DOCSLIB.ORG

The End of the Cold War Has Led to a Transformation in Security Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The London School of Economics and Political Science Weaving Webs of Insecurity: Fear, Weakness and Power in the Post-Soviet South Caucasus Kevork Oskanian A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics and Political Science, London, September 2010 In Memory of Djanik Oskanian (1927-2007) 2 DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 3 ABSTRACT This thesis‟ central aim is the application of a Wendtian-constructivist expansion of Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) on a specific case study: the South Caucasus. To that effect, three concepts of RSCT – amity/enmity, state incoherence, and great power penetration – are expanded and developed within the broader above- mentioned ontological-epistemological framework. Amity-enmity is elaborated into an integrated spectrum founded on varying ideational patterns of securitisation alongside objective characteristics, and encompassing conflict formations, security regimes and security communities. States are conceptualised as ideational-institutional-material „providers of security‟; their incoherence is characterised over three tiers and two dimensions, leading to a distinction between vertical and horizontal inherent weakness, ostensible instability and failure. Great power penetration is dissected into its objective, subjective and intersubjective elements, resulting in a 1+3+1 typology of its recurring patterns: unipolar, multipolar-cooperative and multipolar-competitive, bounded by hegemony and disengagement. After the specification of a methodology incorporating both objective macro- and interpretive micro-perspectives, two working hypotheses are specified. Firstly, that state incoherence engenders high levels of regional enmity, and, secondly, that patterns of great power penetration primarily affect transitions of regional amity/enmity between conflict formations and security regimes. The framework is subsequently used to triangulate these hypotheses through an application of the theoretical framework on the post-Soviet Southern Caucasus. An initial macro- overview is subsequently provided of the Southern Caucasus as a regional security complex; the three expanded concepts are consequently investigated, in turn, from the discursive micro-perspective. The South Caucasus is categorised into a „revisionist conflict formation‟, the nature of its states‟ incoherence is characterised, and existing patterns of great power penetration are identified as competitive-multipolar. In the final chapter, the hypotheses are largely confirmed, and various scenarios as to the possible emergence of a regional security regime are investigated. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have been possible without the counsel and cooperation of scores of individuals who contributed their knowledge, constructive criticism, practical aid or emotional support to this endeavour. I would first of all like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Roy Allison and Prof. Barry Buzan, and my panellists, Dr. Jürgen Haacke and Prof. Chris Hughes for providing me with the irreplaceable empirical and theoretical directions on the long road towards completion. My appreciation also goes out to all those who assisted me during my fieldwork in Yerevan, Tbilisi and Sukhumi: Levon Chaushyan and Gohar Shahazizyan, Levon Ouzounian, Janna Davtyan, Melsida Akopyan and Artavazd Saretsian. I would also like to express my indebtedness to the faculty at the International Relations Department of the London School of Economics, who were indispensible in driving my intellectual growth during four crucial years of my life: in particular Prof. Mick Cox and Prof. Margot Light, for their role in leading the so-productive IR509 Research Design seminars; Prof. Kimberly Hutchings, Dr. George Lawson and Dr. Kirsten Ainley for their part in convening the always-inspirational IR502 Theory seminars; and Mr. Mark Hoffman for organising the ever-informative IR512 International Security workshops. I would also like to convey my appreciation for the irreplaceable work done by Mrs. Hilary Parker, without whom the day-to-day functioning of the LSE IR department would be, to put it mildly, far less straightforward. That same department is also owed appreciation for the funding provided towards the realisation of this project. As for my fellow travellers, especially those of the 2006 intake: the countless remarks in the methodology and theory seminars, the empirically significant lunch-time discussions on the 7th floor of Clement House, the friendly but theoretically profound chats at the post-seminar drinking sessions in The George IV will not be forgotten. My gratitude goes out to Manuel Almeida, Ana Alves, Adel Altoraifi, Gregorio Bettiza, Alexis Crow, Alex Edwards, Rebekka Friedman, Jasmine Gani, Ben Holland, Joe Hoover, Zeynep Kaya, Jorge Lasmar, Candice Moore, Ramon “Moncho” Pacheco- Pardo, Vassilis Paipais, Chris Phillips, Marco Pinfari, Henry Radice, Jeff Reeves, Meera Sabaratnam, Laust Schouenborg and Ee-Long Toh. 5 FRONT MATTER Geopolitical Map of the Caucasus 6 Timeline of Events in the South Caucasus 1988-2009 February 1988: Demonstrations demanding the Autonomous Region‟s reattachment to Armenia take place in Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh and Yerevan, Armenia; deadly anti-Armenian pogroms follow in Sumgait, Azerbaijan. June 1988: An open letter from sixty members of the Abkhaz intelligentsia accuses Georgia of a long-term policy of forcible assimilation June 1988: The harassment and expulsion of Azeris from Armenia escalates. April 1989: A massacre of pro-independence demonstrators by Red Army troops takes place in Tbilisi, Georgia. July 1989: Deadly clashes erupt in Sukhumi between ethnic Georgians and Abkhaz in reaction to a Georgian government decision to convert the Georgian-language section of Sukhumi State University into a branch of Tbilisi State University September 1989: „Ademon Nykhas‟, the South Ossetian nationalist movement, demands the reunification of the Autonomous Region with the North Ossetian Autonomous Republic, located in Russia. November 1989: The Supreme Soviet of South Ossetia demands that the Autonomous Region‟s status be upgraded to that of Autonomous Republic. The Supreme Soviet of the Georgian SSR affirms its right to secede from the USSR. Zviad Gamsakhurdia‟s „March on Tskinvali‟ results in armed clashes between Georgians and Ossetians. December 1989: The Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR includes Nagorno- Karabakh in its yearly budget, effectively annexing the territory. January 1990 (‘Black January’): Anti-Armenian pogroms and anti-Soviet demonstrations take place in Baku and are followed by a violent military crackdown. August 1990: A declaration of sovereignty is adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR. September 1990: The Supreme Soviet of South Ossetia declares the region a fully sovereign union republic of the USSR, in effect seceding from Georgia. October 1990: Parliamentary elections in Georgia -boycotted by most Abkhaz and Ossetians.- are won by Gamsakhurdia‟s Round Table–Free Georgia pro-independence bloc. December 1990: The Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan SSR adopts a declaration of sovereignty. January 1991: Georgian interior ministry troops enter Tskhinvali; armed conflict erupts in South Ossetia. March 1991: The all-union referendum on the preservation of a reformed USSR is boycotted by Armenia and Georgia. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Azerbaijan participate and overwhelmingly vote in favour of the union. April 1991: Georgia declares independence. May 1991: Zviad Gamsakhurdia is elected President of Georgia. 7 May 1991: „Operation Ring‟, involving Soviet and Azeri Interior Ministry troops, attempts to disarm Armenian militias in and around Nagorno-Karabakh; ethnic Armenian villagers from the neighbouring Shahumyan district are forcibly displaced. September 1991: Armenia declares independence. September 1991: Ayaz Mutalibov is elected President of Azerbaijan. October 1991: Levon Ter-Petrosyan is elected President of Armenia. October 1991: Azerbaijan declares independence. December 1991: Nagorno-Karabakh declares independence following a referendum among its ethnic Armenian inhabitants. December 1991: The USSR is formally dissolved. December 1991: Zviad Gamsakhurdia is ousted as president of Georgia, in a bloody military uprising. February 1992: Hundreds of Azeri civilians are massacred in the village of Khojali, within Nagorno-Karabakh, during an advance by Armenian troops. February 1992: The Georgian parliament abolishes the Soviet-era constitution in favour of the 1921 Georgian Democratic Republic‟s, provoking disquiet in Abkhazia. March 1992: Eduard Shevardnadze is appointed Acting Chairman of the Georgian State Council. May 1992: Sushi – Nagorno-Karabakh largest Azeri-inhabited town – falls to ethnic Armenian forces; the Lachin corridor between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia is created; following a military rebellion, Ayaz Mutalibov is succeeded as president of Azerbaijan by the Popular Front‟s Abufaz Elchibey; Azeri-Armenian armed clashes on the Nakhichevan border elicit threats and counter-threats
Recommended publications
  • Azerbaijan: the Burden of History – Waiting for Change

    Azerbaijan: the Burden of History – Waiting for Change

    2 Azerbaijan: The burden of history – waiting for change Arif Yunusov Young recruit guarding parliament in Baku PHOTO: ANNA MATVEEVA Summary Azerbaijan was not traditionally a nation with a strong ‘gun culture.’When conflict flared up in 1988 over Nagorno Karabakh, a largely Armenian-populated autonomous region which was demanding freedom from Azerbaijan, most people were unarmed. This paper traces the methods by which Azeris went about acquiring arms. This began on a small scale, as local paramilitary groups obtained weapons from wherever they could, in particular from Soviet military stores. As the conflict grew, however, both sides started to acquire larger quantities of SALW and heavy weaponry. When Azerbaijan became an independent state in October 1991, arms acquisition became a matter for the newly- founded armed forces. The country obtained a large quantity of arms through the division of Soviet military property in the South Caucasus, and further weapons were obtained through illicit purchases and seizures of Soviet weapons. Yet because of internal political disputes, Azerbaijan remained military weak, crime in the republic rose, and the country remained deeply unstable until Heydar Aliev came to power in 1993. Since a ceasefire was agreed in Nagorno Karabakh in 1994, the situation has stabilised and the state has largely succeeded in stemming SALW proliferation. The paper finishes by considering the current condition of the military and security sectors and recent political developments. 2 THE CAUCASUS: ARMED AND DIVIDED · AZERBAIJAN Small Arms and Until the start of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict in 1988 and the fall of the USSR in Light Weapons 1991 Azerbaijani attitudes towards the use of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in Soviet were closely linked to its people’s history and mentality.
  • Conspiracy of Peace: the Cold War, the International Peace Movement, and the Soviet Peace Campaign, 1946-1956

    Conspiracy of Peace: the Cold War, the International Peace Movement, and the Soviet Peace Campaign, 1946-1956

    The London School of Economics and Political Science Conspiracy of Peace: The Cold War, the International Peace Movement, and the Soviet Peace Campaign, 1946-1956 Vladimir Dobrenko A thesis submitted to the Department of International History of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, October 2015 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 90,957 words. Statement of conjoint work I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by John Clifton of www.proofreading247.co.uk/ I have followed the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, for referencing. 2 Abstract This thesis deals with the Soviet Union’s Peace Campaign during the first decade of the Cold War as it sought to establish the Iron Curtain. The thesis focuses on the primary institutions engaged in the Peace Campaign: the World Peace Council and the Soviet Peace Committee.
  • Spotlight on Azerbaijan

    Spotlight on Azerbaijan

    Spotlight on azerbaijan provides an in-depth but accessible analysis of the major challenges Azerbaijan faces regarding democratic development, rule of law, media freedom, property rights and a number of other key governance and human rights issues while examining the impact of its international relationships, the economy and the unresolved nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the domestic situation. it argues that UK, EU and Western engagement in Azerbaijan needs to go beyond energy diplomacy but that increased engagement must be matched by stronger pressure for reform. Edited by Adam hug (Foreign policy Centre) Spotlight on Azerbaijan contains contributions from leading Azerbaijan experts including: Vugar Bayramov (Centre for Economic and Social Development), Michelle Brady (American Bar Association Rule of law initiative), giorgi gogia (human Rights Watch), Vugar gojayev (human Rights house-Azerbaijan) , Jacqueline hale (oSi-EU), Rashid hajili (Media Rights institute), tabib huseynov, Monica Martinez (oSCE), Dr Katy pearce (University of Washington), Firdevs Robinson (FpC) and Denis Sammut (linKS). The Foreign Policy Centre Spotlight on Suite 11, Second floor 23-28 Penn Street London N1 5DL United Kingdom www.fpc.org.uk [email protected] aZERBaIJaN © Foreign Policy Centre 2011 Edited by adam Hug all rights reserved ISBN-13 978-1-905833-24-5 ISBN-10 1-905833-24-5 £4.95 Spotlight on Azerbaijan Edited by Adam Hug First published in May 2012 by The Foreign Policy Centre Suite 11, Second Floor, 23-28 Penn Street London N1 5DL www.fpc.org.uk [email protected] © Foreign Policy Centre 2012 All Rights Reserved ISBN 13: 978-1-905833-24-5 ISBN 10: 1-905833-24-5 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foreign Policy Centre.
  • Russia, Georgia and the Eu in Abkhazia and South Ossetia

    Russia, Georgia and the Eu in Abkhazia and South Ossetia

    PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: RUSSIA, GEORGIA AND THE EU IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA Iskra Kirova August 2012 Figueroa Press Los Angeles The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and cannot be interpreted to reflect the positions of organizations that the author is affiliated with. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: RUSSIA, GEORGIA AND THE EU IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA Iskra Kirova Published by FIGUEROA PRESS 840 Childs Way, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90089 Phone: (213) 743-4800 Fax: (213) 743-4804 www.figueroapress.com Figueroa Press is a division of the USC Bookstore Copyright © 2012 all rights reserved Notice of Rights All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author, care of Figueroa Press. Notice of Liability The information in this book is distributed on an “As is” basis, without warranty. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, neither the author nor Figueroa nor the USC Bookstore shall have any liability to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by any text contained in this book. Figueroa Press and the USC Bookstore are trademarks of the University of Southern California ISBN 13: 978-0-18-214016-9 ISBN 10: 0-18-214016-4 For general inquiries or to request additional copies of this paper please contact: USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School University of Southern California 3502 Watt Way, G4 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281 Tel: (213) 821-2078; Fax: (213) 821-0774 [email protected] www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy CPD Perspectives is a periodic publication by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, and highlights scholarship intended to stimulate critical thinking about the study and practice of public diplomacy.
  • 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.
  • ON the EFFECTIVE USE of PROXY WARFARE by Andrew Lewis Peek Baltimore, Maryland May 2021 © 2021 Andrew Peek All Rights Reserved

    ON the EFFECTIVE USE of PROXY WARFARE by Andrew Lewis Peek Baltimore, Maryland May 2021 © 2021 Andrew Peek All Rights Reserved

    ON THE EFFECTIVE USE OF PROXY WARFARE by Andrew Lewis Peek A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland May 2021 2021 Andrew Peek All rights reserved Abstract This dissertation asks a simple question: how are states most effectively conducting proxy warfare in the modern international system? It answers this question by conducting a comparative study of the sponsorship of proxy forces. It uses process tracing to examine five cases of proxy warfare and predicts that the differentiation in support for each proxy impacts their utility. In particular, it proposes that increasing the principal-agent distance between sponsors and proxies might correlate with strategic effectiveness. That is, the less directly a proxy is supported and controlled by a sponsor, the more effective the proxy becomes. Strategic effectiveness here is conceptualized as consisting of two key parts: a proxy’s operational capability and a sponsor’s plausible deniability. These should be in inverse relation to each other: the greater and more overt a sponsor’s support is to a proxy, the more capable – better armed, better trained – its proxies should be on the battlefield. However, this close support to such proxies should also make the sponsor’s influence less deniable, and thus incur strategic costs against both it and the proxy. These costs primarily consist of external balancing by rival states, the same way such states would balance against conventional aggression. Conversely, the more deniable such support is – the more indirect and less overt – the less balancing occurs.
  • Oxumaq Üçün Dəvət Olunmuş, 1961- Ci Ildə Isə Universitetdə Dil Və Ədəbiyyat Üzrə Aparıcı Mütəxəssis Kimi Fəaliyyətini Daha Da Genişləndirmişdir

    Oxumaq Üçün Dəvət Olunmuş, 1961- Ci Ildə Isə Universitetdə Dil Və Ədəbiyyat Üzrə Aparıcı Mütəxəssis Kimi Fəaliyyətini Daha Da Genişləndirmişdir

    Elmi redaktor: tarix elmləri doktoru, professor Musa QASIMLI Elnur MƏMMƏDLİ. Azərbaycan-Böyük Britaniya münasibətləri (1991-2003), Bakı, Adiloğlu, 2003. Kitab Azərbaycan Respublikasının müasir xarici siyasətinin əsas istiqamətlərindən olan Böyük Britaniya və Şimali İrlandiya Birləşmiş Krallığı ilə münasibətlərə həsr edilmişdir. Əsərdə A.zərbaycan və Böyük Britaniya əlaqələri tarixinə toxunulmuş, ikitərəfli siyasi, iqtisadi və humanitar münasibətlərin mövcud durumu v-> perspektivləri tədqiq olunmuşdur. Kitab .bevnalxalq münasiOətfer' uzrə mütəxəssislərə, o cümlədən ali məktəb müəllimləri, tələbələri və eeniş, oxucu kütləsi üçün nəzərdə tutulur. ,, 4719121574 ., M ---------------- sıtanşb 121-2003 © ELNUR MƏMMƏDLİ KİTABIN IÇINDƏKILƏR GİRİŞ .......................................................................................................... 5 BİRİNCİ FƏSİL AZƏRBAYCAN-İNGİLTƏRƏ ƏLAQƏLƏRİ TARİXİNDƏN ........................... 13 İKİNCİ FƏSİL AZƏRBAYCAN-BÖYÜK BRİTANİYA SİYASİ MÜNASİBƏTLƏRİ 2.1 İkitərəfli siyasi münasibətlərin qurulması və inkişafı ............... 21 2.2 Parlamentlərarası əlaqələr ......................................................... 37 2.3 Ermənistanın Azərbaycana qarşı hərbi təcavüzünə Birləşmiş Krallığın münasibəti ................................................. 45 ÜÇÜNCÜ FƏSİL AZƏRBAYCAN VƏ BÖYÜK BRİTANİYA ARASINDA İQTİSADİ VƏ HUMANİTAR MÜNASİBƏTLƏR 3.1 Energetika sahəsində əməkdaşlıq ............................................. 62 3.2 İqtisadiyyatın digər sahələrində əməkdaşlıq ............................
  • Failed Prevention 35

    Failed Prevention 35

    Table of Contents Foreword by the Editors 5 PART I: CONCEPTS IN CONFLICT PREVENTION 9 Concepts and Instruments in Conflict Prevention 11 Frida Möller PART II: CONFLICT DEVELOPMENT AND FAILED PREVENTION 35 The Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict 37 Sabine Fischer Missed Windows of Opportunity in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict – The Political Agenda of the Post-Revolutionary Saakashvili Government (2004-2006) 59 Doris Vogl Failures of the Conflict Transformation and Root Causes of the August War 79 Oksana Antonenko PART III: VIEWS FROM THE REGION 95 Frozen Conflicts: The Missed Opportunities 97 Salomé Zourabichvili Failure to Prevent Violence – Lessons Learnt from the Georgian- Abkhazian Conflict Resolution Process 113 Liana Kvarchelia Missed Chances in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict – A View from South Ossetia 131 Alan Parastaev 3 PART IV: THE INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE 139 OSCE Early Warning and the August Conflict in Georgia 141 Dov Lynch The Role of the United Nations in Abkhazia, Opportunities and Missed Opportunities between 1992 and 2009 151 Charlotte Hille United States’ and NATO’s Role in Georgia’s Territorial Conflicts August 1992-July 2008 169 Eugene Kogan Used & Missed Opportunities for Conflict Prevention in Georgia (1990-2008) – The Role of Russia 187 Markus Bernath Russia and South Ossetia: The Road to Sovereignty 207 Flemming Splidsboel Hansen PART V: CONCLUSIONS 235 Some Lessons Learnt in Conflict Prevention from the Conflicts in the Southern Caucasus 237 Predrag Jurekovi ć List of Authors and Editors 243 4 Foreword by the Editors The violent escalation of the Georgian/South Ossetian and Georgian/Abkhazian conflict in the summer of 2008 resulted in a significant deterioration of the regional security situation in this part of the Southern Caucasus.
  • £AZERBAIJAN @Allegations of Ill-Treatment in Detention

    £AZERBAIJAN @Allegations of Ill-Treatment in Detention

    £AZERBAIJAN @Allegations of ill-treatment in detention Introduction Amnesty International continues to receive allegations of ill-treatment of detainees by Azerbaijani law enforcement officials. In some cases it has been alleged that prisoners have been beaten in pre-trial detention in order to obtain confessions, and that family members of suspects in hiding have been beaten in an attempt to obtain information on their relatives’ whereabouts. In other cases it has been alleged that prisoners in ill-health have not received adequate medical treatment, and that at least two people died as a result of this over the last year. General conditions for many in pre-trial detention are also reported to be harsh, with overcrowding so severe in some prisons that inmates are forced to take it in turns to sleep while others in the cell stand. Restricted access by independent observers makes verification of these allegations difficult, and Amnesty International has had no response to its concerns about ill-treatment which have been raised on a number of occasions with the Azerbaijani authorities. Cases illustrating Amnesty International’s concerns are detailed below. They relate to political prisoners1, although Amnesty International is also concerned about other more general allegations about ill-treatment of criminal prisoners. Deaths in custody Shahmardan Mahammad oglu Jafarov Shahmardan (also known as Shahsultan ) Jafarov died in custody in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku during the night of 29 to 30 June 1995. A parliamentarian and a member of the opposition Popular Front of Azerbaijan (PFA), he had sustained serious gunshot wounds in a clash with police on 17 June 1995 near the village of Abragunis in the Julfa district of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (NAR).
  • Thomas De Waal the Caucasus

    Thomas De Waal the Caucasus

    THE CAUCASUS This page intentionally left blank THE CAUCASUS AN INTRODUCTION Thomas de Waal 1 2010 1 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offi ces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press 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 prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data de Waal, Thomas. The Caucasus : an introduction / Thomas de Waal. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-539976-9; 978-0-19-539977-6 (pbk.) 1. Caucasus Region—Politics and government. 2. Caucasus Region—History. 3. Caucasus Region—Relations—Russia. 4. Russia—Relations—Caucasus Region. 5. Caucasus Region—Relations—Soviet Union. 6. Soviet Union—Relations—Caucasus Region. I. Title. DK509.D33 2010 947.5—dc22 2009052376 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper To Zoe This page intentionally left blank Contents Introduction 1 1.
  • The Centrality of Elites

    The Centrality of Elites

    The Centrality of Elites FREDO ARIAS-KING n the 1970s, a doctoral student in the economics department at Harvard could I not understand a case study in which two aluminum factories with the same assets produced different outputs. "The tools to understand this were completely absent in the economics profession," he mentioned later. His professor suggested that he might find the answer across the river at the business school, which he did. The main rea- son for the discrepancy turned out to be the management of the enterprises. Although it never claimed to be a science, not even a dismal one, the Sovi- etological profession has suffered from similar shortcomings, such as an inabili- ty to predict the imminent collapse of the USSR. Likewise, the debate on the rea- sons for the successes and failures ^of the postcommunist transitions at the time also seems to be deficient. As economics has, since the 1970s, learned much from management studies, so too should our profession. Renowned management guru Peter Drucker has noted that psychology is a central ingredient in management studies and in the management of corporations. The personality traits of the man- agers are routinely taken into account. Sovietology, transitology, and more specif- ically, political science and diplomacy should consider doing what has been obvi- ous to journalists and other casual observers of the East-Central European transitions and emphasize more the personal background and motivations of the leaders.' This could go a long way in explaining those transitions and the per- formance of their governments. It could provide a framework to explain not only what happened in the last thirteen years but also what might happen when Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Turkrnenistan, and others begin their political and economic transitions.
  • The Forest Industry Around the Baltic Sea Region: Future Challenges and Opportunities

    The Forest Industry Around the Baltic Sea Region: Future Challenges and Opportunities

    BSR Policy Briefing series 1/2020 The forest industry around the Baltic Sea region: Future challenges and opportunities Edited by Kari Liuhto CENTRUM BALTICUM Centrum Balticum Foundation reserves all the rights of this publication. ISSN: 2342-3153 Contents Authors 3 Introduction 8 Kari Liuhto Keynote articles Can sustainable forests save the world? 9 Sirpa Pietikäinen Sustainable forest management in the EU 11 Mihail Dumitru Climate change and digitalization driving transition of Finnish forest sector 13 Jari Partanen Articles The outlook for Nordic-Baltic forest bioeconomy to 2030 14 Lauri Hetemäki State Forests in the Baltic Sea Region: Where experience meets challenges and future 25 opportunities Amila Meskin and Piotr Borkowski Social and economic importance of the forestry and wood sector in Poland 36 Piotr Gołos and Jacek Hilszczański Forest industry in Northwest Russia 49 Sari Karvinen The forest sector in the Baltic States: A united, growth-oriented economic ecosystem 59 Kristaps Klauss Breakthrough or digression of forest industries: Challenges and potentials of future 69 Henrik Välja Rules-based international trade and Finnish forest industry 74 Eeva Korolainen Forest bioeconomy education and research at the University of Eastern Finland 83 Jyrki Kangas, Teppo Hujala and Sari Pitkänen Earlier publications in the BSR Policy Briefing series 90 Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article represent those of the author and do not represent the opinion of the Centrum Balticum Foundation, and thus, the Centrum Balticum Foundation does not bear any responsibility for the opinions expressed in the report. Authors Piotr Borkowski Piotr Borkowski, Executive Director at EUSTAFOR, graduated in Forest management from the Forestry Faculty at Warsaw Agricultural University – Central School of Farming, Mr.