{"id":18995,"date":"2010-05-12T19:04:53","date_gmt":"2010-05-12T17:04:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.turkishforum.com.tr\/en\/content\/?p=18995"},"modified":"2023-04-04T23:58:12","modified_gmt":"2023-04-04T20:58:12","slug":"new-geopolitics-of-the-south-caucasus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/2010\/05\/12\/new-geopolitics-of-the-south-caucasus\/","title":{"rendered":"New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>Caucasian Review of International  Affairs<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>From Vol. 4 (2) &#8211; Spring  2010<\/em><\/p>\n<p>pp. 184-186<\/p>\n<p><strong>Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em> The article examines new trends and development in the South Caucasus. The author identifies five factors which  affect the foreign policy of regional countries as well as regional powers.  These factors are the Georgian-Russian war of 2008, the US-Russian  \u201creset\u201d, the global financial crisis, the political transformation in the  countries which have undergone \u201ccolor revolutions\u201d, and the Armenian-Turkish  rapprochement. The author believes that the change in the geopolitical layout of  the region will turn the countries of the South  Caucasus further from the West. At the same time, they are not going  to be fully embraced by Russia. A balancing act between the  US, EU and  Russia will be most likely their  policy choice. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Keywords: <\/em><\/strong><em>South Caucasus, geopolitics, US, Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,  Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>After the  collapse of the Soviet Union, the South  Caucasus region was opened up for the global market as well as  competition among global powers. The dominance of Russia which had lasted for 200 years was  questioned by new actors, primarily the United  States, Turkey and Iran. The South  Caucasus, with its vital links to the Black Sea, Central Asia and Middle East,  and its rich natural resources (primarily oil and gas in the Caspian Sea) became  a complex battleground aggravated by internal problems such as the war between  Armenia and  Azerbaijan due to territorial claims  of the former with regard to the latter\u2019s Nagorno-Karabakh region.<\/p>\n<p>While the  geopolitical conditions of the 1990s were defined internally by ethnic  conflicts, the creation of statehood, and the transition from communism to a  market economy, external factors were connected with the arrival of the new  powers \u2013 the US, EU,  Turkey, Iran on one side, and efforts by  Russia to maintain control on the  other. A wave of \u201ccolour revolutions\u201d in 2003-2005 further changed the political  landscape of the regional states and increased the possibility of ending Russian  influence in post-Soviet space. However, despite losing its influence in the  1990s, Russia, due largely to enormous  profits from oil, gained the momentum to strengthen its position by 2008.<\/p>\n<p><strong>New Geopolitical Factors<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The last three  years have brought forth a new set of conditions which is likely to affect the  states of the region and their foreign policy agenda. Domestically the states of  the region continued to suffer from ethnic conflicts, but they managed to build  viable statehood, and make progress on market reforms  with<\/p>\n<p>Azerbaijan as the leading economic power. However, internationally, five major  developments have been reshaping the region:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Georgian-Russian War,  2008<\/li>\n<li>US-Russian Reset,  2009<\/li>\n<li>Global Financial Crisis,  2009<\/li>\n<li>Decolourization of Colour  Revolutions, 2010<\/li>\n<li>Armenian-Turkish  Rapprochement and its impact on Azerbaijan-Turkey and Azerbaijan-US relations,  2009-2010<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>The Georgian-Russian War<\/em> had  adverse effects on the image of the West in the region. The verbal support from  the US, EU and NATO was not enough to  counter the Russian offensive. Russia showed assertively that it would resort to  force rather than yield its influence in the South  Caucasus. Accordingly, attempting to secure NATO membership by  regional countries has posed a direct threat to their sovereignty and  territorial integrity. Post-Soviet countries realized that Russia is still  a mighty power, and the West is not willing to confront her for the sake of  small post-Soviet states.<\/p>\n<p>Further,  <em>the<\/em> <em>US-Russian \u201creset\u201d<\/em> declared by the Obama  administration sent a clear message that relations with Russia are much  more significant for the American administration and its Western allies than  relations with other former communist states. However, many experts might not  agree with that conclusion as they point out that the West continues to boost  its relations with post-Soviet countries through the EU\u2019s new Eastern  Partnership initiative, NATO\u2019s Partnership for Peace program and other political  and economic channels, the treatment of US allies like Azerbaijan and Georgia in  regards to the April 2010 Washington Nuclear Security Summit speaks for itself.<\/p>\n<p>On the other  side, Russia\u2019s bold foreign policy in its  so-called \u201cnear abroad\u201d, in various political and economic manifestations, was  seriously damaged by the <em>global financial  crisis<\/em>. The Russian economy endured great losses which affected its  ability to sponsor its allies or show its influence as an economic power. Thus,  the former Soviet countries appreciated the importance of economic relations  with the West and the need for reform of their economies. Exclusive reliance on  Moscow proved to  be shaky. Even the new president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich, a staunch Russian  ally, paid his first foreign visit to Brussels, exhibiting the desire of the new  Ukrainian leadership to move closer to the West in terms of its economic  preferences.<\/p>\n<p>The victory of  Yanukovich in the latest elections in Ukraine changed the colour of the  2004 \u201cOrange Revolution\u201d which brought his predecessor, Viktor  Yushchenko, to power. A similar development took  place in Kyrgyzstan, which has recently seen  the overthrow of the victor of the \u201cTulip Revolution\u201d,  Kurmanbek_Bakiyev. Though it would be an overstatement  to assert the failure of the \u201ccolour revolutions\u201d &#8211; since the elections in  Ukraine manifested the democratic  changes in the country &#8211; nevertheless, we can speak about, at least, the  <em>decolourization or change of colour of past  revolutions. <\/em>The latest trend shows that post-Soviet countries cannot  be reformed quickly, and a change is not simply about the removal of one leader  for the sake of another. The process of democracy requires a profound  transformation of all layers of society, the gradual modification of political  and social institutions, and comes with generational  shifts.<\/p>\n<p>Last, but not  least, the South Caucasus is knotted in a web of territorial, ethnic and  identity conflicts, which have to be dealt in a complex manner. These problems  have a new buzz word &#8211; protocols. The desire of the Obama administration to  disconnect the <em>Turkish-Armenian  rapprochement<\/em> from the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has already  damaged the relations between Azerbaijan and the US and affected Azerbaijani-Turkish relations,  and might have an effect on energy projects between Azerbaijan and  the West. The disappointment in Azerbaijan regarding the US policy on the Turkish-Armenian protocol is not  only about the prospect of the resolution of the conflict with  Armenia \u2013 it is also about  disillusionment with Western democracy where powerful lobbies like the Armenian  Diaspora seriously affect the countries\u2019 decision making.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, it is  about a widening gap between Christians and Muslims, as almost every Western  news agency in its description of the Armenian-Azerbaijani-Turkish conflicts  emphasizes the religious affiliation of the relevant ethnic groups. However,  these conflicts have no religious connotations.<\/p>\n<p>For two decades  Azerbaijan has been conducting a  pro-Western foreign policy both politically and economically. Though subjected  to criticism on human rights, the country\u2019s leadership declares that it  envisions a better future but through gradual reformation and improving economic  well being, rejecting foreign recipes and revolutions.<\/p>\n<p>Over the last  decade the country has manifested more balancing acts by promoting better  relations with its immediate neighbours, first of all, with Russia and Iran.  Azerbaijan has concluded important  security and energy agreements with these countries. However, both countries \u2013  Russia and  Iran &#8211; have close links with  Armenia which outweigh their  relations with Azerbaijan. It is no accident that  during a trip to the occupied Azerbaijani territories in April 2010, the new  Russian mediator for the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict Igor Popov discussed with  Armenian separatists the possibility of constructing of a new airport in  Nagorno-Karabakh. The historical Russian-Armenian alliance will not be affected  by Russia\u2019s renewed interest  in Azerbaijan.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A number of the  above-mentioned factors and developments make a balanced foreign policy a viable  choice for regional states. The experience of post-Soviet countries  proved that blatant pro-Western or anti-Russian stances or vice versa (as the  Serbian experience taught us) does not produce positive results. This is a new reality of the geopolitics of the South Caucasus.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Fareed  Shafee<\/em><\/strong><em> holds master\u2019s  degrees from the School of History, and the School of Law of Baku State  University, Azerbaijan, and Kennedy School of Government of the Harvard  University, USA. His research interests include  conflict resolution and ethnic studies.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>URL:  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Caucasian Review of International Affairs From Vol. 4 (2) &#8211; Spring 2010 pp. 184-186 Abstract The article examines new trends and development in the South Caucasus. The author identifies five factors which affect the foreign policy of regional countries as well as regional powers. These factors are the Georgian-Russian war of 2008, the US-Russian \u201creset\u201d, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":83,"featured_media":783741,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[208],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-southerncaucasus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/83"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18995\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/783741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}