WAR AND PEACE: RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND THE DOMESTIC DIMENSION OF CONFLICT PERPETUATION, CESSATION, AND RESOLUTION IN THE CAUCASUS

Year 2013, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 1 - 37, 29.08.2013

James Warhola , Egemen Bezci

Abstract

Kafkasya bölgesinin siyasi ilişkileri Dağlık-Karabağ sorununun ortaya çıktığı 1980’lerin sonu ve 1990’ların başından günümüze büyük ölçüde değişmiştir. Bu değişimlerin arasında önemli bir yer ise 2000’li yılların başından giderek artan Türkiye ile Rusya arasındaki yakınlaşma politikasıdır. Türkiye ve Rusya’yı DağlıkKarabağ sorununun çözümünde özellikli bir yere konumlandıran dinamikler ise bu iki ülkenin Azeri ve Ermeni siyasi liderliğini ve kamuoyunu Dağlık-Karabağ sorununun çözümü doğrultusunda etkileme güçleridir. Azerbaycan ve Ermenistan’ın iç siyasetinin içerisinde bulunduğu kör düğüm ve Dağlık-Karabağ sorunu etrafında gelişen hassasiyet nedeniyle soruna uzlaşmacı bir çözüm yolunu dış ülkelerin müdahalesine muhtaç hale getirmektedir. Tam da bu noktada Türkiye ve Rusya’nın ilişkilerinin gelişmesi ve Rusya’nın Ermenistan Türkiye’nin ise Azerbaycan üzerindeki etkin rölü bu iki ülkeyi geçmişin aksine çözüm sürecinde biricik bir konuma yerleştirmiştir.

Keywords

Dağlık-Karabağ Sorunu, Rusya, Türkiye. Kafkasya, Minsk Grubu, AGIT.

WAR AND PEACE: RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND THE DOMESTIC DIMENSION OF CONFLICT PERPETUATION, CESSATION, AND RESOLUTION IN THE CAUCASUS

Abstract

The political landscape of the Caucasus region has changed dramatically since the initial eruption of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the late 1980s-early1990s. Among other changes, Turkey and Russia have experienced a rapprochement in the 2000s that places them in a strong position to influence both the political leadership and the mass publics of Azerbaijan and Armenia to open negotiations with a new willingness to consider hitherto unacceptable solutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Because of the domestic political tension-ratcheting knot within both Armenia and Azerbaijan that make concessionary approaches to N-K politically suicidal, external influence is essential. It is precisely here that Turkey and Russia are now – unlike earlier -- uniquely and fortuitously positioned: Turkey is arguably in as effectual a position to influence Azerbaijan as Russia is to influence Armenia. Again, the Russian-Turkish rapprochement has changed the calculus of prospective resolution decisively, if not inevitably

Keywords

Caucasus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia, Turkey, conflict-resolution, Minsk Group, OSCE

References

• • “Azerbaijan, Turkey Reaffirm Solidarity”, Today’s Zaman, (26 December 2009).
• • BROERS, Laurence .“Managing great expectations: the Karabakh peace process in 2010,” The European Policy Centre in“Eastern Promises” Roundtable, ‘Security and Stability in the South Caucasus. The Turkey-Armenia-Azerbaijan Triangle’, Brussels, 22 February 20
• • BROERS, Laurence. The limits of leadership: Elites and societies in the Nagorny Karabakh peace process (London: Conciliation Resources, 2005).
• • BİRAND, Mehmet Ali. “Kimse ipleri koparmayı göze alamadı, top Obama’da kaldı,” Milliyet, (14 April 2010).
• • BİRAND, Mehmet Ali. “Türkiye çırpınıyor, Azeriler ise hiç oralı değiller,”, Milliyet, (15 April 2010).
• • BOZKURT, Abdullah. “Davutoğlu in Baku for talks on Armenia ties”, Today’s Zanan, (20 April 2010).
• • DAVUTOĞLU, Ahmet. “Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy”, Foreign Policy, (20 May 2010).
• • DEWAAL, Tom. “A Pause in Armenia-Turkey Reconciliation”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington,D.C., transcript of audio of 10 May 2010.
• • European Comission, 2010 Turkey Progess Report, 9 November 20
• • From Iran Media: Russia Lauds Iran Mediation in Karabakh” , ArmeniaNow.com (March 5, 2010).
• • GAHRAMANOVA, Aytan. “Paradigms of Political Mythologies and Perspectives of Reconciliation in the Case of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict”, International Negotiation 15 (2010), pp.133-152.
• • HARTUYUNYAN, Arus. “Imagining National Identity through Territorial Politics: War in Nagorny Karabagh, Elites, and Citizens”, 15 th Annual World Convention of the Association for the Study of Nationalities Annual Meeting (NY: Columbia University, April 1517, 2010).
• • HAYRUMYAN, Naira, “Vision for Karabakh: Former and current leaders share their views on conflict settlement” ArmeniaNow.com, (7 April 2010).
• • KHACHATRİAN, Haroutiun. “ Armenian-Azerbaijani Disagreement on Madrid Principles Stalls Karabakh Settlement Process,”Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Analyst, (14 October 2009).
• • ILGAR Majidli, “Nagorno-Karabakh Problem After Astana Summit”, Eurasia Critic, (January 2011).
• • “Ilham Aliyev: if Armenia continues to pursue its policy of occupation, Azerbaijan will seriously change its position”, Today.Az, (10 June 2010).
• • ISLERİ, E. and Dilek, O. “The Limitations of Turkey’s New Foreign Policy Activism in the Caucasian Regional Security Complexity,” Turkish Studies, vol. 12, no. 1 (March 2011), pp.41-54.
• • KELKİTLİ, Fatma Asli. “Russian Foreign Policy in South Caucasus in Putin,” Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs volume 13 (Winter 2008), 78 – 80.
• • KOSTO, P. and Blakkisrud, H.. “De facto states and democray: The case of Nagorno-Karabakh”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 45(2012) p.148.
• • LOBJAKAS, Ahto. “European Parliament Calls for Greater EU Role in South Caucasus,” Eurasianet.org, (20 May 2010).
• • MERRY, E. Wayne “Karabakh: Is War Inevitable?”, American Foreign Policy Council, (22 May 2009), Minsk Process, Basic Documents.
• • “Moscow Reiterates Stand on Nagorno-Karabakh,” The Voice of Russia, (May 24, 2010).
• • Müxalifət liderlərinin yeni formatda görüşü baş tutdu”, Milli.Az (19 May 2010).
• • “NATO supports peaceful solution to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict “, News.Az, ( 09 April 2010).
• • ÖNİŞ, Ziya. “Multiple Faces of the “New” Turkish Foreign Policy: Underlying Dynamics and a Critique,” Insight Turkey. Vol 13 No.1 Ankara (2011), pp.47-65.
• • “Putin’s visit to Turkey to keep bilateral relations strong”, Today’s Zaman, (9 December 2012).
• • “Robert Simmons: “NATO sees main solution to Nagorno Karabakh conflict within the OSCE framework””, APA, (28 October 2010). • “Russia can help settle Nagorno-Karabakh conflict but not to replace any party to it” – Putin”, The Voice of Russia,( June 8, 2010).
• • TAYLOR, Scott. Unreconciled Differences: Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan , Ottawa, Canada, 2010.
• • The Commission on the Black Sea, A Vision for the Black Sea, İstanbul and Athens, 2010.
• • “Türkiye ile Dağlık Karabağ’ı görüşmeyiz”, ntvmsnbc, (14 April 2010), accessed on 20 December 2012 at http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/ id/25082008/
• • WARHOLA, James. and Bezci, Egemen. “The Wolf, the Bear, and the Eagle: Peace in the Valley?”, E-International Relations, (10 March 2011); accessible at: • http://www.e-ir.info/2011/03/10/the-wolf-the-bear-and-the-eaglepeace-in-the-valley/.
• • White House, “Joint Statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict”, Office of the Press Secretary, (18 June 2012).