Armenia and Azerbaijan should seize the moment

Published: Saturday August 30, 2008

Several months ago, disregarding the strenuous objections of Russia, the United States recognized the independence of Kosovo. Western European states followed suit.

Now, on the heels of a proxy war in Georgia between Russia and the West, Russia has recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It has done so over the strenuous objections of the United States and Western European states.

The case of Kosovo, on the one hand, and that of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other, are different in some respects. For those who support recognition in one case and oppose it in the other, these differences serve as a shield against charges of hypocrisy, or of having double standards.

But the cases are also similar to each other - and to that of Karabakh - in some essential respects: New states emerged from the collapse of two multinational states, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. These new states defined themselves in national or ethnic terms, but in some cases were multinational themselves - and just as prone to collapse.

This atomization of European states may seem odd when Europe as a whole is coming closer together. But such choices are properly left to the people themselves. In the case of Karabakh, the violent suppression of the Armenian population by the Azerbaijani SSR made it impossible for Karabakh to become part of the new Republic of Azerbaijan. And the fact that Karabakh is adjacent to co-ethnic Armenia made it less a case of atomization than correcting ill-conceived boundaries.

Beyond their historical genesis, these new republics have had something else in common too. They have been states in fact, even though the major powers have withheld recognition of their independence. Friendly powers have been reluctant to formally recognize the facts on the ground because they have wanted to avoid conflict with other powers, and because they have wanted to avoid setting a precedent.

To maintain, not threaten the peace

Nonrecognition has also given the major powers occasion to get involved in negotiations in the role of mediators. This involvement is more than welcome, of course, when it helps maintain the peace. It is less welcome when it threatens the peace.

The United States, Russia, and France, the mediators in the Karabakh conflict, have had their differences in the past. (Gerard Libaridian, who negotiated on Armenia's behalf in the 1990s, reports that Armenia and Azerbaijan sometimes had to mediate among the mediators!) But their overall role has been positive in that they have kept the sides talking to each other.

We have argued on numerous occasions that the mediators must speak out more strongly against Azerbaijani preparations for war and promises of war. The lack of action in this matter has been more than disappointing. But now, as the United States and Russia face off over Georgia, we are very concerned about the mediators' future role in the region.

If the United States, Europe, and Russia do not promptly diffuse tensions among themselves, the possibility increases that their confrontation may continue to spill over into the Caucasus with undesirable consequences.

The moment may well be ripe for closer cooperation between the states in the region. It may seem farfetched to advocate cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan (as we did in our June 30, 2007, editorial, "Toward regional cooperation," and as former foreign minister Vartan Oskanian does in an article and interview on page 17), especially when the matter of Karabakh categorically divides the Armenia and Azerbaijan. But as we witness an alternative scenario play itself out - that of a proxy war between the great powers in our neighborhood - the hard-to-attain seems worth the effort.

In Armenia, President Serge Sargsian showed himself capable of taking a bold initiative toward the normalization of Armenia's relations with its neighbors as he invited President Abdullah Gül of Turkey to come over to watch the Armenia-Turkey soccer match on September 6. We believe Armenia can seize the initiative again, this time to enhance dialogue among the states of the Caucasus.

To advocate for more direct dialogue among the states of the Caucasus is not to advocate against the involvement of the United States, Russia, or Europe.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are members of the Council of Europe and rightly see themselves as partners and members of the European family. Thus, European institutions will always have a role in the region. So too will Russia and the United States.

Russia has a key role as a market, an investor, a source of energy, and more. The United States plays those roles and also represents powerful ideas and the capacity to bring those ideas to life: democracy, individual liberty, government for the people, and opportunity for all.

Our role in the United States

For the United States, the temptation is great - especially in this presidential election season - for everyone to show their bona fides as defenders of American primacy, acting in a way that voters may perceive as strong on national security. The temptation is to escalate rather than diffuse. But this temptation will lead us headlong to less security and more conflict.

In listening to our presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their foreign policy advisors we should be especially alert for the sound of the drums of war. In talking to candidates for Congress, we should actively discourage any and all calls for escalation. We need to promote even more regional dialogue and understanding, and even more dialogue between Russia, Europe and the United States, which has the potential to promote understanding and cooperation.

The thumping dhols of war may sound sweet, but only from a distance - to borrow from the great Iranian poet Omar Khayyam. They do not sound sweet at all in the Caucasus.