Tweet
International Policy Digest
April 6 2014
The Southern Caucasus within the Context of the Crimea Crisis
By Farhad R. Najafov
The Crimea incident, which occurred against the background of
heightened tensions between the West and Russia, might reveal the
ambitions of some political forces that took advantage of the
opportunity in Kiev.
Although I am not passing judgment on either the West or Russia it
must be said that the escalation of this type in the post-Soviet era
is not promising for the future of the region. During the crisis,
views within the Southern Caucasus differed significantly from other
post-Soviet states. Even before the crisis it was clear that Georgia
leaned heavily towards the West. However, Armenia's favoring the
Russian initiated Customs Union instead of the Association Agreement
with the European Union, which was to have been signed in Vilnius in
November of 2013 along with Ukraine, surprised the world community.
While surprising, it should be taken into account that from 2007-2013
the European Union gave Armenia grants in the amount of EURO 295 million
for development and reconstruction projects. This amount exceeded 10%
of the Armenian budget in 2013.
Azerbaijan voted in the UN General Assembly on the adoption of a
resolution calling upon states not to recognize changes in the status
of Crimea and was one of the 100 states that voted in favor of the
territorial integrity of Ukraine. Garen Nazarian, the Armenian
Ambassador to UN, tactfully accused those who voted for the resolution
of colonialist behavior. It is not surprising that this accusation by
the Armenian Ambassador was called shameful by Alexandre Arzumanyan,
an Armenian MP. In contrast, Elmar Mammadyarov, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, openly declared Azerbaijan's support of the
territorial integrity of Ukraine. International law does recognize the
principle of self-determination.
The Armenian state was established in 1918. Shortly after regaining
independence in 1991 20% of Azerbaijan territory was occupied and
almost 1 million people were expelled and became IDPs. Even today
people of the Southern Caucasus, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis, are
suffering from the consequences of this conflict. Recently, Wayne
Merry, at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC voiced
a very interesting conclusion. According to Merry, the US lost an
opportunity of being involved in the Southern Caucasus in several
regional projects.
Serzh Sargsyan, the President of Armenia, called Russian President
Vladimir Putin and expressed his support of the Crimean referendum.
Prior to this, Andranik Manukyan, the Armenian Ambassador to Ukraine
had been invited to Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to
identify whether Armenia supported the referendum. In addition, the
Armenian population of the unrecognized Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh
held a solidarity rally complete with rhetoric in support of the
Crimean referendum. The slogan of the rally was the right of
self-determination of nations.
However, Russia does not recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
separate from the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In addition,
Russian journalist Maxim Shevchenko, in an interview said: "Attempts
to compare the Crimea and the Karabakh conflicts are radically wrong.
Status-quo over Karabakh is a result of war and there are thousands of
people were killed and some hundred thousands were expelled to leave
the lands where they used to live for centuries. As opposed to
Karabakh conflict, there was not any ethnic cleansing in the Crimean
crisis." According to Shevchenko, in order to hold a legal referendum
on self-determination in Karabakh, displaced Azerbaijani from Karabakh
have to return back to their homeland and only then will the
referendum be legal.
The Crimea crisis has produced both political and legal assessments.
The Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe,
composed of independent experts in the field of constitutional law,
adopted a resolution on March 21st on the legality of the Crimean
referendum. An excerpt from the resolution reads: "The principle of
territorial integrity commands very widespread recognition - whether
express or tacit - in constitutional law. On the other hand,
constitutional law just as comprehensively rules out secession or the
redrawing of borders. This should come as no surprise since that
branch of law is the very foundation of the state, which might be
deprived of one of its constituent parts if such possibilities were
provided for."
The position of Armenia regarding this conflict is not accepted by the
West. Carl Bildt, Sweden's Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that
it is impossible to consider conditions in Armenia in the same
political league as Ukraine.
In the final analysis Ukraine played a role of a political training
ground for both the West and Russia. It is too early to forecast
winners, however the position of the US in this conflict was peaceful
and constructive, which deserves merit because the legal fact is that
Russian forces violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Maybe
the following conclusion by George Firedman of Stratfor Global
Intelligence is helpful: "Having encouraged Ukrainian independence,
the United States -- in trying to protect that independence and the
independence of other countries in the region -- is creating an
alliance structure that will include countries, such as Azerbaijan..."
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/04/06/southern-caucasus-within-context-crimea-crisis/
April 6 2014
The Southern Caucasus within the Context of the Crimea Crisis
By Farhad R. Najafov
The Crimea incident, which occurred against the background of
heightened tensions between the West and Russia, might reveal the
ambitions of some political forces that took advantage of the
opportunity in Kiev.
Although I am not passing judgment on either the West or Russia it
must be said that the escalation of this type in the post-Soviet era
is not promising for the future of the region. During the crisis,
views within the Southern Caucasus differed significantly from other
post-Soviet states. Even before the crisis it was clear that Georgia
leaned heavily towards the West. However, Armenia's favoring the
Russian initiated Customs Union instead of the Association Agreement
with the European Union, which was to have been signed in Vilnius in
November of 2013 along with Ukraine, surprised the world community.
While surprising, it should be taken into account that from 2007-2013
the European Union gave Armenia grants in the amount of EURO 295 million
for development and reconstruction projects. This amount exceeded 10%
of the Armenian budget in 2013.
Azerbaijan voted in the UN General Assembly on the adoption of a
resolution calling upon states not to recognize changes in the status
of Crimea and was one of the 100 states that voted in favor of the
territorial integrity of Ukraine. Garen Nazarian, the Armenian
Ambassador to UN, tactfully accused those who voted for the resolution
of colonialist behavior. It is not surprising that this accusation by
the Armenian Ambassador was called shameful by Alexandre Arzumanyan,
an Armenian MP. In contrast, Elmar Mammadyarov, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, openly declared Azerbaijan's support of the
territorial integrity of Ukraine. International law does recognize the
principle of self-determination.
The Armenian state was established in 1918. Shortly after regaining
independence in 1991 20% of Azerbaijan territory was occupied and
almost 1 million people were expelled and became IDPs. Even today
people of the Southern Caucasus, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis, are
suffering from the consequences of this conflict. Recently, Wayne
Merry, at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC voiced
a very interesting conclusion. According to Merry, the US lost an
opportunity of being involved in the Southern Caucasus in several
regional projects.
Serzh Sargsyan, the President of Armenia, called Russian President
Vladimir Putin and expressed his support of the Crimean referendum.
Prior to this, Andranik Manukyan, the Armenian Ambassador to Ukraine
had been invited to Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to
identify whether Armenia supported the referendum. In addition, the
Armenian population of the unrecognized Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh
held a solidarity rally complete with rhetoric in support of the
Crimean referendum. The slogan of the rally was the right of
self-determination of nations.
However, Russia does not recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
separate from the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In addition,
Russian journalist Maxim Shevchenko, in an interview said: "Attempts
to compare the Crimea and the Karabakh conflicts are radically wrong.
Status-quo over Karabakh is a result of war and there are thousands of
people were killed and some hundred thousands were expelled to leave
the lands where they used to live for centuries. As opposed to
Karabakh conflict, there was not any ethnic cleansing in the Crimean
crisis." According to Shevchenko, in order to hold a legal referendum
on self-determination in Karabakh, displaced Azerbaijani from Karabakh
have to return back to their homeland and only then will the
referendum be legal.
The Crimea crisis has produced both political and legal assessments.
The Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe,
composed of independent experts in the field of constitutional law,
adopted a resolution on March 21st on the legality of the Crimean
referendum. An excerpt from the resolution reads: "The principle of
territorial integrity commands very widespread recognition - whether
express or tacit - in constitutional law. On the other hand,
constitutional law just as comprehensively rules out secession or the
redrawing of borders. This should come as no surprise since that
branch of law is the very foundation of the state, which might be
deprived of one of its constituent parts if such possibilities were
provided for."
The position of Armenia regarding this conflict is not accepted by the
West. Carl Bildt, Sweden's Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that
it is impossible to consider conditions in Armenia in the same
political league as Ukraine.
In the final analysis Ukraine played a role of a political training
ground for both the West and Russia. It is too early to forecast
winners, however the position of the US in this conflict was peaceful
and constructive, which deserves merit because the legal fact is that
Russian forces violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Maybe
the following conclusion by George Firedman of Stratfor Global
Intelligence is helpful: "Having encouraged Ukrainian independence,
the United States -- in trying to protect that independence and the
independence of other countries in the region -- is creating an
alliance structure that will include countries, such as Azerbaijan..."
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/04/06/southern-caucasus-within-context-crimea-crisis/