KARABAKH SETTLEMENT DISCOURSE: ENEMY PARTNER IMAGES IMAGES

Abstract

It is commonly believed that the conflicts in the Caucasus are preventing it from developing into an integral geopolitical unit and a link be-tween the East and the West, and the North and the South of Eurasia. It is tempting to ask who needs this geopolitical integrity: the local states, international organizations, or the main geopolitical forces present in the Caucasus? Can it be achieved at all? These questions surface in the Caucasian states from time to time: they seem to be too politicized or even deliberately invented. The processes under-way in the Caucasus testifies that there is a trend toward bilateral relations contrary to what a third side might wish. If we distance ourselves somewhat from the present state of regional relationships, the above questions can be unequivocally answered as follows: it is the South Caucasian states that primarily need cooperation and integration to achieve dynamic economic development and long-term domestic stability. There is an opinion shared by many that the Karabakh conflict is the main stumbling block on the road to the unity all the local states need, and that neither the Abkhazian, nor the South Oset, nor the Chechen confrontations contain as prominent a geopolitical component as that present in the Karabakh conflict. This can be heard from foreign and even from Armenian and Azeri experts. The recent processes have demonstrated, however, that this is not the only truth, and that the still unsettled Armenian-Turkish and Georgian-Russian relations are curbing regional cooperation even more. In-deed, the geopolitical component in the relations between Georgia and Russia has not diminished over time—it has become even more prominent. This trend is further promoted by the fact that Russia does not need a Georgian Abkhazian settlement.
The prospect of EU membership for Turkey enhanced the geopolitical component of Armenian-Turkish relations. In the past, this component came to the fore not so much in Turkey’s sealing off its Armenian border because of the Karabakh conflict, as in its response to the recognition by other countries of the 1915 Armenian genocide. The Karabakh conflict can be singled out among other factors because it is gradually devel-oping into a protracted conflict with the adverse effects typical of such situations. At the same time, as distinct from other regional conflicts, the sides have been adhering to cease-fire conditions for over 10 years now without international peace-keeping interference; in fact, international peacekeepers never had any role to play in the conflict. This is seen as the only positive result of the negotiation process. We all have to admit that the sides involved have absolutely different ideas about the settlement problem: they disagree about the subjects and objects and about the definition of the sides in the conflict; there is an inadequate interpretation of its political nature and, therefore, of the main aim of its settlement.