WHICH IS BETTER: PRINCIPLED STANCE OR TEMPORIZE?

It is absolutely clear that current interethnic conflicts greatly impede political, economic, cultural and social ties.  As a result, cooperation between countries on the global issues highlighted by the United Nations becomes less effective.  The difficult situation which has emerged in the South Caucasus (SC) acquires a special tone when these problems are discussed.

All the participants in the great geopolitical game in this region know very well that the time is long overdue for real efforts to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is the oldest conflict in the SC.  But so far, even attempts by the official mediators (the OSCE Minsk Group) have failed to yield much needed results.  The reason lies mainly in Armenia's negative position and also, to some extent, a surprising concern for the aggressor's interests on the part of some of the mediators.  It is unrealistic to think that without clearly identifying the aggressor and the aggrieved party it will be possible to complete the mediation successfully.  And this is precisely the task which they must fulfil first and foremost.

However, instead of doing so, the parties concerned are trying to involve numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which, in their view, will employ elements of grass-roots diplomacy, promote cooperation and help create an atmosphere of trust between the two societies which, they believe, will be a major impetus to resolution of the conflict.  Essentially, this initiative would be welcome were it not for one "but."  A closer look at the work of foreign NGOs in this capacity shows that they are making the same mistake as the official mediators.  The position they adopt can be briefly described thus:  "The main obstacles to full-fledged cooperation are not important.  Without looking into the nature of these problems, not to mention setting out to eliminate them (they claim that this is the prerogative of the official organizations), it is better to cooperate in creating an atmosphere of universal trust."  In short, they are once again trying to put the cart before the horse.  This position is very vulnerable and is doomed to fail from the outset.  No matter how much they want to ignore determinism, no matter how hard they try.

Further, the fact that this approach is exercised with respect to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict causes natural perplexity.  Let us cite several examples.  The West is now exerting great pressure on Tehran, increasingly tightening the sanctions against it.  Even precision missile strikes against Iran are not out of the question.  The reason is Iran's desire to develop its own nuclear programme, which puts Tehran under great pressure.  Have the renowned Western NGOs proposed that the leaders of leading international powers embark upon full-scale cooperation with Iran in different areas without eliminating the main problem first?  Of course they have not.

The first war in Iraq started because Iraq occupied Kuwait.  The United States entered Kuwait to eliminate this problem.  In other words, in order for international law to prevail, the cause had to be dealt with first.  And the second war in Iraq was started for reasons which were deliberately fabricated (claims that Iraq had chemical and bacteriological weapons).  Washington and its allies started a destructive war to eliminate a fake cause, immersing the entire population of Iraq in a bloody abyss.

Here is another example.  For almost half a century, all imaginable and unimaginable obstacles have been created against Turkey's accession to the EU.  The official reasons (or rather, excuses) are the incompatibility of Turkish laws with the requirements of the union, and the Cyprus problem:  "When Ankara addresses these problems, it will be possible to discuss Turkey's full membership."  We can see that in all the above-mentioned situations, elimination of causes is considered a priority, and cooperation becomes possible after that.  Why, then, is Azerbaijan urged to turn a blind eye to the causes of the conflict with Armenia?

The creation of an atmosphere of trust merits special attention.  At first sight, the intentions are good.  But they must be good on both sides.  However, the Armenian side has its own approach:  "You must trust us, but we cannot trust you because one cannot trust Azerbaijanis or Turks."  However, it is clear that, to create an atmosphere of trust, the first step must be made by the aggressor, not by the aggrieved party.  If Armenia is so interested in creating an atmosphere of trust, it should first, at least withdraw from the occupied districts around Nagorno-Karabakh proper as a sign of good will.  But, to all appearances, Armenia is not going to do this voluntarily.  Furthermore, the occupied territories were given a strange name, the "liberated territories," in an attempt to present them as historically Armenian lands.  And statements are made increasingly loudly that the "liberated territories" will not be abandoned no matter what (whether or not Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized as an independent entity) because these territories are a security zone, not only for Nagorno-Karabakh, but also for Armenia itself.  This is obviously political speculation.  When the Azerbaijani side is justly angry, the international NGOs either remain dead silent at best or, at worst, note that this is the Armenian side's position.  And the NGOs refuse to comment, citing in vindication that they remain neutral and cannot take sides.  It is strange that they interpret compliance with the norms of international law as a biased position.

All the organizations trying to create an atmosphere of trust in the region should look into the level of ethnic and religious tolerance and the ethnic composition of the populations in the countries of the South Caucasus.  Azerbaijan, with its multiethnic population and high level of tolerance, probably deserves greater trust than does mono-ethnic Armenia.  For some reason, they are not interested in the fact that in the era of globalization, when, as the Western political spin doctors say, the notion of the nation-state is gradually withering away, Armenia is striving to achieve the absolute "Armenian purity" of its population.  In the process, it even stoops to ethnic cleansing, not only in Armenia, but also in the occupied territories.  The effort to establish full-fledged political, economic, cultural and social ties is also beyond praise,  but only if the problem is addressed in its entirety, rather than merely through the prism of one's own views or, worse still, in the interests of the aggressor.

Conniving with the caprices of "long-suffering" Armenia and putting strong pressure on everyone who actually suffers from its far-fetched claims, the international organizations lose sight of the latent inter-ethnic conflicts in the region.  The Armenians have been openly claiming the Javakheti region in Georgia for some time now.  Taking advantage of negligence on the part of the international community, they have transformed that region of neighbouring Georgia into a hotbed of destabilizing elements, which could cause an explosion in the region at any moment.  Despite the fact that Azerbaijani experts have raised this issue more than once during their meetings with representatives of the Western expert community and NGOs, no clear answer has been given.

Today, the world places special emphasis on the need for coordinated action to address global problems -- environmental problems, drinking water problems, food problems, the fight against drug trafficking and, of course, the fight against international terrorism.  Precisely this is how the Western NGOs explain their mediating mission in the field of grass-roots diplomacy, which aims to establish mutual trust between societies in conflict without preconditions.  But here, too, there are problems.

Azerbaijan has raised with the international organizations more than once the issue of Armenia's barbarous behaviour in the occupied Azerbaijani territories.  The flora and fauna are being exterminated in those areas, fields are mined and a "scorched earth" policy is being conducted, which results in emissions of huge amounts of poisonous gases and other substances into the atmosphere.  In addition, Azerbaijani cultural and historical monuments are being destroyed.

The Azerbaijani districts which border on the occupied territories encounter problems with drinking and irrigation water.  The Armenian side often blocks the rivers and streams, thereby greatly hindering the development of agriculture in these districts.  There is also a real threat of these rivers being poisoned.  Armenia still has not joined the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes and continues to pollute the water resources of the region with impunity.

And as for drug trafficking and international terrorism, it is needless to point out what favourable conditions were created for the transit of drugs and the sheltering of terrorists in the Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenia.

So this is a global problem.  Is it not time to admit that separatism is a global threat which paves the way for terrorism?  A thorough study of separatism-related phenomena proves persuasively that they evolve and might eventually create fertile soil for terrorism in the following pattern:  Separatist ideas (individual speeches by ideologues), soft separatism (peaceful rallies and demonstrations), aggressive separatism (local armed clashes and military operations) - terrorism (full-scale warfare with the participation of international terrorists, accompanied by ethnic cleansing).  All the above facts prove once again that without eliminating both the main cause and the people who create it, it is impossible to introduce an atmosphere of trust and broad cooperation between the societies in the countries of the South Caucasus.  And both official organizations and the NGOs must work in synergy here.  Unless these organizations put pressure on the aggressor, the problems will not only stagnate, they will deteriorate.