. (1 issue annually, with international readership in all areas of Russian language scholarship). Primary responsibility for book reviews and (through to 2014) soliciting and vetting manuscripts in Language Culture, Sociolinguistics, and Language Ideologies. Consulting 2011-present Specialist on the Russian Internet and new media technologies for Oxford Analytica Daily Brief. EDUCATION 1994 Ph.D., Stanford University, Slavic Languages and Literatures 1988 M.A., Bryn Mawr College, Russian Language and Literature 1985 B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiations on Nagorno-Karabagh: Where Do We Go from Here?
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT Caspian Studies Program Negotiations on Nagorno-Karabagh: Where Do We Go From Here? April 23, 2001 Caspian Studies Program, Harvard University Summary and Transcript From a Panel Discussion with: Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, U.S. Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabagh and NIS Regional Conflicts, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Professor Hamlet Isaxanli, President of Khazar University, Baku Professor Ronald Suny, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago Chair: Dr. Brenda Shaffer, Research Director of the Caspian Studies Program PREFACE At the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, we have been following the Nagorno-Karabagh peace process with great interest and have been encouraged by significant signs of progress this spring. Following the April 3-7 negotiations convened in Key West, Florida by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Caspian Studies Program organized a special panel discussion entitled “Negotiations on Nagorno-Karabagh: Where Do We Go From here?” on April 23, 2001 in Cambridge. Dr. Brenda Shaffer, Research Director at the Caspian Studies Program, moderated the panel which included Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, U.S. Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabagh and NIS Regional Conflicts and OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair; Professor Hamlet Isaxanli, President of Khazar University in Baku; and Professor Ronald Suny, Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. The panelists discussed the progress made at Key West, the prospects for peace moving forward, and the challenges to establishing lasting peace in the region. More than one hundred researchers, graduate students, current and former U.S., Azerbaijani, and Armenian government officials, journalists, and other members of the Harvard community attended the panel and engaged the panelists in a rich and lively discussion after their presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 ...The Khojaly Massacre Is a Bloody Episode. It Is a Continuation of The
    ...The Khojaly massacre is a bloody episode. It is a continuation of the ethnic cleansing and genocide policies that the Armenian chauvinist-nationalists have been progressively carrying out against the Azerbaijanis for approximately 200 years. These accursed policies, supported by the authorities of some states, were constantly pursued by Tsarist Russia and the Soviets. After the demise of the USSR these policies led to the displacement of Azerbaijanis from their homelands, exposing them to suffering on a massive scale. In all, two million Azerbaijanis have at various times felt the weight of the policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide pursued by aggressive Armenian nationalists and stupid ideologues of "Greater Armenia". ...Today the Government of Azerbaijan and its people must bring the truth about the Khojaly genocide and all the Armenian atrocities in Nagorny Karabakh, their scale and brutality, to the countries of the world, their parliaments and the public at large and achieve the recognition of these atrocities as an act of genocide. This is the humane duty of every citizen before the spirits of the Khojaly martyrs. An international legal and political assessment of the tragedy and proper punishment of the ideologues, organizers and executors are important in order to avoid in future such barbarous acts against humanity as a whole... Heydar Aliyev President of the Republic of Azerbaijan 25 February 2002 1 Background 7 Mass Media 13 The Washington Post, The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Times, The Washington Times, The New
    [Show full text]
  • The South Caucasus 2018
    THE SOUTH CAUCASUS 2018 FACTS, TRENDS, FUTURE SCENARIOS Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) is a political foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany. Democracy, peace and justice are the basic principles underlying the activities of KAS at home as well as abroad. The Foundation’s Regional Program South Caucasus conducts projects aiming at: Strengthening democratization processes, Promoting political participation of the people, Supporting social justice and sustainable economic development, Promoting peaceful conflict resolution, Supporting the region’s rapprochement with European structures. All rights reserved. Printed in Georgia. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Regional Program South Caucasus Akhvlediani Aghmarti 9a 0103 Tbilisi, Georgia www.kas.de/kaukasus Disclaimer The papers in this volume reflect the personal opinions of the authors and not those of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation or any other organizations, including the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. ISBN 978-9941-0-5882-0 © Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V 2013 Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER I POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION: SHADOWS OF THE PAST, FACTS AND ANTICIPATIONS The Political Dimension: Armenian Perspective By Richard Giragosian .................................................................................................. 9 The Influence Level of External Factors on the Political Transformations in Azerbaijan since Independence By Rovshan Ibrahimov
    [Show full text]
  • Sumgait Pogrom
    Sumgait pogrom The Sumgait pogrom was a pogrom that targeted the Armenian population of the seaside town of Sumgait in Soviet Azerbaijan in late February 1988. The pogrom took place during the early stages of the Karabakh movement. On February 27, 1988, mobs made up largely of ethnic Azerbaijanis formed into groups and attacked and killed Armenians on the streets and in their apartments; widespread looting and a general lack of concern from police officers allowed the situation to continue for three days. On February 28, a small contingent of Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) troops entered the city and unsuccessfully attempted to quell the rioting. They were followed by more professional military units entered with tanks and armored personnel vehicles one day later. Government forces imposed a state of martial law and curfew and brought the crisis to an end. The official death toll released by the Prosecutor General of the USSR (tallies were compiled based on lists of named victims) was 32 people (26 Armenians and 6 Azerbaijanis), although some have revised this figure up into the tens and hundreds. The civil violence in Sumgait were unprecedented in scope and were widely covered in the Western press. It was greeted with general astonishment in Armenia and the rest of the Soviet Union since ethnic feuds in the country were largely suppressed by the government, which had promoted policies such as internationalism, fraternity of peoples, and socialist patriotism to avert such conflicts. The massacre, together with the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict, would present a major challenge to the reforms being implemented by then General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Violence in the Former Soviet Union Richard H
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2011 Ethnic Violence in the Former Soviet Union Richard H. Hawley Jr. (Richard Howard) Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES ETHNIC VIOLENCE IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION By RICHARD H. HAWLEY, JR. A Dissertation submitted to the Political Science Department in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2011 Richard H. Hawley, Jr. defended this dissertation on August 26, 2011. The members of the supervisory committee were: Heemin Kim Professor Directing Dissertation Jonathan Grant University Representative Dale Smith Committee Member Charles Barrilleaux Committee Member Lee Metcalf Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii To my father, Richard H. Hawley, Sr. and To my mother, Catherine S. Hawley (in loving memory) iii AKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who made this dissertation possible, and I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all of them. Above all, I thank my committee chair, Dr. Heemin Kim, for his understanding, patience, guidance, and comments. Next, I extend my appreciation to Dr. Dale Smith, a committee member and department chair, for his encouragement to me throughout all of my years as a doctoral student at the Florida State University. I am grateful for the support and feedback of my other committee members, namely Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Karabakh Conflict in Selected German Media, 1988–2008
    Eva-Maria Auch (ed.) The Karabakh Conflict in Selected German Media, 1988–2008 A research paper This project was conducted by the Caucasian-European Association for Culture and Science r. A. in cooperation with the Foundation Professorship for the History of Azerbaijan at the Humboldt University Berlin. It was sponsored by the Council on State Support to Non-Governmental Organizations under the Auspices of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. KaukA uro sia E Caucasian-European Association for Culture and Science Bibliographical information from the German National Library: This publication is listed in the German National Bibliography by the German National Library. Detailed bibliographical information is available online under http://www.d-nb.de. Auch, Eva-Maria (ed.): The Karabakh conflict in selected German media 1988-2008: a research paper. Berlin 2015 This work, in all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Its usage and diffusion by unauthorised third parties in all printed, audio-visual and sound media is prohibited. © 2015 EuroKaukAsia e.V. All rights reserved Editor: Hasan-Ali Yıldırım Translation into English: Matthew Allen Print and binding: Humboldt University Berlin ISBN 978-3-9814384-4-5 Contents Foreword 5 1 . Research object and methods 7 1.1 Data sources – on the choice of newspapers 13 1.2 Research questions – time-span of investigation – methods of research 16 1.3 Coding 23 2. Results of the quantitative analysis 26 2.1 Der Spiegel 28 2.2 Die Zeit 30 2.3 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 31 2.4 Neues Deutschland 38 3. Qualitative analysis 43 3.1 Reporting in Der Spiegel 43 3.2 Coverage in Die Zeit 62 3.3 Reporting in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 70 3.4 Coverage in Neues Deutschland 83 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Monuments and Memory: the Remediation and the Visual Appropriations of the Mother Armenia Statue on Instagram During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War
    Monuments and Memory: The Remediation and the Visual Appropriations of the Mother Armenia Statue on Instagram During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War Lala Mouradian A Thesis in The Department of Communication Studies Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (Media Studies) at Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada April 2021 © Lala Mouradian, 2021 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY School of Graduate Studies This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Lala Mouradian Entitled: Monuments and Memory: The Remediation and the Visual Appropriations of the Mother Armenia Statue on Instagram During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Media Studies) complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality. Signed by the final examining committee: ______________________________________Chair Dr. Jeremy Stolow ______________________________________ Examiner Dr. Stefanie Duguay ______________________________________ Examiner Dr. Jeremy Stolow ______________________________________ Supervisor Dr. Monika Gagnon Approved by________________________________________________ Dr. Monika Gagnon Chair of Department ________________________________________________ Dr. Pascale Sicotte Dean of Faculty Date: April 9, 2021 Abstract Monuments and Memory: The Remediation and the Visual Appropriations of the Mother Armenia Statue on Instagram During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War Lala Mouradian This thesis analyzes the remediation and the visual appropriations of the Mother Armenia statue on Instagram during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. The Mother Armenia statue was erected in 1967 in Armenia’s capital city of Yerevan as a female personification of Armenia. Its meaning and symbolism have been reworked during different collective crises for the Armenian nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2018 1 CONCILIATION RESOURCES ANNUAL REPORT MAKING PEACE POSSIBLE 2018 2 Conciliationconciliation Resourcesresources
    Annual Report 2018 1 CONCILIATION RESOURCES ANNUAL REPORT MAKING PEACE POSSIBLE 2018 2 ConciliationConciliation ResourcesResources Conflict is difficult, complex and ABOUT political. There are no easy solutions for resolving conflict peacefully. CONCILIATION So, the world urgently needs to RESOURCES find different ways to respond. Conciliation Resources is an international organisation committed to stopping violent conflict and creating more peaceful societies. We work with people impacted by war and violence, bringing diverse voices together to make change that lasts. Working across society, we connect community perspectives with political dialogue. Learning from peace processes around the world, we share experience and expertise to find creative solutions to violent conflict. We make peace possible. OUR VISION Our vision is to transform the way the world resolves violent conflict so that people work together to build peaceful and inclusive societies. OUR PURPOSE Our purpose is to bring people together to find creative and sustainable paths to peace. OUR VALUES Collaboration we work in partnership to tackle violence, exclusion, injustice and inequality. Creativity we are imaginative and resourceful in how we influence change. Challenge we are not afraid to face difficult conversations and defy convention. Commitment we are dedicated and resilient in the long journey Cover Image to lasting peace. People from the Somali Regional State gather at a conference © Conciliation Resources Annual Report 2018 3 WELCOME DAVID DONOGHUE JONATHAN COHEN Chair of the Board Executive Director The Irish poet, W. B. Yeats, observed in Peacebuilding presents the challenge of a famous line of verse that ‘peace comes navigating waves of optimism and pessimism: dropping slow’.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter from Friends of Georgia on the Current Political Crisis
    Open Letter from Friends of Georgia on the Current Political Crisis We, the undersigned, consider ourselves Friends of Georgia, who have long admired the resilience of the Georgian people in the face of adversity throughout Georgia’s history; their staunch determination to maintain Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity; and their commitment to democratic values. We have supported Georgia’s aspirations and positive steps for Euro-Atlantic and European integration and have strongly advocated within our own organizations or governments for practical and political support towards that end. We also have not shied away from offering constructive criticism when called for. We are therefore deeply concerned by recent political developments in Georgia, including the decision by Georgian authorities to storm the headquarters of the leading opposition party and arrest its leader. Failure to release him will make impossible the resolution of the ongoing impasse over last year’s elections, which has resulted in the opposition’s boycott of the parliament. A one-party parliament is not a sign of a healthy democracy. Not only do these developments hold up progress on tackling the pressing issues of security, the economy, and, in the time of the global pandemic, health, but they also damage the international image and reputation of Georgia as a stable partner in the region, and committed to the values underpinning the Euro-Atlantic community. Only those in Moscow who do not mean Georgia well are pleased by these developments. We come from countries whose own democracies are also being challenged with moments of high political tension and polarization, when our institutions are tested, and our actions fall short of our ideals.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict
    Order Code IB92109 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict Updated December 4, 2001 Carol Migdalovitz Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS History Warfare Peace Process A Cease-fire Took Effect on May 12, 1994 Armenian Perspective Azerbaijani Perspective Roles and Views of Others Iran Turkey Russia/CIS U.S. Policy Executive Branch Congress Public LEGISLATION IB92109 12-04-01 Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict SUMMARY A clash between the principles of ble issues include Armenian withdrawal from territorial integrity and self-determination is Azeri territory, the Lachin corridor between occurring in the Caucasus, creating the longest Armenia and Karabakh, peacekeepers, and, interethnic dispute in the former Soviet Union. most of all, Karabakh’s status. In December Armenians of the Nagorno Karabakh region, 1996, an OSCE Chairman’s statement, sup- part of Azerbaijan since 1923, seek ported by all members except Armenia, re- independence. Armenians comprised the ferred to Azeri territorial integrity as a basis majority in Karabakh and have a different for a settlement. Armenian President Ter culture, religion, and language than Azeris. Petrosyan’s acceptance of May 1997 Minsk Azerbaijan seeks to preserve its national integ- Group proposals led to his downfall in Febru- rity. The dispute has been characterized by ary 1998. violence, mutual expulsion of rival nationals, charges and countercharges. After the Decem- In November 1998, the Minsk Group’s ber 1991 demise of the Soviet Union and new proposal took Armenian views more into subsequent dispersal of sophisticated Soviet account.
    [Show full text]