Conflicts in the Caucasus

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Conflicts in the Caucasus

Introduction

The major transformations in Caucasus took place at the end of 1980s in the form of ethno-national revival and acquisition of independence. There are several points of view on international conflicts on the Caucasus. One of the most popular concepts was presented by Huntington (1993), which stated that the new civilizational crisis is coming and cultural incompatibility of nations and incompatibility of Christian and Muslim civilizations lay at the heart of the modern conflicts. “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural …the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations” (Huntington, 1993). Russian Federation is a multicultural and multiethnic country and therefore the problem of “clash of civilizations” is most prevalent there. The political atmosphere in Caucasus is characterized by inconsistency of actions, is overflowed with stereotypes and symbols. The clash between authorities and radical religious figures strengthens ethno political tensions and provokes religious extremism. Since the collapse of Soviet Union there were several terroristic acts taking place in Caucasus. Ethno political elite usually carries out corruption and arms trafficking. After the breakup of the Soviet Union there was a need to replace old political structures with the new ones. However, there were no agreement and clearing about what political system is suitable for that region. In these circumstances tensions between ethnical groups increased. Conflicts which arised in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia are usually seen as ethnical, however this paper will argue that there are many other reasons under these conflicts.

This essay identifies and analyzed the main roots of the conflicts. This paper will analyze the main causes of conflicts in the Caucasus, which are ethnical reasons, discriminаtory pоlicies, the legacy of the Soviet Union, fight for the territory and the role played by Russia.

History of Conflicts

Southern Caucasus is seen as the most problematic region in Russia. Throughout the whole history this region was the battlefield of different geopolitical actors. The key problems of Northern Caucasus are ethnical nationalism and religious fundamentalism, which often transforms into separatism (Lebanidze, 2013). Southern Caucasus is not homogeneous region as there are many nations, mainly Muslims and Christians. This diversity makes this region an interesting object to explore. Same as northern part of Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan inherited administrative structure from the USSR. This structure included autonomous regions based on ethnicity. Nagorno-Karabah is an autonomous region in Azerbaijan occupied mainly by Armenians. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan dates back to 1924, when it was first become part of Republic of Azerbaijan. During the whole Soviet Union period the conflict escalated to a war. In a related vein there are autonomous regions, such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. With the radical nationalistic regime in Georgia, these autonomous regions started to feel the discrimination that later led to a war in Abkhazia and Georgia. Also there was a sparks of radical Islamism in North Caucasus, which resulted in two Chechen wars. The war broke out in 1994, when Chechnya for was de facto independent country for three years. After the three years the new phase of Chechen war started in 1999, which was known as counter-terrorist operation in North Caucasus, which ended in 2009.

conflict caucasus demographic ethnic

Ethnical reasons: Ethnic nationalism

After the fall of the Soviet Union the whole are was divided into different republics and ethnic ties became the primary source, which help to deal with changing environment. Ethnical diversity is largely potential source of tensions. Some historians, such as Zurcher (2007) stated that the actual existence of so many ethnical groups in one territory would unavoidably lead to conflict. The good example in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where inter-communal collisions were conventional wisdom. These collisions “manifested themselves in different ways: ethnic hooliganism during soccer matches between Baku and Yerevan teams; or underground publications about human rights abuses against ethnic Armenians in Azerbaijan” (King, 2008). However, even assuming that ethnicity was the base for clashes and conflicts in Nagorno-Karabkh, It cannot be seen as the central source of conflicts.

There are some factors, which show that ethnical diversity does not necessary lead to instability. “In many cases ethnic nationalism served to further mobilize and radicalize minorities and escalate tensions, but ethnic nationalism as such was not a cause of conflict” (Freni, 2013). It is evident that Caucasus was always a multi ethnical and multi cultural region. Throughout the history, different ethnical groups learned to coexist peacefully, without assimilating each other. Therefore it is right to look at other factors, which caused conflicts in Caucasus after the break up of the USSR. Ethnical nationalism is mistakenly seen as the solely factor which lay behind all conflicts in the Caucasus. Other important point is that people of North Cacasus never faced with each other in large-scale wars. There were several local skirmishes between ethnic groups, however it did not lead to ethnic wars before the collapse of the USSR. Therefore it is right to look at other possible cause of conflicts, which arise after the break up of the Soviet Union.

The legacy of the Soviet Union: Fight for territory

“Bolshevik leadership of the Soviet Union, in the process of establishing republican borders, aimed to create an ethno-federalist structure, in which in most cases there was a one-to-one correspondence between territory and ethnicity” (Brubaker, 1996). Though, it was not always possible especially in some `shatter zones' with scattered ethnicities. The reason behind the increased tensions in the region after the fall of the Soviet Union is the policy of Soviet Union itself concerning ethnic minorities. The geographic change of boarders was a delayed action bomb. King (2008) stated that there were specific arrangements made during the Soviet Union times, which led to post-Soviet wars. These arrangements are the legacy of the Soviet Union on the ethnically defined territories. The Union collapsed, the territory of former USSR was divided into many autonomous units with its own administrative councils. This process was known as indigenization (Freni, 2013). Disputes between two ethnical groups did not arise because of the mutual hate, but rather it was the disputes about the territories “The main feature of those territories that erupted in conflict is that their titular population was, or once was, the majority” (Freni, 2013)

The tensions in the relations between nations, which live in the borders of one republic also have an economic roots. North Caucasus is infamous for its dependents on constant transfers of funds from the central government. As Malashenko (2011) noticed, almost ninety percent of revenues of budgets in Ingushetia and Chechnya are direct subsidies from Moscow. In addition, high unemployment rates also show that help of central government essential. All these information shows that people on North Caucauss can't meet basic needs and life satisfaction. If basic needs are not satisfied, people are quite capable to use violence, especially when they don't seen any other way to achieve that needs. However in North Caucasus economic instabilities are flattened with so-called shadow economy and strong support inside the big families. As professor Magomedov (2009) mentioned, that the income made in shadow economy is never mentioned in official financial documents. That is why economic instabilities can be seen as the source of tensions in the Caucasus. However, political establishments especially among young people, did not see that Moscow is able to provide the just mechanism for separation of power. Besides, average ordinary people does not rust judicial system and prefer to solve the problems with other means, such as taking up arms.

Demographic factor

Cornell (2002) has proposed an explanation of the Soviet Union legacy factor, using the demographic cause of conflicts by explaining how ethnic group's proportion effects the conflict. “The high and low ends of demographic domination are likely to see ethno political activism, whereas the middle range, where the minority population neither predominates nor is demographically threatened, are less likely to experience ethnic conflict” (Cornell, 2002). This is evident in Nagorno-Karabah, where Armenians form a majority and Ossetians in South Ossetia. It can be argued that if a particular ethnic group is firmly located in a defined geographical area, the eruption of the conflict is more likely. However, the situation in Abkhazia does not support the above statements, Abkhaz did not form a majority in Abkhazia at the end of the Soviet Union, and still the conflict erupted. In addition, Rezvani (2008) stated that in republics which are not mono-titular, such as Karachaevo-Cherkessia and Kabardino-Balkaria, “ethnic competition reduced the prospect for violent conflict and kept ethnic groups from embracing separatism”. In addition some ethnic groups may feel discriminations in foreign territories. Lobell and Mauceri (2004) have mentioned that “a minority may fear that the governing majority would actively pursue discriminatory policies, such as removal of their existing positions in the government and state institutions and assimilation procedures that would marginalize them in the region”. Overall, demographic reasons may be seen as important roots of the commencement of the conflict however do not explain why the conflicts escalate further.

Radical Islamism in North Caucasus

Though, in Transcaucasia countries such as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan the problem of Radical Islamism was irrelevant, the explosion of radical Islamism can be analyzed in the context of to Chechen wars. Since the beginning of Chechen war this conflict remained a main catalyst of disorders in the region. “The Islamist insurgency in Russia's Northern Caucasus threatens to turn the region into a haven for international terrorism and to destabilize the entire region, which is a critical hub of oil and gas pipelines located at Europe's doorstep” (Cohen, 2012). Actions of Russia in Chechnya limited the access of western nongovernmental organizations into the zone of conflict. This limited the potential for young people for self-realization. The Islamic ideology urges people to return to “The golden age of the caliphate”. This ideology was attractive for many young people, as they did not have any feasible alternative way of self-realization. This people were grown in the atmosphere or two Chechen wars and they have no other mean to fight the injustice other than an armed revolt. As Russia was blocking the access to the region for any democratic alternative and was unable to offer its own, Islamization remained the only choice for young people in North Caucasus. However, the aim of the paper is not to analyze the causes of the war in Chechnya, as there are many other causes than just the spark of Radical Islamism. The aim of the paper is to analyze if Radical Islamism caused conflict in Caucasus. The answer is that it definitely did in the northern part of Caucasus, and the conflict escalated in two full-scale wars.

Political factor: Disintegration of the State

The Soviet Union was a country that first adopted planned economy. The decision-making was centralized and directed by the government. After the fall of communism, the political entity disintegrated into smaller parts. Caucasus also faced the fall of the planned economy. The republics, which appeared as a result of the USSR disintegration, come across the challenge to build a nation state along with escalations of ethnic tensions. “Without the strong hand of the Soviet government and its structural constraints to keep tensions in check, the new leaders were not able to predict the consequences of their actions and they struggled to consolidate and legitimize state power” (Freni, 2013). While planned economy mitigated many problems such as unemployment and inequality, post-soviet newly appeared republics had to deal with these problems themselves. As Derguian (2005) mentioned, political elites tried to gain profit from the fall of planned economy. “The institutions mediating local problems were no longer in existence, and elite competition was no longer guided by a specific set of rules” (Zurcher, 2007). Many internal divisions were created in newly formed governments. Freni (2013) stated that the environment in post-soviet Caucasus was anarchic and “states lost their monopoly on the means of violence and the threshold preventing violence disintegrated”. The disintegration of state resulted in a situation; where force and violence were the most feasible means of achieving goals. Disintegration of the state did not led directly to the conflicts in Caucasus, however the was an anarchic environment which suffered a shortage of legitimate state institutions. This can be an explanation of why the conflict sparked at a quick pace straight after the fall of the Soviet Union, in early nineties.

The Role of Russia

It highly debated issue whether Russia played indirect or direct role in the conflicts in Caucasus. In 1991 the new liberal-democratic Russia was supposed to readjust and consolidate. That inevitable weakened its pressure on the regions. Moscow recognized the independence of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia without any pretensions. However, two years later Moscow aspires to return the control over Caucasus. Although, Russia did not seek to subdue the Transcaucasia states, it applied different tactical maneuvers to deepen and influence its control over the region. Actions of Russia in Transcaucasia differ from its actions in North Caucasus. According to international law North Caucasus is a part of Russian Federation while Transcaucasia consist of three independent states. In North Caucasus Russia entered the direct war with Chechen separatists, though, in Transcaucasia Russia was supposed to maintain de jure equitable international relations. However, it can be argued that de facto Russia was not ready to reconcile with the independence of these states and see these regions as a potential for its influence. “Moscow then sought to gain the loyalty of the two territories by ensuring their protection and security as a means to prevent any unified entity from forming in the Caucasus” (Freni, 2013). This protection coming from Moscow took a form of military assistance. As Freni (2013) further mentioned, Abkhaiza received landmines and heavy weapons, which had not existed before in the region. In the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia took a side of Armenians due to particular strategic interests. When Azerbaijan announced that it is going to remove Russiаn military bases from its lands, Armenia announced that it allows the Russian military troops to remain. Though, previousy Armenia had the same aim as Azerbaijan. “Moscow used levers such as military assistance and entry to the CIS with Azerbaijan in order to pressure it to comply with Russian strategic interests” (Freni, 20130). It is clear, from the above conflicts that Russia was trying to destabilize the regimes, which rejected the aim of Moscow to be the only security guarantor in Caucasus.

Conclusion

The disintegration of the state shifted the threshold for violence. The newly established republics were fighting in anarchic environment of organization chaos. In this environment the spark of conflicts was inevitable. In addition, the role of Russian Federation is also important in the context of conflicts. Russia had a strategic interests in the Caucasus, that it why it tried to be involved in the conflicts in order to secure its influence in the regions. Ethnical nationalism played an important role in provoking tension and antagonism between ethnic groups in promoting radicalization of elites, resulting in growing risk of secession.However, explanation of these conflicts cannot be based solely on ethnical reasons. In this circumstances negative ethnical stereotypes are rather an instrument, which is used by elites in order to mobilize the civil society. The more critical factors that influenced conflicts are battle for territory and battle for political power. “The ethno-federalist structure of the Soviet Union was quite significant in giving a certain ethnicity its own territory and institutions” (Freni, 2013). Therefore, one of the most crucial reasons for conflicts in Caucasus is the experience of self-autonomy. Demographic factor helps explain why some ethnic groups felt deprived in particular territories. Radical Islamisation also played a role in outbreak of wars in North Caucasus. At the conclusion it is right to highlight the words of Zurcher (2007) that “revolutions and wars are not the work of nations but are work in the name of nations”. Analyzing different sources of conflicts in the Caucasus, we can see that some causes are more important in some territories that in others. Cardinal measure for demilitarization and post-conflict reconstruction is a necessary goal for Caucasus. The Caucasus is an important region where international relations and the whole model of Russian nation state are in the process of endurance test. Caucasus is as important for Russia as any other region that is why the regulation of conflicts on the region should be a political priory for Russian Federation.

Bibliography

Akhmadov I. (2004) “The Russian-Chechen Tragedy: The Way to Peace and Democracy. Conditional Independence under an International Administration”. Central Asian Survey, Vol. 22

Barrington L, (2006) “After independence: making and protecting the nation in postcolonial and post communist states,” Barrington L

Cohen A. (2012) “A Threat to the West: The Rise of Islamist Insurgency in the Northern Caucasus and Russia's Inadequate Response”, March 26

Cornell S. (2002) “Autonomy and Conflict: Ethnoterritoriality and Separatism in the South Caucasus - Cases in Georgia”, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Report No. 61

Derluguian G. (2005) “Bourdieu's secret admirer in the Caucasus: a world-system biography”, The University of Chicago Press

Fowkes B. (2002) “Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world”, Palgrave, New York

Freni S.J. (2013) “Cause of Violent conflicts in the Caucasus since the collapse of Communism”, Vol. 5 No 01

King C. (2008) “The ghost of freedom: a history of the Caucasus”, Oxford University Press, New York

Lebanidze S. (2013) “Ethnical, Religious and Politicsl conflicts in Northern Caucasus: The view from Tbilisi”, regional-dialogue.com.

Piontkovsky A. (2011) “North Caucasus: One War Lost, Another One Begins”, March 12

Toft M. (2006) “The geography of ethnic violence: identity, interests, and the indivisibility of territory”, Princeton University Press

Zurcher C. (2007) “The post-Soviet wars: rebellion, ethnic conflict, and nationhood in the Caucasus”, The New York University press

Размещено на Allbest.ur