Tbilisi: Which Platform Is Acceptable To The South Caucasus?

WHICH PLATFORM IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOUTH CAUCASUS?

Daily Georgian Times
2008.10.13 19:28
Georgia

New formulas for resolving the Caucasus conflicts are widely reviewed

Russians met with understanding the "Platform of Stability and
Cooperation in the Caucasus," which was presented in Ankara. Russia
considers it reasonable to hold dialogue in Baku and Tbilisi. The EU
and the USA shared this initiative of Turkish authorities. Ahmadinejad,
President of Iran, came up with the initiative in the profile for
resolving conflicts in the Caucasus. He regarded the 3 + 2 plan
suggested by the Turkish party as flawed since this plan implies
three South Caucasus republics, plus Turkey and Russia. Officials
in Teheran consider that the plan of establishing stability in the
Caucasus would be much closer to current geopolitical reality if Iran
were represented in it as well.

The article published in Georgian Times in late 2007 reviewed the
problem of resolving conflicts in the Caucasus exactly from this
angle. Nejad Guliev, the author of the above-mentioned article
envisioned the inclusion of the EU and the United States of America
in his formula (3 + 3 + 2), since he deemed the resolution of the
problems through their participation as much more productive.

The presented plans have confirmed that the parties are in agreement
on basic mechanisms of resolving issues in the Caucasus. Just one
issue remains problematic: how will the authors realize their plans
given actual politics?

This was the topic, about which Malkhaz Gulashvili, President of
Media Holding Georgian Times talked to Najad Guliev.

Nejad Guliev – Ex-head of Azerbaijan Economic Sector and author of
large-scale economic projects in the Heidar Aliev government. The
construction of Batumi-Kobuleti highway was performed under the
leadership of Nejad Guliev. Guliev is the author of a number of
works that are about the peculiarities of geopolitics and the
public-political system in the Caucasus.

GT: Initiatives presented in the profile of resolution of Caucasian
problem are just schemes that do not say anything about political
ideas or implementation mechanisms. In your opinion, how is the actual
resolution of the mentioned problem going to happen?

NG: The goal is to intensify the peace model. The efforts of three
peacekeeping countries, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, have to focus on the
three Caucasus republics – Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Obviously,
all this has to be implemented under the aegis of US and EU guarantees,
these two parties have to make political and legal actions that will
ensure the realization of a peaceful Caucasian model in practice.

All of the above-mentioned implies the recognition of territorial
integrity of the South Caucasus republics, refusal to mutual accusation
and territorial claims, demilitarization of conflict regions, balanced
relations among regions, etc.

The peace mission had to adopt a resolution on the restoration of the
status quo at the initial stage. Such status existed and regulated
relations between the leadership of the republic and its autonomous
regions.

GT: You will agree with me that the actual political reality rejected
all these suggested schemes. The events have once again demonstrated
that those forces that the small states wanted to use for resolution
of territorial issues, regardless of their operation under the mandate
of reputable, international organizations, still frequently are guided
by private interests. This alone establishes a vicious cycle and there
is no force which can break this cycle. As a result the sovereignty
of internationally recognized states has been violated and they
were fragmented. In the present and radically changed circumstances,
do you still believe in the effectiveness of the proposed formula?

NG: I do believe in it, since other decisions and directions are still
aimed at forcefully mitigating the situation. Now it is already clear
that such an approach is unacceptable. Four years ago I proposed the
3 + 3 + 2 formula. Then, such important factors were still present,
including a high degree of trust and close cooperation among leading
geopolitical players. In my opinion, fateful development of events did
not exclude the possibility of regional leadership and peacekeeping
forces with the goal of establishing peaceful and friendly relations
in the Caucasus. Now it is clear for everybody that a political moment
entails confrontational elements. It is necessary to demonstrate more
self-control and common sense, otherwise the South Caucasus will
become engaged in constant wars and chaos. This means that Europe,
namely, the world hydrocarbon market, will say good-bye to the idea
of an energy corridor in the Caucasus for a long time, if not forever.

Taking into account the strategic springboard of the South Caucasus,
there is the danger of a much fiercer opposition of centrist forces,
which excludes the establishment of strong state systems, as well
as implementation of democratic, economic and social reforms. This
threat will gradually strengthen separatist trends in the Caucasus,
which will result in forming many ethnic states. Beyond all this,
the dissolution of the current world order can be identified, which
will, by itself, reflect on the whole World. Thus, not only we,
Caucasians and our historical neighbors, but the global society,
interested in the presented South Caucasus stability formula.

GT: Georgians, whose historic territories have been seized in front
of the whole World and proclaimed as independents states, find it
difficult to review the Caucasus problem from a global perspective. The
basic goal of Georgians is to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity
and sovereignty. Without this major component, any idea and formula
is pointless.

NG: Probably there are peoples who imagine the restoration of
territorial integrity in a reactive way. Let us agree that such
projects are politically reckless ventures. The cruel political reality
dictates that we have to be cautious, thoughtful and patient. We have
to move to the goal slowly but in the right way. Georgia already made
the initial and important step in this direction when it declared
to the whole world that it will never tolerate the occupation of
its territories. The global community has unanimously backed this
statement of Georgia. If your state is perceptive and brave enough to
start peaceful initiatives, I am sure that means of restoring Georgia’s
territorial integrity will be identified and will be acceptable to all.

All recognize unanimously the fact that stability and cooperation
can be possible only in a peaceful setting. None the less, other
Caucasian problems are notable. Ethnic separatism is expanding with
the support of domestic forces. Respectively, it is necessary to
neutralize this dangerous, sometimes not-so-well conveyed political
trends are necessary. In the South Caucasus, there is a peculiar
political syndrome of orienting toward a powerful neighbor, ally. At a
glance there is nothing abnormal in the case of small countries. But
in the current post-Soviet area with complex geopolitical relations,
the inertia of political thinking pushes the South Caucasus republics
to search for a reliable, strong ally. Such a policy will ensure the
resolution of national security issues. Just not so long ago many
regarded the CIS as the panacea of resolution of our problems.

But reality has deceived these hopes, the main initiator and inspirer
of formation of this organization has appeared with a member of the
organization in military confrontation. Moreover, Russia is a member
of Collective Security Agreement Organization. Respectively, members
of this Agreement and their geographic and historical neighbors,
such as Georgia and Armenia, have to share the responsibility of
compromising the CIS and future fate of this organization. This
organization appeared to defend its member from hostilities only
feebly. In a new situation, already incapable GUUAM also appeared
totally feeble and confused. This is another example of ineffective
policy. Yet another aspect of the problem is that many see NATO and
the EU as saviors. Frankly, EU accession is a long-term prospect. As
for NATO, during the military psychosis for some reason we forgot
that the Caucasus war was provoked by the hastened striving toward
this organization. Therefore, naturally, a question emerges: maybe
the aspiration toward a strong neighbor and the idea of seeing an
ally in it has exhausted itself?

GT: What is the solution?

NG: Let us consider the tragicomic result of the policy carried out
in the South Caucasus. Tbilisi sees its future only in NATO. Yerevan
has tied its strategic future firmly with Russia. Baku is torn on
many fronts. In case of a move toward NATO, a respective step toward
Russia can not be made. Such strategies have oddly established that
regional leaders and now the West, too, regard the Caucasus only in
the frame of its geopolitical interests.

It would be much more logical to come out with a different political
opinion from this contradictory "club." It is necessary to find
effective and mutual political dependence with each other and the
rest of the world without accession into any blocks, political unions
or military agreements. Such logic will ultimately take us to the
election of a new course by the South Caucasus states, which will
naturally give rise to secured neutrality and the departure from any
block, union and similar organizations.

GT: Does this requirement apply to self-proclaimed republics as well?

NG: Of course. Guaranteed neutrality is a mutual
responsibility. Regional and world centrist forces will commit to
avoid involvement in domestic issues of South Caucasus states. While
these states, in their turn, will reject solving national problems
through military means or strengthening their positions through
accession of the above-listed organizations or unions. The viability
of such policy directly depends on domestic forces that have to reject
rivalry and increase of political influence in the Caucasus. It is also
necessary to change the opinion about the Caucasus as a geopolitical
area. Caucasian geo-economic strategy has to become a priority of
the International Community. The South Caucasus will be reviewed as
part of practical politics in this aspect. It is to be noted that
such a model allows the South Caucasus and its energy components to
maximally utilize communication potential. And, this is an actual
possibility for transforming the Caucasus, in terms of stabilizing
relations among regions and security. All this will be done through
large transcontinental projects and international interests and not
through interests of divided states.

GT: The prospect is truly attractive and in case these projects are
brought to life it is entirely possible to change political situation
in the Caucasus and around it; but Russia has recognized independence
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Besides this, a multi-year conflict
has caused the estrangement between the people. How do you envision
the resolution of this problem?

NG: The co-existence and cohabitation in the South Caucasus states
in the setting of guaranteed neutrality is regarded in entirely
different conditions. This has to happen without mutual accusations,
claims, doubts, and in the setting of demilitarization. The efforts
of people that have been freed from all negative emotions have to be
directed toward resolving issues, establishing social and economic
order, and physically modernizing the public sector. Without all
this, talks about European integration are useless and remain only a
wish. The status of self-proclaimed republics remains frozen. Radical
separatists will be deprived of their secret hope of integration with
other states. Until now these states were protecting the separatist
enclaves due to their geopolitical considerations. At the same time,
they are given a realistic chance of independent development. This
is the test for quasi-governmental elements. For some reason they do
not talk about this, although this is necessary for all states that
are claiming independence. Thus, they will naturally appear in a very
specific condition of the transition period. Let’s admit that for over
20 years, Georgia and Azerbaijan do not exercise control over these
administrative units. How long shall we remain in such condition? At
a glance, it may seem that the proposed model for mitigation issues
gives self-proclaimed republics some chance. While, in reality any
kind of restrictions on historical, geopolitical, administrative and,
lastly, human cohabitation, is removed. Mountainous Karabagh and
Ossetia were always regarded as organic parts of the mother-state,
and they were represented by their official state status. It is
a historical outlook that this is how they will remain as a joint
union with globalized political systems. If somebody thinks that
it is possible to establish tiny states in the Caucasian mountains,
which will serve as the example to other nations and ethnic groups,
let them try. It is doubtful this will result in constant modification
of the Caucasus political map. In turn, this means that the idea of
democratic development and welfare of Caucasus will be gone.

GT: There is an impression that your global project is directly linked
to the syndrome called "Caucasian ambition." The South Caucasian
countries have to deny many stereotypes for the sake of peace,
welfare and cooperation. But in the first place, they have to give
up ambitious evaluation of their own dignities, since ambition about
one’s own dignities does not leave room for justice and equality.

NG: We are not alone in our ambitions. The global initiative,
regardless of the presenter, is similar to ours and is a test to
super-powers, regions and global forces. This test is nothing more than
the aspiration that will result in peace and welfare to the people
of the Caucasus. If Caucasian states are able to reach agreement on
mutual welfare and peaceful cohabitation, this will herald a new
era and stage. Otherwise, those who are directing the fate of the
world still wish to divide and rule. In this thorny South Caucasian
problem, the decisive issues will be global geopolitics and the role
of the Caucasian peoples, if they realize the lack of perspective of
separatist policy and territorial seizure. I am sure there is a way
out of this vicious circle, centered on a neutral South Caucasus.