Georgia: Armenia’s Predicament
As the international community continues to condemn Russia for its unilateral recognition of the two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia’s southern neighbor looks on and has wisely not come down on either side in the conflict. For Armenia, much is at stake. Over 90 percent of its trade goes through Georgia, and although Russia is considered its most strategic ally, military operations targetting civilian infrastructure — especially the railway bridge outside of Kaspi — adversely affected imports and exports.
Blockaded by Azerbaijan and Turkey because of the unresolved conflict with the former over Nagorno Karabakh, another frozen conflict in the region, fuel shortages are already hitting drivers and it remains to be seen whether any other commodities imported into the landlocked country will also be affected. Yet, despite the precarious nature of Armenia’s geopolitical position and its need to maintain a complimentary policy without alienating the West, Russia or even Georgia, some greeted Moscow’s actions with enthusiasm.
A Fistful of Euros examines the Armenian-Georgian relationship in the context of conflict between Moscow and Tbilisi.
The Armenians are annoyed at the Georgians for their generally shoddy treatment of the Armenian minority in Georgia. More to the point, Armenians generally look down their magnificent noses at Georgians, considering them self-indulgent, emotional, shrill, slovenly, unreliable, and just generally second-rate. Georgians don’t love Armenians either — they consider them sly, stuck-up and grasping. There are no exactly equivalent Western European stereotypes, but if you think “dour Scots versus hand-waving Italians” you’ll get the general idea.
The state of relations between the two peoples is such that, when a rumor arose that the Russians were using Armenian air bases to bomb them, it was immediately and widely believed by the Georgians. (It wasn’t true.)
At the same time, most Armenians have warm feelings towards Russia. Which warm feelings are not entirely requited — Russians don’t view Armenians with a lot of affection and respect — but that’s another story. Imperial Russia rescued them from the Turks, after all, and then the USSR allowed Armenia to industrialize and Armenians to rise almost to the top of the Soviet hierarchy.
There’s a widespread belief in Armenia that Russia tilts their way in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute… probably not true, but there it is. More to the point, there are a couple of thousand Russian soldiers in Armenia; it doesn’t get a lot of publicity, but they’ve been there since the 1990s, quietly watching Armenia’s border with Turkey. Drive south from Yerevan, and you’ll see their bases, Russian flags and all.
Given latest moves in the region and how the international community might yet react to Russia’s continued occupation of Georgia, such feelings if turned into actual foreign policy are fraught with dangers.
[…] Armenia’s borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan are closed. They have a land border with Iran, but it’s short, and crossed by a single two-lane road that closes every winter. So, pretty much everything that goes in or out of Armenia — including the single rail line, the single highway, the single fiber-optic cable, and the microwave phone link — goes through Georgia. 90% of their imports come in through Georgia, and about 95% of their exports go out that way. The Georgian port of Poti is Armenia’s window on the world. Simply put, Armenia is a man trying to eat, drink and breathe through a fairly narrow hose. If the Georgians were to become sufficiently annoyed, they could devastate Armenia’s economy overnight.
So, while Armenian public opinion is firmly on Russia’s side, the Armenian government is playing it safe. They’re a friendly neutral to Russia, coolly correct to Georgia.
For now, RFE/RL reports that Yerevan will continue to maintain its ties with NATO, and military exercises involving soldiers from the U.S. and Georgia are still set to take place at the end of the month. However, while political figures such as Armenia’s first president and radical opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrossian have come out in support of Russia’s actions. Archuk’s Blog is particularly upset by Ter-Petrossian’s use of the word “Genocide” in justifying Russia’s invation of Georgia.
I’m sure quite a few good people who support Levon were quite surprised with Mr. Ter-Petrosyan’s remarks about Russia saving the Ossetians from ‘genocide’ in their military intervention against Georgia. The educated man that LTP is, an Armenian, a descendant of true Genocide survivors and finally a statesman, should probably be more careful when using the ‘G’ word. It’s probably OK for the chauvinist/bordering to racist Russian TV to do so(they got no morals), but any Armenian should only apply the word ‘genocide’ to describe the worst of the human tragedies only, unless we want to make a total joke out of our own sufferings and the total destruction of Western Armenians.This guy is loosing all the little credibility he had in my eyes.
Others seem more acutely aware of the reality of Armenia’s position, however, and one of those figures is the former Foreign Minister, Vartan Oskanian. Ironically, even if Ter-Petrossian seems keen to court Moscow, Oskanian urges greater neutrality in the matter in an interview with RFE/RL.
“Armenia certainly can not choose [between the two warring sides,]” he said. “Nor can it be indifferent. We should be able to find the right balance and I think that can be achieved through an upgraded complementarity.” “That means our foreign policy should be much more public,” he added.
[…]
“Saying nothing when the situation is difficult might be a solution,” said Oskanian. “What the authorities have done in connection with the latest developments is understandable. I don’t want to voice any criticism.”
“But my preference would have been somewhat different,” he said, adding that Yerevan should have displayed a “more public neutrality.”
“I think that as soon as this problem arose we could have … publicly told Russia and the U.S. that what is happening does not stem from anybody’s interests, is bad for the region and in the global political sense,” continued Oskanian. “Armenia would have had a clearer stance by telling everyone that Armenia is not going to choose between its two allies. Indeed, if Russia is our strategic ally, Georgia is our natural ally.”
Interestingly, Oskanian also makes the case for closer regional cooperation — something that can presumably come about only by putting aside current and historical grievances. Such a move would also require that the frozen conflicts in the region be resolved — and that includes Nagorno Karabakh and the withdrawal from the seven [Azerbaijani] districts surrounding it. It’s possible, but it requires concessions from both sides.
“As I said, our silence or low-key stance on the other issue is understandable. But I think that we could lag behind on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue,” warned the man who served as Armenia’s foreign minister and chief Karabakh negotiator from 1998-2008.
“If we fail to enter these processes and clearly express our position on Karabakh’s self-determination, I’m afraid we will find it harder to achieve results desirable to us,” he said.
[…] He said Yerevan should also go as far as to threaten to formally recognize Karabakh as an independent state if Baku rejects international mediators’ existing peace plan.
The crisis in Georgia and its geopolitical implications have left observers wondering whether Russia and Western powers will continue to work together in trying to have the conflicting parties accept the framework peace deal.
“This is also a problem,” admitted Oskanian. “Those countries have frequently said that the Karabakh issue unites them and that they have no differences on that issue. I am really concerned that those disagreements [on Georgia] could also manifest themselves in their positions on the Karabakh conflict.”
Oskanian reiterated in that regard his calls for Russia, the U.S. and the European Union to help create a “regional security pact” comprising Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. In an article published by “The International Herald Tribune” on Monday, he made a case for a “nonaligned Caucasus, free of security memberships and adversarial alliances.”
Such matter are already being discussed in the Armenian media, with RFE/RL’s Press Review translating some of the key points made by newspapers on both sides of the political divide. Haykakan Zhamanak, a newspaper directly linked to the radical opposition, considers that Armenia is now in an “extremely difficult situation” and not least because of conflicting concerns.
[…] “On the one hand, it can not openly welcome Russia’s move because it would spoil relations with Georgia, something which a blockaded Armenia can not afford,” writes the paper. “On the other hand, Armenia can not condemn something done by the Kremlin. Besides, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is similar to the conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. So how can Armenia not welcome the recognition of these unrecognized republics by any country of the world?”
Another pro-opposition paper, Aravot, also understands the dilemna Armenia faces.
[…] A defiance of Russia would lead to catastrophic consequences. But a recognition [of the breakaway regions’ independence] is just as dangerous.” In that case, says the paper, Armenia would badly spoil its relations with not only Georgia but also the West.
Certainly, it seems unlikely that recognition of Karabakh’s independence by Armenia would be welcomed by the international community unless as part of continuing negotiations to end the conflict. Although Georgia’s attempt to take back South Ossetia has failed, others instead fear an escalation of military confrontation in the region. Interestingly, one blogger says that Google maps has cleared infrastructure such as roads and railways as well as villages, towns and cities off its map of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
When you’re my age and you read about wars and conflict in history books, everything always seems so formulaic and perhaps even a bit ancient. So I was surprised to see today, something that speaks a little more to my generation. Apparently, the Russian-invaded country Georgia that has been making headlines this month, has been wiped off the map of the world. Google maps that is.
[…]
With infrastructure being the first target of most conflicts, the search engine giant, Google, doesn’t want to be seen as helping either side with its mapping technology. The company has since removed all the details normally seen on Google maps of a country, that include roads, towns and cities in Georgia, as well as from the maps of neighboring countries Azerbaijan and Armenia.
On the other hand, had Georgia succeeded in taking South Ossetia back by force, Azerbaijan would probably have launched its own military offensive on Nagorno Karabakh by now. That it hasn’t is at least something positive to have come out of the crisis in Georgia even if the regional and geopolitical ramifications of the conflict are still unclear.
Photo: Railway bridge, Kaspi, Republic of Georgia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2008
- Published:
- 08.28.08 / 3pm by Onnik
- Category:
- Armenia, Azerbaijan, Blogs, Economy, Georgia, Military, Nagorno Karabakh, Opinion, Russia
9 Comments
Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]