15.01.2016CHANGING SYSTEM OF THE GLOBAL SECURITY AND THE NEW GEOPOLITICAL CONFIGURATION OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS [ARMENIAN PERSPECTIVE]
Alexander Arutyunyan
Sojitz Corporation, Project Specialist/Ashgabad Office
Today one may observe the establishment and development of a profoundly new environment of the world policy system and its transformations at the regional levels. There are many epicenters of the world systemic changes, which are on a persistent international agenda. However, there is another strategic area, which despite its state of hiatus, is a potential trigger of geopolitical risks and instability. Many experts agree that together with the other conflict zones the South Caucasus region should not be overlooked as one of the main risky and challenging geopolitical areas for the international order and stability in a short term outlook. The region is interesting as an area, where all intensively entangled controversial geopolitical interests and global tendencies contribute to a critical conflict-explosive fuse with unpredicted outcomes. In order to understand the existing geopolitical situation and make some perspective strategic forecasts, a meticulous analysis at all the levels needs to be carried out, considering all the ongoing and fast-changing global tendencies and cross-regional developments.
The South Ossetia conflict of August 2008 could be taken as a relative benchmark for the new stage in the geopolitics of the South Caucasus, as a consequence of which a problem rose to be urgently worked out by the western society and USA in a new strategy of global “dealing with” and interaction with Russia. In the first aftermath of the crisis, it appears the western bloc generally, and USA, particularly, reconciled with ceding the South Caucasus primarily to the Russian sphere of influence. Thus, the US National Security Strategy adopted in 2010, together with the support of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Russian neighbors, emphasized the necessity to maintain stable and comprehensive relationships with Russia (as well as with China and India), whose role and “voice” get stronger in the international arena.1 At that point some experts were even inclined to consider this sort of cold rapprochement and creation of military and political association of Russia-West as being formed under the expectations on advent of the possible menaces from the East. Nevertheless, it became apparent that some reconsidering and objective reshuffling of the geopolitical spheres of influence in the region of the South Caucasus was going on.
In spite of the fact that thereafter US-Russia relations have suffered dramatic twists and a lot of strategic turnovers (ranging from acute global confrontation to collaboration in a spectrum of strategic issues), the situation in the South Caucasus region remains a little bit different. For a period of years the region reminds some sort of a frozen area of stagnant (but smoldering) military conflicts, political stalemates and economic degradation. And this situation corresponds to the chaotic and fragmentary logic of the modern world politics system, with a fractured approach to the regional and international issues, where cooperation, low-intensive antagonism or overt confrontations at the regional level do not mean absolutely the same at the global stage.
In this sense, it is interesting to take a look on the reflections of the so-called local establishment experts regarding the matter. For example, according to the opinion of an Armenian researcher Arman Melikyan, the USA today is trying to cope with the difficult strategic task: to place Russia outside the frame of the “golden billion”, yet to provide her with a satisfactory role and position in the world. Another US strategic objective is the construction of a new “barbarian zone”, whose main mission would be, on one hand, “to intimidate Europeans, aiming at the Anglo-American hegemony in the European Union, and on the other hand – to create a counterbalance to the growing Chinese ambitions in the East. Due to this, the Eurasia would be divided into three main segments, the middle one of which would generate conflict tensions both in the western and eastern directions. Probably, the role of the geopolitical leader of barbarian zone was just designated to the Russia, which is called to be the separating partition zone between the European Union states and the South-East Asia”.2
We can admit this assessment as quite subjective, but we can certainly observe from the ongoing processes that a great zone of global geopolitical instability and chaos in the middle part of the Greater Eurasia is actually forming and taking shape, swathing from the Northern Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe, to Central Asia and Afghanistan. It may have occurred unwillingly, but Russia has got involved at different intensity levels almost in all the mentioned conflict areas: in the East, in Ukraine, Moldavia, Transnistria, South Caucasus, in the Middle East (at this stage, at least in Syria) and in Central Asia and Afghanistan, where it is the main guarantor of security and the pillar of collective security system against the emanated and later highly intensified menaces from Afghanistan. Actually, intentioned or not, Russia faces a huge complicated and highly diversified battle-front and getting permanently involved in this crises areas.
All these global processes directly influence the situation in the region of the South Caucasus, which is the point of “geopolitical fracture” of the modern Eurasian political and geo-economic system. Many experts already forewarn that the region is the next possible point of the crises escalation where the serious conflicts may burst out. The recent developments will influence the existing highly entangled strategic situation in the region, making it even more confused. The possible Iran nuclear deal, which could reinvigorate Iran’s global posture, will undoubtedly activate its strategy in the South Caucasus, striving to find the routes for export of its gas and hydrocarbon resources and will apparently intensify the geopolitical contest for the region. Here a long-term headache of EU, and particularly Turkey, can added to arrange the Trans-Caspian energy route for exporting the Central Asian, primarily Turkmen and Kazakh, natural gas (as Russia recently refused to buy Turkmen gas, which comprises the lion’s share of those resources) and to transit it to the EU and Ukraine. Hence, it is a very rare situation, when the EU’s vital interest to diversify its natural gas supplies coincides with the aspiration of the Central Asian states, especially Turkmenistan, to find the alternative for the Russian routes of deliveries. It is obvious that the interests of Iran and Turkey, which sees itself as the main transit supplier for EU, collide in this region.
It is interesting to briefly analyze the evolution and twists of Turkey’s strategy, which adds more muddle to the overall regional situation. At the beginning, as a response to the crisis just after the August 2008 and change of the status quo in the region, Turkey has vigorously embarked on adjusting its strategy, in order to fill the emerged power vacuum, and from the role of a direct ally and satellite of US in the region it was trying to position itself as a self-dependent and traditionally dominating subject, in a wider sense, putting forward all sorts of initiatives and proposals. As commented by an expert on subject, Eleni Fotiou, “The Georgian-Russian war of August 2008 served as a catalyst for Turkey’s immediate quest for security in pro-active terms; in the context of the “zero-problems with neighbors” policy (“komşular arası sıfır problem”) and “rhythmic diplomacy” (“ritmik diplomasi”), the Turkish leadership proposed the establishment of a “Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform””.3 Experts rushed to name this geopolitical trend as a revival of the Turkish “neo-Ottoman” doctrine.
On the background of this we could see some rapprochement between Turkey and Russia in the regional geopolitics, in the field of energy cooperation, etc. The same expert continues that from the Russian side an “independent and indigenous schemes which exclude external actors [were] highly appreciated. In this context, Russia [was] supportive of the Turkish initiative, because it excludes the US from the scheme, thereby reducing American influence and restoring local ownership in the region, where Russia is the “indisputable leader”.4 It is worthwhile to note that this turnabout in the Turkey’s foreign policy was quite consonant with the essence of the Russian ideology of “Eurasianism” (evraziystvo-rus.;translit.), which, as well known, advocates for inevitable necessity to form Slavic-Turkish alliance. The ideologists of the so-called “Turkish Eurasianism”, on their part, emphasize that “the most important structural peculiarity of the Turkish Eurasianism is the struggle of Russia and Turkey against the West. As a result of such a struggle Eurasian conglomeration of Slavonic and Turkic nations should be formed.”5
Nevertheless, a dramatic strategic shift happened with the unwinding of the Syrian conflict and especially after the recent military engagement of Russia. Despite the recent rapprochements between the two powers, it is obvious that Turkey will tolerate the rising preponderance of Russia in the region only up to some point. In case of Syria it became clear that the strategic lines of both states diverged critically and that they have different outlook and geopolitical perspective for the region. It rebounds even harder on the situation in the South Caucasus, changing precipitously the existing fragile balance. As an answer to the well-known crises near the Syrian-Turkey border and reinforcement of the Russian military positions there, particularly, the deployment of the Russian S-400 anti-missile strategic defense system, de-facto creating the non-fly zone for the Turkish military aircrafts, Turkey threatens to push on the Karabakh conflict, which is quite a sensitive issue for Russia. That was approved by the recent visit to Baku of the Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu on November 26-27, 2015, where he underlined Turkey’s continuing support to Azerbaijan in all matters, particularly in Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing “occupation” of Azerbaijani territory. Foreign Minister also announced that Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) project proceeds without problems and timely steps have been taken for its implementation. All this was accompanied by the Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu statement, given to TRT Haber, where he declared, that “Turkey will do its utmost for the liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan”. 6
Some experts interpreted this as an obvious intention of Turkey to open the next contention area with Moscow in the South Caucasus, where the frontline would be the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The point is to compel Kremlin to get involved in this conflict, to enmesh it in this regional swamp, making Russian geopolitical state of affairs even more complicated. It is clear that Russia, as a strategic and historical ally of Armenia, at least in context of the recent developments, will not sit indifferently in case of any escalation. With the recent unreeling of the processes Turkey renders more and more provocative posture towards Armenia. There have already been detected dozens of incidents with a violation of Armenian airspace by the Turkish military aircrafts near the areas of deployment of the Russia’s 102nd military base. The probable unrolling of processes in that tone, the unfreezing and escalation of Karabakh conflict may cause irreversible and highly destructive consequences for the gross-regional and global security.
As we can see, the changing of the global security system strongly influences the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus region. Obviously, the region cannot stay anymore in a situation of a stagnated conflict area. Sooner or later this knot of conflicts would lead to an outburst of a huge geopolitical crisis. And a good crisis management and conflict resolution is surely required. But the transferring of the existing conflicts from the “Greater Region” to all of its sections and sub-regions is fraught with the unpredicted outcomes for the global security and the international order. All the international actors and geopolitical powers involved should have to concentrate rather on how to localize the existing conflicts and not to allow their spreading to other regions, than to stir the existing regional conflicts and negatively impact the current status-quo. Only by implementing this strategy and the global security management we can avoid the widespread chaos and permanent conflict situation not only in the “middle segment”, but all over the huge “Greater Eurasia” region.
1 The US National Security Strategy. Adopted by the Senate and signed by the president Obama on 27 of May, 2010.
2 Արման Մելիքյան, «Ոսկե միլիարդը, Ռուսաստանն ու Հայաստանի ապագայի տարբերակները», 7or.am. Մարտ 22, 2010թ., http://www.7or.am/am/news/view/15620/
3 Eleni Fotiou. “Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform”: What is at Stake for Regional Cooperation? ICBSS Policy Brief no.16, June 2009. http://www.isn.ethz.ch
4 Ibid
5 Simavoryan, Arestakes. Ideological Trends in the Context of Foreign Policy of Turkey. http://www.noravank.am/eng/issues/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=5013
6 Trend.az “Turkey will do its utmost for the liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan”. 26 November, 2015
Return