Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh: unfrozen conflicts between Russia and the West. OSW Special Report, 9 July 2008

The Southern Caucasus is the site of three armed conflicts with separatist backgrounds, which have remained unsolved for years: the conflicts in Georgia's Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Azerbaijan's conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (including the areas around Nagorno-Karabakh which were seized by Armenian separatists in the course of the war). Neither Georgia nor Azerbaijan have had any control over the disputed areas since the early 1990s. Both states are simultaneously in conflict with the separatists' informal patrons, respectively Russia and Armenia. After over a decade of relative peace during which the conflicts remained frozen, tension has recently risen considerably: in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, large-scale fighting may break out in the coming months, whereas in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Azeri-Armenian conflict, such a threat may materialise within the next five years. The current formula for politically resolving the conflicts is ineffective and close to exhaustion, and the prospect of any alternative peace plans being developed is rather distant. The conflicts in the Southern Caucasus are of increasing concern to the West, mainly because of the Western actors' constantly growing political and economic involvement in Georgia and Azerbaijan (including support for reforms and development of the gas and oil transmission infrastructures), as well as its less intensive commitments in Armenia. An outbreak of open fighting over the separatist regions would destabilise the Southern Caucasus, largely undoing the results of the actions which the EU, NATO and the USA have taken in the region in recent years. Moreover, the situation in the Southern Caucasus, especially the separatisms themselves, have in fact become an element in the wider geopolitical game between the West and Russia. For Russia, the stakes are maintaining its influence in the region, and for the West, demonstrating its ability to effectively promote democracy and economic modernisation in the countries bordering it.

Nagorno-Karabakh and the arc of crises on Europe's borders. EPC Policy Brief, 3 February 2016

For more than two decades, Azerbaijan and Armenia have been locked in a stalemate over the Nagorno-Karabakh. The protracted conflict remains the biggest impediment to security, stability and prosperity in the South Caucasus. The EU has put itself on the sidelines of the conflict resolution process, allowing the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group (MG), of which Russia, France and the US are co-chairs, to take centre stage. In this Policy Brief, Amanda Paul and Dennis Sammut argue that the EU should play a more active role in the conflict resolution process, taking the lead with innovative initiatives and using its soft power skills and experience. A recent review of the European Neighbourhood Policy recognises that protracted conflicts continue to hamper development in the region. This new approach now needs to be given substance, before the conflict further escalates and becomes another crisis on Europe’s border the already burdened Union cannot cope with.

Análisis de la influencia del conflicto por Nagorno-Karabaj en la construcción de un complejo regional de seguridad entre Irán, Rusia y Turquía en el Sur del Cáucaso (Periodo 1988-2008)

Se analiza cómo la inestabilidad generada por el conflicto por Nagorno-Karabaj amenaza y vuelve interdependientes los intereses de Irán, Rusia y Turquía,influyendo de esta forma en la construcción de un complejo de seguridad entre estos tres Estados en el Sur del Cáucaso.

Nagorno-Karabkh - conflict unfreezing. OSW Commentary No. 65, 2011-10-26

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh poses the greatest challenge to the security and stability of the Southern Caucasus. Although a ceasefire has been in place and a peace process under way since 1994, there is growing concern that the threat of the resumption of military action is growing. Proof of that is provided by, for example, the arms race dictated by Azerbaijan and its use of war rhetoric. A major factor, in addition to Azerbaijan’s increasing potential and ambitions, which is destabilising the situation concerning Karabakh seems to be the changing geopolitical situation in this region. Although the outbreak of a new war over Nagorno-Karabakh seems unlikely (as this would be risky to all the actors involved) within the next year, if the current trends continue, this will be difficult to avoid in the future. A further increase in the tension, and especially a military conflict (whatever its outcome), will lead to deep changes in the situation in the Southern Caucasus and in the policies of the countries which are active in this region.

The EU cannot remain a passive observer of the Karabakh conflict. EPC Commentary, 7 April 2016

When Federica Mogherini visited the South Caucasus in March, she was quoted as saying that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was a top priority for the EU. Facts, however, do not seem to match the words of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. As violent clashes in the conflict zone unfolded over the past week, the EU was a passive observer, with few visible signs of engagement apart from a cursory phone call urging Armenia and Azerbaijan to show restraint. The escalation has shown how quickly and dangerously the situation can develop, and the unassailable nature of the Line of Contact (LoC). If the diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict show no progress, a repetition is very probable. Furthermore, it is likely the next incident will be more devastating in human and material costs than this recent one, and may not be contained so quickly. The EU needs to be part of the renewed diplomatic effort.

Les difficultés d’application du droit international au conflit du Haut-Karabagh : effectivités et causes géopolitiques

Conflit présenté comme gelé, la guerre du Haut-Karabagh n’en est pas moins réelle, s’inscrivant dans une géopolitique régionale complexe et passionnante, nécessitant de s’intéresser à l’histoire des peuples de la région, à l’histoire des conquêtes et politiques menées concomitamment. Comprendre les raisons de ce conflit situé aux limites de l’Europe et de l’Asie, comprendre les enjeux en cause, que se soit la problématique énergétique ou l’importance stratégique de la région du Caucase à la fois pour la Russie mais également pour les Etats-Unis ou l’Union Européenne ; autant de réflexions que soulève cette recherche. Au delà, c’est l’influence réciproque du droit international et du politique qui sera prise en compte, notamment concernant l’échec des négociations actuelles. Les difficultés d’application du droit international à ce conflit sui generis se situent à plusieurs niveaux ; sur le statut de la région principalement, mais également sur les mécanismes de sanctions et de réparations devant s’appliquer aux crimes sur les personnes et les biens et qui se heurtent à la classification difficile du conflit.

Incidencia de conflicto turcochipriota en las relaciones políticas de Turquía y la Unión Europea (2005-2010)

Las relaciones políticas entre Turquía y la Unión Europea tienen un historial de altos y bajos marcado por los intereses comerciales de cada uno. Sin embargo, en 2005 con la postulación de Turquía como candidato a país miembro de la Unión Europea, el conflicto en la isla de Chipre entre comunidades griegas y turcas se convierte en el principal protagonista de las relaciones bilaterales.

El Cáucaso: un enclave geoestratégico

Estas singularidades, observadas a la luz de la realidad de la industria petrolera y del mercado mundial, han empezado a aumentar la importancia de la región del Cáucaso, convirtiéndola en un enclave geoestratégico de crucial relevancia

Reintegration or Reconquest? Georgia's policy towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the context of the internal and international situation. OSW Point of View, May 2008

The conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been Georgia's main security problem since the beginning of the 1990s, and, along with the Armenian-Azeri conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, have made up the main security problems in the South Caucasus.

Armed conflicts in the post-Soviet region: Present situation, prospects for settlement, consequences. OSW Study 9/2003

Unresolved conflicts continue to smoulder in Transnistria, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia. "Para-states" have formed in most conflict-affected areas. These have grown to become permanent players in the region. In Chechnya, guerrilla fights continue in the wake of the Russian army's siege of the republic. The conflict in Tajikistan ended in 1997 and the normalisation process is currently under way. Each of these conflicts has entailed profound political, social, ethnic and economic changes, as well as affecting other spheres of life. Presently, it is impossible to return to the pre-conflict situation. The "para-states" have fortified their independence and are no longer controlled by the external powers on which they depended in the initial phases of the conflicts.

From apathy to nationalist mobilisation: politics makes a comeback in Armenia. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 215 | 08.06.2016

In the military dimension, the Four-Day War in Nagorno-Karabakh (2–5 April 2016) changed little in the conflict zone. It has, however, had a significant impact on the situation in Armenia. The country was shocked out of the political malaise that had been the dominant mood in the last few years, and the Karabakh question, which used to animate political life in the late 1980s and early 1990s, once again became a driving force behind developments. In the internal dimension, the renewed fighting galvanised the political scene, triggered a rise in nationalist sentiments, mobilised the public and consolidated it around the Karabakh question, overshadowing the frustrations caused by the country’s difficult economic situation. In the external dimension, the war, which was viewed as Moscow-endorsed Azerbaijani aggression, undermined people’s trust in Russia and the Armenian-Russian alliance. It also made it clear for Armenians how uncertain the Russian security guarantees were and exacerbated their feelings of vulnerability and isolation on the international stage.

Armenia's foreign policy, 1991–2004: Between history and geopolitics

This dissertation is the first systematic study of Armenia’s foreign policy during the post-independence period, between 1991 and 2004. It argues that a small state’s foreign policy is best understood when looking at the regional level. Armenia’s geographic proximity to Iran, Russia and Turkey, places it in an area of heightened geopolitical interest by various great powers. This dissertation explores four sets of relationships with Armenia’s major historical ‘partners’: Russia, Iran, Turkey and the West (Europe and the United States). Each relationship reveals a complex reality of a continuous negotiation between ideas of history, collective memory, nationalism and geopolitics. A detailed study of Armenia’s relations with these powers demonstrates how actors’ relations of amity and enmity are formed to constitute a regional security complex. Turkey represents the ultimate “other”, while both Europe and Iran are seen as ideational “others”, whose role in Armenia’s foreign policy, aside from pragmatic policy considerations, reflects a normative quest. Russia and the United States, on the other hand, represent the powerful structural forces that define the regional security complex, in which Armenia operates. This dissertation argues that although Armenia has been severely constrained in certain foreign policy choices, it was adept at carving a space for action that privileged the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh over other geopolitical imperatives.

Armenia's Foreign Policy, 1991-2004: Between History and Geopolitics

This dissertation is the first systematic study of Armenia’s foreign policy during the post-independence period, between 1991 and 2004. It argues that a small state’s foreign policy is best understood when looking at the regional level. Armenia’s geographic proximity to Iran, Russia and Turkey, places it in an area of heightened geopolitical interest by various great powers. This dissertation explores four sets of relationships with Armenia’s major historical ‘partners’: Russia, Iran, Turkey and the West (Europe and the United States). Each relationship reveals a complex reality of a continuous negotiation between ideas of history, collective memory, nationalism and geopolitics. A detailed study of Armenia’s relations with these powers demonstrates how actors’ relations of amity and enmity are formed to constitute a regional security complex. Turkey represents the ultimate “other”, while both Europe and Iran are seen as ideational “others”, whose role in Armenia’s foreign policy, aside from pragmatic policy considerations, reflects a normative quest. Russia and the United States, on the other hand, represent the powerful structural forces that define the regional security complex, in which Armenia operates. This dissertation argues that although Armenia has been severely constrained in certain foreign policy choices, it was adept at carving a space for action that privileged the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh over other geopolitical imperatives.

Análisis geopolítico de las relaciones y tensiones político-militares entre Rusia y Georgia a raíz de su participación en el conflicto de independencia de Osetia del Sur entre 2004 y 2008

Desde la caída de la URSS el continente Euroasiático ha sufrido cambios importantes como una nueva configuración del Sistema Internacional que generó procesos políticos a través de la lucha de los Estados por alcanzar sus objetivos. La ubicación geográfica y los recursos resaltan la importancia de la zona y es por esto empiezan los conflictos entre los Estados por obtener un control y poder sobre estos territorios. Rusia afianzo su fuerza con la influencia que logró sobre los territorios que quedaron después de la disolución de la URSS en 1991 creando así una zona de protección y apoyo para sus intereses. Por su lado Georgia que había logrado finalmente su independencia total buscaba consolidar una estabilidad política, económica, social y cultural, elementos que se habían perdido un poco después de las invasiones y ocupaciones por otros poderes. En este contexto cae como una bomba la intención independentista de Abjasia y Osetia del Sur, territorios que siempre habían estado bajo mando de otros poderes y ahora querían libertad a través de la conformación de un Estado propio y una autonomía que les permitiera tener un gobierno y un aparato estatal que velara por sus intereses. Este trabajo se centrará en contestar a la siguiente pregunta ¿De qué manera la situación geopolítica de Osetia del Sur y Abjasia y las relaciones entre Rusia y Georgia influyeron en el conflicto generado a partir de la intención de independencia de los territorios de Abjasia y Osetia del Sur?

Survival of a Perverse Nation: Sexuality and Kinship in Post-Soviet Armenia

Survival of a Perverse Nation traces the ways in which contemporary Armenian anxieties are congealing into the figure of the “homosexual.” As in other post-Soviet republics, homosexuality has increasingly become defined as the crisis of the times, and is understood by many as a destructive force linked to European encroachment. In Armenia, a growing right-wing nationalist movement since 2012 has been targeting LGBT and feminist activists. I suggest that this movement has arisen out of Armenia’s concerns regarding proper social and biological reproduction in the face of high rates of emigration of especially men in search of work. Many in the country blame this emigration on a post-Soviet oligarchy, with close ties to the government. This oligarchy, having quickly and massively privatized and liquidated industry and land during the war over the region of Nagorno-Karabagh (1990-1994) with Azerbaijan, created widespread un(der)employment. A national narrative attributing the nation’s survival of the 1915 Genocide and dispersion of its populations to strong morality preserved by institutions such as the Church and the family has now, in the post-Soviet era, ruptured into one of moral “perversion.” This dissertation is based on 15 months of ethnographic research, during which I participated in the work of two local non-governmental organizations: Public Information and Need for Knowledge, an LGBT rights organization and Women’s Resource Center, a feminist organization. I also conducted interviews with 150 households across Yerevan, the capital city, and did in-depth interviews with other activists, right-wing nationalists and journalists. Through psychoanalytic frameworks, as well as studies of kinship, I show how sovereignty – the longed for dream for Armenians over the last century – is felt to have failed because of the moral corruption of the illegitimate figures that fill Armenian seats of authority. I, thus, examine the ways in which a missing father of the household is discursively linked to the lack of strong leadership by a corrupt government, producing a prevalent feeling of moral disintegration that nationalists displace onto the “homosexual.”