CONFLICTS THAWING FROM WITHIN
By Sergei Balashov
Russia Profile
id=International&articleid=a1221063672
Sept 10 2008
Russia
The Cases of Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh Require Regional
Attention, First and Foremost
The recent crisis between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia has
created speculation over possible further eruptions over the "frozen
conflict" territories of the former Soviet Union, namely the regions
of Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. However, instead of continuing
the recent trend in conflict resolution, rather than seeing them as
a playground for grander, political pursuits between international
powers, the troubled regions of the CIS need a new localized approach
in solving their impending crises.
The war in South Ossetia and the recognition that followed of two
Georgian breakaway regions by Russia set one’s sights back on the
two remaining so-called "frozen conflict" republics in the CIS –
Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Despite the considerable diplomatic
efforts, it still seemed that the end of the crises was further away
than it was thought, once again shedding light on the insufficient
political mechanisms within the CIS. The odds of another flare-up are
not high, but the situation, which has been dragging on for almost two
decades, could be seriously harmed by further prolongation and made
more complicated by the growing tensions between Moscow and the West.
"When the Belavezh Accords were signed, I don’t think the heads of
the states who signed them thought of the legacy they were leaving
to the future independent states," said Tudor Sorochanu, a Moldavian
political scientist.
The new states were left to deal with their own problems alone, the
territorial disputes of which stood out as the most heated debates,
gravely tarnishing the relationships between the countries. South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, which were recognized by Russia in the end after
a brief military feud between Russia and Georgia, constitute only one
half of the breakaway regions on the CIS territory. The separatist
ambitions of the other two, Moldavia’s Transnistria and Azerbaijan’s
predominantly Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh (the latter regarded by Baku
as an Armenian-occupied territory), also caused bloody armed conflicts
in the late 1980s and early 1990s and have since been stalled amid
peace talks mediated by multiparty international organizations.
These cases, along with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, were dubbed
"frozen conflicts," a notion which lasted until August 2008 when the
war erupted in Ossetia, resulting in – with Russia’s assistance –
partial recognition of the de facto independent republics on the
international level.
The recent events have compelled the international community to treat
the two remaining troubled regions with more caution and speed up the
process of sealing up the chasms between the separatists and their
claimant governments to prevent any bloodshed.
Apart from Russia and Nicaragua, the Georgian breakaway regions were
almost immediately recognized by Transnistria; yet the reactions on
the streets of its capital city of Tiraspol were mixed.
"In view of the new events, some people in Transnistria think it’s
going to serve as a premise for their independence, yet the majority
believe that Russia will now have a desire to show that its views
are free of unipolarity and give the region away to Moldavia,"
said Sorochanu.
The conflicts surrounding the four troubled regions have one thing in
common – they all have resulted in military confrontations, sometimes
on more than one occasion. Now, following the war in Georgia, it is
widely assumed that any military solutions are out of the question.
"The Caucasus events prodded the international community to find
ways in resolving these situations, but now everyone is talking about
peaceful solutions," said Sorochanu. "That’s what Moldavia has always
wanted," he added.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has since met with both the President
of the unrecognized republic of Transnistria Igor Smirnov and Moldavian
President Petr Voronin, cautioning them not to resort to military
means in solving the crisis; in doing so, he virtually guaranteed
Tiraspol protection, should it share the fate of South Ossetia.
About 100,000 Russian citizens currently reside in Transnistria,
giving Moscow a pretext to respond to any military action, just
like in South Ossetia. After talks with Medvedev, Smirnov lifted
the moratorium on any talks with the Moldavian government which was
imposed as a result of Moldavia’s failure to condemn Georgia’s actions.
"I recently spoke to the Polish ambassador in Moldova, [Krzysztof
Suprovich]. He said that a positive resolution of the Transnistrian
crisis can serve as a good example for the EU in solving regional
crises," said Sorochanu.
The resumption of negotiations, as well as Moldavia’s willingness to
receive Russia’s support in bringing an end to an almost 20-year
dispute, is seen as a major step forward after the five party
negotiations between Transnistria, Moldavia, OSCE, Ukraine and Russia
were frozen in 2006. The talks between Voronin and Smirnov resumed only
in 2008, following the intervention of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis has been considered a more
distant prospect than the Transnistrian case and a more likely scene
for a military conflict to erupt.
The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh was eased when Turkey acted as
a mediator. With its close ties to Azerbaijan, Turkey could be very
efficient in making a positive impact in bringing the dialogue between
Baku and Yerevan closer in search of progress.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul made his first official visit to
Armenia in early September, marking a new beginning in the bilateral
relations between the two countries, which have been marred by issues
surrounding the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire and Armenia’s
feud with Azerbaijan. Gul held talks with Armenian and Azerbaijani
officials about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and urged Azerbaijan
to be more open to dialogue with Armenia.
"There is a difference between the Georgian republics and
Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria," said Alexei Vlasov, head of the
Moscow-based Center for Social and Political Processes in Post-Soviet
Countries. "Over the past four to five years, the conflict in
Georgia has been an issue between Russia and Georgia, and we see more
participants in both Transnistria and especially Nagorno-Karabakh."
The recent developments are seen as a positive, but an excessively
deep involvement of third parties could eventually hamper the progress.
"Non-regional players are becoming more and more active in their
attempts to draw Georgia and Azerbaijan into anti-Russian military
and political alliances; it is becoming clear that the multilateral
involvement policy that Moldavia and Azerbaijan are following will not
allow them to balance between Moscow and Washington for too long,"
Vlasov noted. "If the confrontation between Moscow and Washington
grows, I’m not sure Moldavia and Azerbaijan will be able to maintain
a balance; then the odds of the resolution of these conflicts will
diminish considerably," he added.
Moldavia and Azerbaijan, as well as Armenia, are members of the
CIS, a Russian-dominated international organization comprised of
post-Soviet countries. Over the past years, it has been seen as weak
and not doing enough to establish strong political ties between the
member countries, and has been regarded as a failure in terms of
setting up and maintaining mechanisms of resolving tensions on the
post-Soviet territory.
All these factors spark the necessity of seeking the involvement of
third parties which in the long term could complicate the situation,
rather than appease it.
"I am certain that the problems that occur between the former Soviet
republics should be solved within the CIS," said Azerbaijani political
scientist Rashad Rzakuliev. "Its functionality and significance
depend on Russia; as of today, this structure is absolutely amorphous,
it doesn’t work."
"We need straight rules for mutual relations in the CIS which should
be set by Russia," said Rzakuliev.