International peacekeeping operations in the Caucasus region

Peacekeeping in the Caucuses

History provides the world with constant subjects for debate and for actions needed to be taken in order to improve the lives of those who are in pain. At the same time though, history has also been the source of tremendous legacies in terms of conflict, ethnic disturbances, as well as social and ethnic inequality. The examples are many and they can be seen as clearly indicating the fact that history is a continuous process which constructs the present and the future of our society. Thus, the conflicts from Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Liberia, Chad, and Kosovo all consist of evidence to support the idea that indeed actions from the past are always shaping the future.

One of the most interesting and at the same time challenging regions of the world is the region of the Caucasus. Similar to the region of the Western Balkans, the region of the Caucasus represents the proof of decades of historical struggle for supremacy in the region as well as the discussions over the legality of power in different regions of this area. However the conflicts which emerged in the Caucasus have left the international community forced to intervene due to the massive casualties in terms of human losses and economic stagnation. Moreover, the state of uncertainty which characterizes the situation in the Caucasus also represents an important source for additional conflicts and for the spread of violence towards other regions of the world. these are only a few reasons for which the Caucasus have drew the attention of the international community which is now engaged, through various means of action, in the resolution of the problems arising in Armenia, Georgia, or Azerbaijan. For these reasons alone as well as for others which will be discussed in this paper, it is essential that the actions taken in order to deal with this situation also be discussed.

The paper addresses several aspects of the situation in the Caucasus. First, it is essential that a historical background be detailed in order to have a better understanding of the events that are contemporary. Second, given the large number of factors which are involved in the latent or obvious conflict situations, a geopolitical analysis must be taken into account. Third, as stated before, the international community has become deeply involved in the resolution of the issues which led to a stagnation of the development of the region. Therefore, several peacekeeping operations were or still are in place in the region. The pragmatism or idealist nature of these operations will also be discussed. Finally, the effects of the peacekeeping missions as well as the eventual developments for the future are also of particular interest for pointing out the situation in Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

Historical background

The history of the Caucuses cannot be considered as individual tails of a certain country, but rather it is far to say that unlike other regions of the world, each country was somewhat determined by its neighbor in choosing the path of its further development. However, even so, three of the most important countries in the Caucuses are Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia due to the wide range of issues arising between them as well as the geopolitical and geostrategic position of their territory. Regardless of this political perspective given to every detailed account of the history of these three countries, there are additional factors which come to complete the region's profile. In this sense, there are also religious, economic, as well as ethnic elements which fuel the tensions between the three actors. Finally, the presence of the Russian Federation as the most important element that decides the position of the three is crucial. In this sense, history was not possible without the presence of the Russian Federation and this is one of the reasons for which contemporary accounts of the situation of the three states begin with the disintegration of the U.S.S.R.

The three countries however were plagued by conflict for much of their history. Thus, "some of the hotbeds of interethnic conflicts in what was formerly the territory of the Soviet Union have existed for several centuries, while others are more recent. Full-scale military actions erupt in some of these areas; in others, political movements and groups expressing certain ethno national tendencies form. These two situations are the extremes in the range of intensity of interethnic conflicts. All of these situations are in flux, and a conflict can grow in intensity very rapidly." (Naumkin, 1994, 1) Therefore, it can be stated that the former Soviet Union transformed latent ethnic conflicts into active conflicts which resulted in clashes between the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis in the early years of the 90s.

The historical background focuses in particular on the relationship between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In this sense, Armenia with a largely Christian population was in constant conflict with Azerbaijan, a largely muslin and Turk country. Nonetheless, it is only at the beginning of the 20th century that the actual modern conflict emerged between the two. The major issue constituted the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which was created as a region of Azerbaijan but where the majority was Armenian, "the ration being two to one." (Calvocoressi, 1996) More precisely, conflict emerged and "first the Armenians won, then the Azerbaijanis, and then the Armenians again. Both camps believed that the entire blame for the wars was that of the Russians" (Calvocoressi, 1996). Historical evidence has pointed out that indeed, the separation of the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh was largely due to the desire of the Soviet leaders following the First World War. Therefore, it can be said that history did in fact provide Armenia and Azerbaijan with a conflict which is in fact the creation of the most important factor in the region, Russia.

Concerning Georgia, it can be said that its historical destiny was and still is influenced by the Russian state. In this sense, from the end of the 19th century, at the time when the Georgian king offered the state to the Russian tsar, the country was no longer under sovereign control. (Hosbawn, 1995) More precisely, it was led by governors who exercised an increased Russian influence. Following the First World War, Georgia declared its independence but it would not be a lasting state of affairs as it was later incorporated in the Soviet Union. However, given the fact that the region in itself represents a mix of cultures, ethnicities, and religions, elements that the Soviet Union tried desperately to control, it was rather difficult to maintain or even create a homogenous structure of the society. Along with the communist doctrine which dominated the region and Georgia inevitably, ethnic tolerance was inexistent. This is one of the main reasons for which the conflicts which now plague Georgia mounted and are now of international interest. Thus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and other parts of Georgia are seen as developing a high degree of risk for the region as well as for the world.

Taking into account these aspects of regional history, it can be said that indeed the most important fact which determined the way in which the history of these countries would evolve proves to be the Former USSR and the current Russian state. this is largely due to the increased economic and political dependence the three countries came to develop, an element which cannot be overlooked in a world that is becoming more and more interdependent.

Peacekeeping

Peacekeeping missions represent one of the most important tools at the disposal of humanity for conflict resolutions. Despite the fact that it has often been criticized as an inefficient means of saving lives and states, the United Nations along with the rest of the specialized international organizations have been actively involved in at least mediating the conflicts which arrive and offer a forum for discussions and for reaching compromise and mutually agreed solutions.

Georgia was and continues to be an important area of conflict. Since 1992 when Abkhazia declared its independence from the Georgian state, an act which was followed by intense fighting and human loss, the international community sought to consider a peaceful resolution to the problem at hand. In this sense, the United Nations sought to revive the peace process by diplomatic means, consulting with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) [now redesignated the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)] so as to ensure effective coordination of activities. In November 1992, a United Nations office opened in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi to provide an integrated United Nations approach in the region and to assist in the peacemaking efforts of the Secretary-General" (UN, 2007).

The approach is important because it offers indeed the perspective needed to consider the way in which the international community saw the resolution of the issue. In this sense, it tried to include all the actors that are affected by this conflict, as well as Russia. This comes to underline the vital role Russia plays in the geopolitical map of the region.

A crucial aspect in this matter is the implication of the OSCE. It is a rather well-known fact the idea that this organization is part of the Cold War blueprint which aimed at placing together at the same table of talks both the east and the west. In this sense, the Russians as well as the Americans had a communication path which would ensure their imminent discussions. Nowadays, it represents an important European forum in particular. It has both security abilities and human rights protection abilities. At the same time, it gathers states from the entire European space. This is important because even if the Cold War has ended at a political level its reminiscences are still visible at the level of the mentalities as well as at a social one. Therefore, the existence of a forum which can take action against the abuses of human rights as well as during a conflict zone is crucial.

Despite the continuous efforts made by the international community the United Nations considers the situation on the ground to be "mostly calm but very volatile. Criminality and lawlessness continued to be major destabilizing factors, putting in jeopardy the overall security situation. Complaints had repeatedly been lodged by the local population in both sectors about terrorizing and intimidation by armed groups. Repeated violations of the Agreement on a Ceasefire and Separation of Forces of 14 May 1994 and restrictions on the freedom of movement of UNOMIG continued" (United Nations, 2007) Even so, it is essential that the improvements achieved to be taken into account in order to see the actual success or failure of the international community. However it must be said that the entire security strategy in Georgia is represented by the activities and supervision of the UN which ensures security as well as the OSCE which "secures freedom of movement and freedom of the mass media" (Caucasian Knot, 2004).

One of the most important aspects of the mission in Georgia has been the insurance of security as part of the process for peace and stability in Abkhazia. In this sense, troops were deployed so that security can be achieved. However, the United Nations registered several casualties. Most importantly however, it failed to undergo a serious plan for eradicating the danger of land mines. More precisely, "the threat of mines continued to be of great concern. UNOMIG relied on the assistance of the HALO Trust to dispose of the mines. In violation of the Moscow Agreement, there was also a disturbing tendency by the two sides to restrict the movement of UNOMIG personnel, thereby hindering the ability of the Mission to fulfill its mandate." (UN, 2007)

As it can be seen, there was not a total access to the possibilities for peacekeeping in the current situation. Little support was actually offered to the UN personnel. Moreover, there was limited political desire from the part of the other actors involved to take action in order to secure the region. Despite these hindrances, the United Nations did achieve some results. In this sense, some security could be achieved, without however reducing the number of people who die every day. In other key aspects such as human rights as a part of the UN mission, it is rather hard to consider possible effects largely due to the nature of the mission in Georgia. This is an observation mission and not an intervention mission. In this sense, there is a limited amount of authority that can be exercised on the Abkhazian territory. In this sense, according to official data, there were 133 military observers, 18 police members, and 98 international civilians. The total number of UN personnel was 432. (UN, 2008) Therefore, it can be said that not only did the UN force did not have the national legitimacy to intervene, also the number of troops and the actual nature of the intervention was not aimed at reducing the degree of conflict but rather to observe the peace situation that would have to establish for itself in the region.

An important aspect of the peacekeeping operations is the presence of the Russian Federation. Despite the fact that the initial intention of the United Nations was to include all the actors involved, in the end the resolution of the situation can also be considered part of a rather bigger political and more importantly economic ratio. In this sense, the Georgian state represents an important source of oil and a crucial path for the transportation of oil. This is one of the reasons for which both the UN as well as the rest of the actors involved in the Georgian file wish to have a peaceful resolution to the problem. Still, the Russian Federation is considered to be an important element in the oil trade and it would be very useful for it to have access to Georgian resources and means of transportation as well. From this point-of-view, it can be said that the legitimacy of the Russian side is rather debated in the Georgian circles.

The situation of the Russian troops as part of the aid needed for the reconstruction and the peace talks to be held on the subject of Abkhazia is yet another matter of dispute and a source of failure of the assistance. In this sense, the last years saw some of the most heated debates over the presence of Russian troops on the Georgian territory. Therefore, in 2006 "the Georgian parliament passed a resolution advising the government to suspend peacekeeping operations in the breakaway regions and replace Russian troops with an international contingent, thereby to terminate the 1992 and 1994 bilateral agreements authorizing Russia's peacekeeping missions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia respectively" (RIA Novosti, 2006). This comes to prove another major commitment Georgia is said to have agreed upon, which is the accession to the NATO structures. However, this cannot be achieved in the conditions in which the troops of the Russian state are still present on the Georgian territory. Therefore, it can be said that the peacekeeping operations in Georgia have been marked not only by the lack of success from the UN and the OSCE but also by the important geostrategic consequences.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are yet two crucial actors in the Caucasus region from different point-of-views. In terms of economic and political factors they are very influencing especially through the perspective their position offer. Still, the conflict which has been a constant in the last decades has determined a reconsideration of the intervention methods through which both sides can come to a certain compromise for an issue that has affected decades of history.

The actual nature of the conflict is as stated above a very complex one which entangles both ethnic and religious aspects. In this sense, "the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has surprising similarities to the dispute between Israel and Palestine, and equally disturbing strategic implications. The region provides a toxic mixture, combining oil, Islamic fundamentalism, old-fashioned cold-war alliances, a religious holocaust, claims of genocide and an irredentist movement by ethnic Armenians, stranded on a Christian island, in an Islamic sea" (Flash Points, n.d.) Therefore, it was essential that the approach to the conflict be determined in terms of the actual participants to the social affairs, to the basic individuals of the society because peace could not have been achieved but through the cooperation of the community first and foremost.

The OSCE got involved in a rather special manner as it was crucial for a special mission to be created. In this sense, the Minsk Group was created for "providing an appropriate framework for conflict resolution in the way of assuring the negotiation process supported by the Minsk Group; obtaining conclusion by the Parties of an agreement on the cessation of the armed conflict in order to permit the convening of the Minsk Conference; promoting the peace process by deploying OSCE multinational peacekeeping forces" (OSCE, 2008).

As seen, the OSCE mission is yet again one which does not include any armed forces as its objections are similar to those of the mediation process. In this sense, it is rather hard to determine the way in which such a process can take place successfully. More precisely, it is indeed important for the region to represent a safe and secure environment for businesses to flourish and for both countries to be proper partners for trade and international commerce. However, neither the OSCE nor any other organization has the right and the full authority to intervene in a decisive manner. Even so, there are voices which consider even this action of mediation to be important because yet again it offers a forum of discussions and a clear agenda set between the two parties.

Despite the fact that there are several important elements that have been achieved by the OSCE mission, there is also a lot of criticism concerning the activity of the OSCE and that of the Minsk Group.

One of the most important achievements of the Group and thus of the OSCE was the recent meeting which took place between the presidents of the two countries which dispute the territory. This is an important event because it marks the normalization of the relations between the two leaders and inevitably between the two states. Even more, it is important that the perspective of the new President of Armenia will take into account the utility of the Minsk Group. As far as the Azerbaijan perspective, according to official statements, there is a great sense for understanding and for reaching a viable solution for both sides. Thus, it was stated before the actual meeting that "We hope that the meeting will yield positive results, i.e. The sides will declare they are ready to continue the negotiations (...) the Karabakh issue must be solved in a peaceful way: there is no alternative to negotiations, the statements about the military solution are a result of impermissible way of thinking" (Huliq News, 2008).

There are several aspects however which need to be discussed. On the one hand, it is important to note that this meeting took place on the Russian soil, in Saint Petersburg. This comes to prove the fact that regardless of the high level of international experts which deal with this situation and with the current conflict, the Russian state is determined to exercise its power in every means possible and especially by playing a mediating role itself. On the other hand, in some circles, it is considered that in fact the Minsk Group is in fact a tool for the United States and its citizens. More precisely, "The refusal by U.S. State Department to issue an entry visa to Abkahzia's Foreign Minister Sergei Shamba caused severe criticism of its American colleagues from the Russian Foreign Ministry" (Areshev, 2007). Although the refusal in itself was motivated in an official manner, the actual action is important and points out the way in which the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is viewed from the outside and having a strategic result.

Finally, the limited success of the peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan can also be the result of the exclusion from the peace talks of the legitimate president of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. In this sense, "Arkady Ghukasian, president of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), said that Baku's refusal to hold direct talks with members of the Karabakh leadership is slowing down mediation efforts on the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh" (Fuller, 2006). Indeed, in order to succeed and to find a solution which is applicable and accepted for all the parties involved it is essential that the solution be legitimate and agreed upon. Otherwise, negotiations can stop or the solution can prove unviable. Therefore, the OSCE should include more the regional element and representatives of the actual people experiencing conflict in order to have a better understanding of what is the situation on the ground.

Conclusion

The role of peace keeping ins essential and can be seen as a milestone in the current era of conflicts and wars. The United Nations, along with its specialized organizations play a vital role in offering the strategic and technical support for peacekeeping operations to take place. However, there are certain analysis to be made in order to ensure that all factors are taken into account. In the cases of Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh these factors include the historical background, the geopolitical discussions, as well as the traditional actors which are involved in the mediation processes. At the same time though in order to consider all the elements involved, one can visibly see that there is a certain discussion over the role Russia plays and will continue to play in the region. Finally, in order for the peacekeeping operations to be effective, both the UN and the OSCE must include the regional and national elements as well.