Introduction

On 6-7 May 2002, the National Intelligence Council and the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sponsored a conference that examined the prospects for resolving regional conflicts involving four states of the former Soviet Union: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. The conference brought together outside scholars, regional experts and officials to discuss the conflicts in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria. The purpose was not to arrive at a consensus but to deepen understanding of the complex geopolitical dynamics at work in the region.

This conference report is intended to capture the salient points and original arguments of the proceedings. It consists of two major addresses, a précis of each speaker’s on-the-record presentation, and a summary of the ensuing not-for-attribution discussions. During the panel discussions no attempt was made to ascertain the general view of the panel or audience. Many of the points highlighted in these summaries of the panel discussions were noted because they were thought-provoking or outside the conventional wisdom. They illustrate the richness of the discussion, but they do not necessarily reflect accepted or prevailing views at the conference.

Executive Summary

Keynote speaker Ambassador Rudolf Perina reviewed similarities and differences among the conflicts, factors that might motivate change—such as new peace proposals or new leadership—and the role of mediators in encouraging compromise and providing interim conflict management. Luncheon speaker Ambassador Joseph Presel focused on lessons of the United States as mediator, the need to work with Russia, and the challenges of working with local leaders who have not prepared their populations for peace.

Institutionalization of the Conflicts

The major issues that led to the outbreak of violence during the collapse of the Soviet Union have largely faded into memory. New interests and identities have emerged that pose obstacles to resolving underlying social, economic, and political problems. As a result, successful settlement of the “frozen” conflicts in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria will require a shift in the current equilibrium.

Each of these conflicts has produced isolated societies that engage in mutual recrimination and hold distorted views of developments across the conflict divide. Peace processes have been largely the domain of elites, who often seem to be out of touch with their societies and sometimes act as if they are more intent on consolidating their own positions than resolving the conflict and transforming their societies. Having contributed to the mobilization of their populations against one another, leaders on both sides have become trapped in an adversarial culture that reduces their receptivity to compromise. A variety of mediation strategies, both formal and informal, are required to overcome these obstacles.

Abkhazia is the most intractable conflict and the most subject to renewed violence. It differs from the other conflicts in that the ethnic Abkhaz minority expelled the Georgian majority—with Russian and Chechen assistance. The Abhkaz fear retribution if displaced Georgians return. Russian policies characterized by inconsistencies and disincentives for peace further complicate the conflict.

The fate of Abkhazia may be tied indirectly to that of South Ossetia in the sense that a successful resolution in one case is likely to affect the other. In both cases, economic issues are crucial. Illegal trade across cease-fire lines is considerable, creating incentives for the preservation of the status quo. Opportunities for enduring solutions will increase with economic development.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are close to a settlement of their dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. The near-term may offer the best opportunities for a balanced settlement because a prolongation of the dispute favors hard-liners on both sides. Over the longer-term disparate economic and demographic trends that favor Azerbaijan over Armenia also may preclude a settlement. Each year the Azerbaijani economy expands while Armenia’s economy stagnates and its population dwindles. Perceptions that the Armenian negotiating position is deteriorating may encourage an uncompromising and tough posture in Baku that is likely to generate an equally uncompromising response in Yerevan. Economic emigration from Armenia increases the influence of the relatively more hard-line Armenian diaspora and further diminishes opportunities for a compromise settlement.

Displaced populations from the conflicts in Azerbaijan and South Ossetia do not present serious pressures for settlements. In Azerbaijan, only ten percent of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) live in camps. Others live primarily in urban and suburban areas, where many show signs of economic adaptation. This integration is due, in part, to programs sponsored by the Azerbaijani government and international organizations that target local economic development and job placement. The Azerbaijani government does not acknowledge its policy of integrating IDPs into mainstream Azerbaijani society, however, since this might be interpreted as acquiescence to the occupation of Azerbaijani territory. In the case of South Ossetia, many of the refugees—under 50,000—have settled into new roles in North Ossetia.

The conflict in Transnistria is close to resolution and probably will not pose long-term problems. The original reasons for the conflict have grown less salient, and the dispute now is framed largely in terms of the private interests of elites. The conflict may prove tractable to settlement by traditional bargaining methods. External parties can play a helpful role by providing incentives to both sides; multiple mediators, however, have complicated the process in the past, and better coordination will be required. The recent election of a Russophone head of state in Moldova offers new opportunities for progress.

The Role of Outside Players

Iran is focusing internally on its national security, economic, and geopolitical interests. The Caucasus is looming larger on the Iranian horizon, however, because of the region’s energy reserves. Iran seeks to resist its marginalization in the region, which Tehran perceives as an US objective. Some in Iran argue that the US anti-terrorist campaign is a ruse and that increasing US interest in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Azerbaijan is an effort to encircle Iran as a prelude to hostilities. Nonetheless, Iran’s present economic difficulties are an impetus for greater cooperation with the United States. Iran is likely to pursue greater cooperation with Russia, including greater coordination of policies in the Caucasus.

Turkey seeks to contain Russian influence in the region, manage difficult relations with Armenia and Iran, and maintain good relations with Azerbaijan and Georgia, especially to ensure the success of current pipeline projects. Turkey’s pursuit of closer ties to Georgia and Azerbaijan links its policies to the positions of these governments on the Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhaz, and Ossetian conflicts, fostering a greater sense of isolation and insecurity in Armenia. Turkey’s position prompts Yerevan to seek closer relations with Moscow and Teheran and encourages further cooperation in the Caucasus between Russia and Iran—at once an economic partner and the Islamic antithesis of Turkish secularism.

Although Russia will have a key role in resolving each conflict, it is neither completely capable nor willing to play the part. Russia has considerable regional leverage that it has not used effectively, in part because it lacks confidence. As a result, the Russian approach toward these conflicts has been both ambivalent and inconsistent and is likely to remain so, barring incentives for change. From a security standpoint, the Caucasus is among Moscow’s top priorities, but under the current administration the economic dimension is becoming more salient and distinct from regional political goals. An increasingly pragmatic and flexible Russian posture may lead to more opportunities for cooperation and constructive engagement in regional peace processes.

The current geopolitical climate presents an opportunity for constructive engagement with Russia. Russians are concerned about US activities in the region, and many expect the United States to act unilaterally. There would be psychological leverage in public statements from US officials declaring commitment to a multilateral approach to regional development in which Russia has a key role. If offered a choice between constructive engagement and exclusion, Moscow would be likely to choose the former. Because the Caucasus, in particular, is crucial to Russia’s security and economic interests, the fear of marginalization and the opportunity to preserve or expand Moscow’s influence there might help overcome domestic political resistance.

The current geopolitical situation is opportune since most countries of the region want to work on the US side. They might be prepared to cooperate with one another for the sake of cooperation with the United States in its struggle against terrorism. In the present geopolitical climate, the metaphor of a “Great Game” is anachronistic. Compatibility and cooperation among US, Russian, British and French interests offer significant opportunities. Cooperation, particularly between Russia and Western governments, may provide a new basis for encouraging cooperation within the South Caucasus region.

Prospects for Peace

The South Caucasus retains infrastructure that once made it a crossroads for trade. The potential exists to look beyond past disputes and current dilemmas toward a regional strategy of shared advantage. History can be used in the interest of peace because it shows how much these populations hold in common and teaches that no political entity can achieve security and prosperity in isolation from its neighbors. These societies should be encouraged to shift the discussion from a rehearsal of hatred, grievance, and fear toward a recognition of shared futures, joint security, and mutual prosperity in a climate of democracy and economic development.

Page

Introduction

1

Executive Summary

3

Keynote Address

Ambassador Rudolf Perina, Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabakh and Eurasian Conflicts, Department of State

9

9

Panel I: Abkhazia

Paula Garb, University of California at Irvine

Jonathan Cohen, Conciliation Resources

Highlights of the Discussion

12

12

13

14

Panel II: South Ossetia

Arthur Martirosyan, Conflict Management Group

Highlights of the Discussion

15

15

15

Luncheon Address

Ambassador Joe Presel

Highlights of the Discussion

18

18

19

Panel III: Nagorno-Karabakh

Marc Spurling, UNHCR

Highlights of the Discussion

21

21

22

Panel IV: Transnistria

Ambassador William Hill, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Smithsonian Institution

P. Terrence Hopman, Brown University

Highlights of the Discussion

24

24

25

26

Panel V: Roundtable on the Role of Outside Players: Iran, Turkey, and Russia

Iran: Tom King, Department of State

Turkey: Bulent Aliriza, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Russia: Anne Herr, Department of State

Highlights of the Discussion

28

28

29

31

32

Panel VI: Wrap-Up Session

Highlights of the Discussion

34

34

A. Conference Agenda

36

B. Participants

38

Resolving Conflicts In The Caucasus And Moldova:

Perspectives On Next Steps

Conference Report

Keynote Address

Ambassador Rudolf Perina
Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabakh and Eurasian Conflicts, Department of State

This conference focuses upon the next steps in the resolution of conflicts in the South Caucasus and Moldova. At first glance these conflicts share a number of similarities, but as they have developed over several years they also have diverged from one another. While we will consider them together, we may ultimately conclude that the differences among these conflicts are greater than their similarities and that a comparative approach is consequently limited.

Among their similarities are their occurrence in the territories of the former Soviet Union, following upon the Cold War, and feeding upon complex histories that go back decades or even centuries. In each of these conflicts, Russia has played a role that is complex and sometimes contradictory, due to the many strong voices that influence her policy. Yet if Russian policy is sometimes difficult to understand it is certain to remain important in all of these cases. And if each of these conflicts is currently frozen, they each have potential for stabilization and for escalation, and they all involve publics that are unprepared for the compromises that are necessary if their escalation is to be averted.

While there are similarities in their origins, these conflicts have been sustained by factors that differ significantly from one another. In Transnistria, corruption plays a major role. In Abkhazia, the perpetuation of the conflict ensures the self-preservation of political elites and of those who were originally responsible for the conflict. In Nagorno-Karabakh, there are more traditional causes, including nationalism and the role of the diaspora.

There are also substantial differences in degrees of progress that have been made toward the resolution of these conflicts. Abkhazia is one of the most difficult situations and perhaps the one that is furthest from constructive dialogue. Transnistria is somewhere in the middle. It has seen some interesting new developments in the last few years, including the Istanbul commitments, which have had a major impact on the conflict and the election of a new president.

Nagorno-Karabakh is the major one, the one that gets the most international attention and the one that has come closest to resolution at various times through the years. Many proposals have been put forward, but in the end one side or the other always seems to pull back. The United States certainly has not given up. After the Key West meeting there was disappointment with the follow-up, and some have concluded that these negotiations are dead. Yet the two sides are incredibly close. The issues of principle have been decided, and what is left are technical differences. Both countries will hold elections in 2003, and this opens a window of opportunity. There has been some success in setting up a third tier of negotiations in Prague to look at confidence-building measures. That has been a step forward, but clearly there has not been a resolution of this conflict, nor for any of the others.

When a conflict remains unresolved after ten years of negotiation one must ask what is needed to move forward. The most obvious answer is political will. Yet while the political will of key parties plays a critical role in each of these conflicts, it is also more complicated than that.

We must not overlook the possibility of new factors that might play a pivotal role. Cyprus, for example, had long been a frozen conflict until new movement occurred in recent months in response to an opportunity to join the European Union. There are a number of factors that can change the dynamics of a conflict, and, as in this case, they are often external.

New ideas and new proposals may be among these motivational factors. Yet in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh the anticipation of new approaches has also led to disappointment and frustration. During ten years of negotiation, most ideas have already been placed on the table. People are looking for a magical solution that will spare them the burdens of compromise. Of course no one can offer that. One can juggle and readjust the old proposals, but the basic concepts for resolution are already out there.

A second possible factor is new leadership. Leaders individually can have an enormous impact upon the fate of nations, especially in terms of conflicts, where the attitudes of leaders are vitally important. Consider the case of South Africa, where no one envisioned the emergence of F. W. deKlerk and Nelson Mandela as peacemakers. The Balkans saw the opposite result when leaders undermined the peace.

Emerging outside influences are another factor. Some people thought progress would result from the development of the pipeline and exploitation of the region’s energy reserves. Perhaps one day they will. It is also possible that progress will result from the geopolitical shift that occurred after 11 September and especially from changing relations between the United States and Russia.

External influences are often associated with unrealistic expectations for outside intervention. We hear people asking when the world will step in and write the terms of peace to resolve these conflicts. Most sides say such things with the silent hope that outside mediators will shove their proposals down the throats of the other side. The disputants may call for a Dayton-style conference, but it was a long and dusty road that led to Dayton. The situation in the former Yugoslavia differed from this part of the world in terms of a heated conflict that included military action, massive troop deployments, and bombing.

More realistically, outside intervention means convincing both sides in a conflict that they will ultimately not get their way and that they will have to compromise. We have not achieved that recognition in the present cases. In all of these conflicts, there are players who think they can achieve their ideal solutions. When we try to persuade secessionist leaders that the world will never recognize them as an independent sovereignty, they remain unconvinced that the historical window has closed. They draw encouragement from events in Kosovo and cling to the belief that there is still an opportunity for the break-up of states.

These conflicts will be solved, but their costs will increase as long as their solutions are delayed. Azerbaijan alone has a promising economic future and might weather the impact of these conflicts. For the other countries involved, these disputes have devastating consequences that should be of great concern to us. If any of these countries fail, the consequences would be extremely serious.

The negotiator’s task can be frustrating, but it also brings achievements. Proactive mediation in Nagorno-Karabakh has probably prevented another war. Ultimately, we have to be realistic about the nature of a settlement and the interim management of these conflicts.

Peacemaking in the NIS and Lessons Learned

Luncheon Address

Ambassador
Joe Presel

The case of Tajikistan demonstrates that it is possible to resolve conflicts in the former Soviet Union. The United States has a genuine role as peacemaker in the region, and we are probably better than most. We are strong, resourceful, and fairly well informed. We are confident and accustomed to getting things done. Our domestic politicians take an interest in our activities in this part of the world.

Yet as peacemakers we sometimes carry a double-edged sword. Our confidence can spill over into arrogance and impatience. It is difficult to resist us when we want to get something done, and overconfidence can ensnare us in some fairly serious difficulties. Some in the region are uneasy with our presence. Because we are the United States, the opportunities for success increase with our involvement, but any failure diminishes our stature. So we must tend to our reputation and choose our tasks with care.

In the Newly Independent States, most of our peacemaking has been done in concert with others, though our partnerships have often been cultivated in pragmatic response to the dictates of diplomacy. We worked with the OSCE in Nagorno-Karabakh and with the UN in Abkhazia, but our involvement can be overwhelming to those with whom we work. We don’t necessarily know better than anyone else, but we tend to work harder as a country and as a government. We try to do it ourselves when we think we have a chance at success.

We cannot succeed at peacemaking in the NIS without the Russians. This seems self-evident. Yet at first we thought we could do it without them, since we saw them as part of the problem. Since their involvement is a prerequisite for effective peacemaking, we have to put in time with the Russians from the very start, get to know them, and understand what they are doing. When we do this we learn three lessons.

First, we tend to think that there is a Russian policy because there was once a Soviet policy. But there is not a Russian policy any more than there is a US policy. The Russian policy towards Nagorno-Karabakh depends on what part of the bureaucracy you are talking to, and perhaps it depends what day of the week you talk to them.

A second lesson is that the Russians were the region’s most recent colonialists, and this inevitably places constraints upon their peacemaking capacities.

The third lesson is that the Russians do not really trust us. They tend to operate on the assumption that we will attempt to take advantage of them. We know why we are there and that we are trying to do the best for everybody, but they do not trust us.

Domestic politics matter to us in a ways they don’t matter, for example, in the EU countries. At times we find that our efforts in the region are forced by events.

There are also difficulties with local leaders, particularly when they fail to prepare their populations for the eventuality of a major agreement. Everyone knows how to solve these conflicts. All of the local leaders know what a settlement is going to look like, but they cannot bring themselves to accept it. So agreements break down over details.

The problem is that we are not very good at history. We think the Soviet Union ended along with Communism, but for the local populations it was the end of colonialism far more than the end of Communism. The Russians ended their last colonial empire, and the way that the people who inhabited that empire view the Russians and their problems differs from the way that we view the Russians and their problems. Of course, the history of the region goes back much further.

I have learned that whatever countries say about their goals, the real motto of all these groups is: “What use is it to me?” The only weapon that some of them have is stubbornness. We must learn stubbornness.

There are two final lessons. First, you probably won’t succeed; and lastly, we Americans say that time is money, but money is money, and time is time. We Americans don’t think enough about the importance of time when we try to make these settlements happen.

Highlights of
the Discussion

On Chechnya. Our fundamental views on Chechnya have not changed since 11 September, but there are some additional nuances. Clearly, Chechnya matters and will continue to matter desperately because of its immediate impact on all the other conflicts. We will find it harder to get cooperation from the Russians if we don’t cooperate with them on the Chechnya settlement.

On the role of NGOs. Inevitably there are limitations to official US assistance, and the NGOs can address those limitations. Sometimes they may point out our shortcomings. Theoretical discussions are not of immediate use to us, but we are open to creative approaches, and we will look at anything that can be shown to bring concrete results. NGOs can be useful. We probably don’t use them enough.

On US-Russian cooperation in these three conflicts. Most factors that can contribute to US-Russian cooperation are external to the conflicts themselves. If the Russian economy does well and Russia moves closer to NATO, and its policies on nuclear weapons are compatible with ours, then Russia will look with favor on cooperating with us on these issues. Putin is a superb realist, and Russians understand that the world has changed. If our overall relationship with them goes well, so will our cooperation on these conflicts. It will go best in Transnistria, but they will have a harder time accepting our long-term involvement in the Caucasus. We tend to look at Central Asia as Russia’s equivalent of our own Far West, but Russia’s Far West is essentially the Caucasus. Central Asia is almost accidental to Russia; it doesn’t matter to them in the same way that the Caucasus matters. The Caucasus has a significance in Russian history, culture, and literature similar to that of our own westward expansion.