Interview with Ronald Grigor Suny, Charles Tilly Collegiate Professor of Social and Political History.
Q: There is an opinion that that the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 had a huge influence on the further developments in the South Caucasus. What the Russian-Georgian war changed in the region?
A: The Russian-Georgian War of August 2008 changed the balance of power in South Caucasia. Russia essentially used the opportunity offered by Saakashvili’s attack on South Ossetia to show that it was ready to use force to re-establish its dominant position in the Near Abroad, at least when actively threatened. The Russian military effort, however, was somewhat clumsy, and Moscow is well aware of its limited military resources and the need for reform. But what is clear is that no solution of either the Georgian conflicts or the Karabakh conflict will occur without Russian will and agreement. This does not mean that the South Caucasian republics cannot act and change the situation in a constructive way.
Q: Do you think that Russia is really interested in the Karabakh settlement?
A: Armenia demonstrated that it could attempt to improve relations with Turkey by first gaining Russian agreement for its initiative and then pursuing it. Russia may have been reluctant about that move, but eventually came around. Russia has so many problems that it does not need more troubles in Caucasia. North Caucasia is its most vulnerable frontier, and a strategically rational Russia should move cautiously but deliberately to resolve some of its South Caucasian problems. Karabakh would be a good place to start.
Because many actors in Armenia and Azerbaijan are content with the status quo, local initiative may not be forthcoming. Russian, Turkish, Iranian, and American efforts could push the belligerents to come to some agreement.
Q: And what about possible influence of Russian-Turkish rapprochement?
A: Russian-Turkish rapprochement is good for everyone. Turkey is changing more rapidly than any other country in the region. Its civil society is opening up; the country is on a trajectory toward greater democracy; the government is making overtures to non-Turkish citizens, allowing a broad discussion of the Armenian Genocide, even demonstrations. These are extraordinarily positive developments, and should be encouraged by everyone.
Q: May be NATO somehow assist stability in the region?
A: NATO is a dead letter in South Caucasia. It is not going to happen for the foreseeable future. Of course, if the Great Powers thought creatively, then there could be plans to bring Russia as well as other former Soviet countries into a new collective security structure under NATO.
Q: Iran as well is trying to play its role in the Karabakh settlement?
A: Bringing Iran into the picture would be even better, though the Americans have a real blind spot vis-à-vis Iran. They have constructed it as an existential danger to peace in the Middle East, and given the fear of the Obama administration of criticism from the Republicans that they are weak and indecisive in security issues, it is hard to make the kind of agreements or concessions that would bring Iran into a larger Middle East settlement.
Q: And finally what do you think about regional policy of US?
A: As for the United States, sadly it does not really have a coherent and consistent policy toward South Caucasia. First they were interested primarily in energy and pipelines; then they staked their hopes on Georgia; they always have to pay some attention to Armenia because of the large Armenian population in certain key states. But the USA has many interests in the region that do not all run in the same direction: placate the Armenian lobby (but don’t give it too much, e.g., "genocide" recognition); democracy building (which does not seem as much of a priority as stability of existing governments even though they are not democratic); energy and pipelines; thwarting Iranian influence; not antagonizing Russia. These various ambitions are hard to reconcile, but the Obama administration, unlike the previous administration, has cut back somewhat on the Busheviks’ grandest plans for global hegemony. This opens some space for better relations with Russia and potential cooperation in solving the long-running conflicts in South Caucasia before another war in a region often forgotten by the West surprises the world.
Ronald Grigor Suny is Charles Tilly Collegiate Professor of Social and Political History, Director, Eisenberg Institute for Historical Studies, The University of Michigan, Emeritus Professor of Political Science and History, The University of Chicago.
Aliyah Fridman
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
