The South Caucasus Countries and Their Security Dimension

 
 

Oil Pump in Baku

Tensions over Nagorno-Karabakh and the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia continue to give the South Caucasus region a bad name. That won’t change any time soon, warns Eugene Kogan, unless Russia alters its ‘status quo’ policies towards this volatile area.

By Eugene Kogan for Center for International and European Studies (CIES)

The two unresolved conflicts in the South Caucasus hang over Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia like the Sword of Damocles. As seen from every view point, Russia’s influence, levers and policy toward conflicts resolution remain the key issues. As long as Moscow maintains a status quo policy and keeps the outside actors at arm’s length from the region, the unresolved conflicts will continue to fester. The potential for a third conflict should not be underestimated, since all the necessary ingredients for an explosive situation are in place. The aloofness of President Barack Obama coupled with a politically divided and militarily impotent European Union makes conflicts resolution very remote, if it is at all possible. The continuing ambiguous position of NATO member states concerning the membership of Georgia in NATO makes things worse for Georgia and leaves it vulnerable to intimidation by Russia. Turkey’s ambitions are well-known, but Turkey alone is no match for Russia in the South Caucasus. So, what can be done to change the situation?

Did the Armenian Genocide Inspire Hitler?

A number of clues point to the possibility that Hitler's "final solution" was inspired by the Turkish massacre of its Armenian population in 1915. His infamous 1939 question, "Who speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?" although hotly debated concerning its authenticity, is only one indication leading to that conclusion

It is well known by genocide scholars that in 1939 Adolf Hitler urged his generals to exterminate members of the Polish race.[1] "Who speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?" Hitler asked, just a week before the September 1, 1939 invasion of Poland.[2] However, while it is generally agreed that Hitler was well aware of the Armenian genocide,[3] some genocide scholars and historians of the Ottoman Empire have questioned whether he actually made the above statement or even intended to exterminate portions of the "Polish race

."[4]

Still, there is evidence that the massacre of the Ottoman Armenians helped persuade the Nazis that national minorities posed a threat to empires dominated by an ethnic group such as the Germans or the Turks. Furthermore, these minorities could be exterminated to the benefit of the perpetrator with little risk. Indeed, it was German officials who had smuggled out of the Ottoman Empire the leaders of the Young Turk regime, culpable for the deaths of over a million Armenians and a million or more other Christian minorities such as the Assyrians and Greeks.[5] Diverse historical evidence suggests that Hitler viewed the Armenians and Poles as analogous; in several ways

Middle East Quarterly: Ankara's Unacknowledged Genocide Turkey, Past and Future

It is commonplace among Middle East scholars across the political spectrum to idealize the Ottoman colonial legacy as a shining example of tolerance. "The multi-ethnic Ottoman Turkish Empire," wrote American journalist Robert Kaplan, "was more hospitable to minorities than the uni-ethnic democratic states that immediately succeeded it … Violent discussions over what group got to control which territory emerged only when the empire came to an end, after World War I."[1]

The ethnic cleansing of Turkish Armenia was accomplished in a variety of ways including deportations and outright massacres. Here, Armenian deportees struggle to survive in makeshift tents erected in the Syrian desert to which they were deported in 1915.

Bernard Lewis went a significant step further, ascribing the wholesale violence attending the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to attempts to reform its Islamic sociopolitical order. "The classical Ottoman Empire enabled a multiplicity of religious and ethnic groups to live side by side in mutual tolerance and respect, subject only to the primacy of Islam and the supremacy of the Muslims," he wrote. "The liberal reformers and revolutionaries who abolished the old order and proclaimed the constitutional equality of all Ottoman citizens led the Ottoman Empire into the final bitter and bloody national struggles—the worst by far in the half-millennium of its history."[2] And Edward Said, in an exceptional display of unanimity with his intellectual foe, was similarly effusive. "What they had then seems a lot more humane than what we have now," he argued. "Of course, there were inequities. But they lived without this ridiculous notion that every millet has to have its own state."[3]

What are Armenia’s foreign challenges?

Every country faces a variety of challenges and perils, and Armenia is not an exception, Armenian Analytical Centre on Globalization and Regional Cooperation Director, political analyst Stepan Grigoryan said during a press conference on Tuesday.  

In his words, Armenia’s foreign challenges include ties with Georgia, the Syrian issue, and the US presidential elections.