Archil Gegheshidze: European integration and security

Integration into the security system (military political, NATO), which is less capricious in terms of the accession of new members and is to a considerable extent led by the geopolitical situation, will happen faster. In the end, however, we (Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Abkhazians, Ossetians, and others) will all have to face each other and come to an arrangement, to combine our national interests and our "geopolitical codes." Otherwise, neither NATO nor any other security umbrella will be able to completely safeguard our security, which cannot be divided up into Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijani or any other parts. The current security should be based on a major reconciliation in the Caucasus and the cultivation of a common regional consciousness. And also, to be in harmony with our immediate neighbors (Russia, Turkey, and Iran) is a mandatory condition for the effectiveness of any security umbrella. What I am describing now is a matter of the future, and until then, we still need to survive and mature. However, the process of maturing itself will happen faster and more easily if we strive for institutional integration into the European and Euro-Atlantic structures. Here is the answer to the question: European integration for the sake of security? But there is an opposite answer: security for the sake of European integration. This is because the more stable and the more peaceful life is within each country and the region in the whole, the faster we will come closer to Europe and its institutions.

Rasim Musabekov: Security

Security has a number of aspects (military, economic, environmental, informational, and sometimes they speak of food or energy security). But in our case we mean political and military security. It amounts to the strengthening the independence we achieved and neutralizing attempts to reduce our states to the status of submissive and complaisant satellites (as Mongolia was in Soviet times), to ensuring territorial integrity and also protecting against the growing threat of terrorism all over the world. Are we able to solve these problems ourselves? Clearly not. Can we get what we want in union and cooperation with Russia? To my mind, the answer is no rather than yes. It is no secret to anyone that for the post-Soviet states, independence is above all independence from Moscow (this is no expression of Russophobia but a statement of fact). The matter is not the past but the present. Let me remind those who have forgotten that the Ukraine and Kazakhstan demanded and received guarantees of security and territorial integrity from the USA and Russia in exchange for permission to remove nuclear weapons and their carriers from their territory and adopting the status of nuclear-free state. No one has given such guarantees to the South Caucasian states. That is why Georgia's and also Azerbaijan's drive for NATO is not parasitic smugness but a reasonable assessment of the realia in the geopolitical situation, the threats and their own ability to face them. Turkey does not want anything from Armenia; on the contrary, the current Yerevan administration, hiding behind Russia's back, is attacking Turkey in an attempt to secure seized territories and has similar plans regarding Georgia (Javakhetia). Thus, with the current administration, Yerevan is looking not for security but for allies in the realization of its territorial and other ambitions outside the country. This is where the main difference lies in the approaches of the South Caucasian states to the questions of their own independence and integration into NATO.

I would, however, like to mention that it is absurd to view integration into NATO through the prism of resolving the territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We should solve these problems ourselves through dialogue and mutual compromise. By the way, EU integration can eliminate very many debates on the future status of Nagorno Karabakh. In reality, in the context of a unified Europe, the issue of what laws should be enforced in Karabakh (Armenian or Azerbaijani ones), what currency (dram or manat) should be in circulation, what customs, migration rules, borders, citizenship and many other things would be like, problems that are irresolvable now, will lose their topicality.

Laura Baghdasaryan: to Rasim Musabekov

Rasim, I respect you because unlike many politicians, political scientists, and even ombudsmen in Azerbaijan, you are writing almost the same things here that you publish in the Azerbaijani press. For example, Mrs. Suleymanova (Azerbaijan's ombudsman) refuses to receive faxes from the office of her Yerevan colleague, arguing that until Armenia renounces its expansionistic intentions there can be no cooperation. The director of the human rights institute in Azerbaijan announced in our press that he had published a collection of jokes on human rights and there was a joke about Armenians, too. And he had done this in order to make everyone understand "who Armenians really are." Why do I bring up these two specific examples? Because they explicitly reflect the degree of your society's estrangement from compromise on the whole. On the one hand you speak of "attacks" by Armenia on all its neighbors one after another (not forgetting at the same time to mention Javakhetia). On the other hand, you discuss the necessity to solve problems through compromise. What should we do now? Is Azerbaijan ready, exactly in this manner, by joining the EU, to give up militarizing its society and the idea of regaining Karabakh not by force but by integration? In fact, now you are saying what I have been thinking for a long time. A satiated and well-to-do society is ready to make a compromise. If you wait until our countries become so on the way to European integration, why not?

Stepan Grigoryan: European system of security

It is clear that being members of the Council of Europe and OSCE, our countries in a sense are already joining the European system of security. I am convinced that if our countries really, not merely formally, carry out the requirements of the Council of Europe and the OSCE (and also the obligations undertaken when they joined the OSCE in 1999 and 2001), it will improve our security, for countries with a democratic system of rule are more inclined towards peaceful conflict resolution with their neighbors. As for the military and political components of security, I have no doubts that all the three countries should be included into a single security system, and today NATO can be the one. We can move towards this goal at different paces now; however, we should move towards a single and common system of security. It would be unacceptable to create "borderlines" in the region.

Alexander Rusetski: to Laura Baghdasaryan

When public figures are asked how many neighbors Georgia has, most of them answer "Four neighbors." This is because in our childish eyes the contours of the shores of our sea neighbors are not reflected yet. This means that there are many more neighbors. Now about the realia. Your feelings are understandable to me and I share them, as you spoke of concrete problems in our relations, and they are so numerous. Our officials do not want to and cannot cope with concrete problems. And first of all, because the public does not require it. This is how problems that create a pre-conflict situation accumulate. The basis of the regional system of security is bilateral relations. And we should preserve them. That is why it is necessary to study all those problems that exist among us and undertake the process of governance. This is also the road to independence both at the national and regional levels. And no one will line their pockets on our disputes.

Rasim Musabekov: to Laura Baghdasaryan on compromise

I suppose that today we should differentiate between the security issue (for both Azerbaijanis and Armenians) and the status issue. Compromise (the liberation of the territories around Nagorno Karabakh in exchange for guarantees of not restarting military actions, opening transportation communications and the regulation of cooperation) can create a positive background. It is clear that in that case, a blind eye is turned to the de facto situation in which Nagorno Karabakh maintains its current status as independent of Azerbaijan. But in the context of strengthening regional cooperation and a joint and deepening integration into European structures (NATO and the EU), it will be easier to find mutually acceptable wording for the final status of Nagorno Karabakh. I do not think there is anything new in my position. I will not keep it a secret that not everybody shares my ideas in Azerbaijan. But I am absolutely convinced of the realism and practicality of this approach and I declare it openly. By the way, as far as I know, EU politicians and officials (the mediators, too) are at present working out a scheme for resolution (an intermediate decision with elementary guarantees and stimuli for the parties).

Avyaz Rustamov: Threats to the security of Azerbaijan

Serious possibilities for political and economic development for ours and all the countries of the region are torpedoed by unresolved conflicts. According to the EU viewpoint, their "freezing" impedes the entrance process of all three countries in the South Caucasus, hinders the establishment of regional security and secure regional stability, and makes integration into Europe more difficult. These concerns of theirs can be understood. If the countries in the region join Europe with their unresolved conflicts, the explosion of another bomb in a European train cannot be ruled out. I want to mention the following among the factors that threaten the national security of Azerbaijan now and those which our republic might have to face in the future:

•  The arms build-up by Armenia (let us remember the non-registered arms, worth a billion dollars, given by Russia in the Yeltsin era), the expansion and modernization of the military bases on its territory, and also new and unfounded territorial claims against Azerbaijan and Georgia.

•  The factor of the intensification of the terror threat in the region. Besides, there is a real threat of interwoven interests of various terrorism organizations, aiming at the destabilization of the situation in Azerbaijan and destroying plans to extract and transport oil resources to the global market.

•  The factor of making use of (I am taking my wording from the media and open information from our Ministry of National Security) the territories of Azerbaijan occupied by the military forces of Armenia and part of its state borders for the cultivation of narcotic plants, production and transit of drugs to the West and the CIS, smuggling of weapons, nuclear materials, explosive items, the penetration of illegal immigrants into Europe, as well as terrorist groups, especially from Afghanistan.

•  Along with the realization of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project, we should expect terrorism to become more active, including the extremely dangerous Kurdish territorial formations, which find refuge in Armenia (same source of information). In the region of Javakheti, Georgia, an Armenian population lives compactly, and many of its members serve in Russian military units, and on Russian military bases. They are extremely negative about the demilitarization of the region. Taking into account the separatist mood that exists here, this contingent is very hostile towards Georgia's contacts with NATO, and Georgia's participation in gas-oil projects, as this will strengthen the political, economic, and defense potentials of Georgia.

•  The factor of taking advantage of the issue of the status of the Caspian Sea to destabilize regional security.

•  Anticipated human and direct material losses in the case of resuming military actions.

•  The factor of a worsening environmental situation in the region as a whole and in individual countries. A special threat for regional security here is posed by the nuclear power station Armenia, which is situated in a seismically active zone and uses outdated equipment that does not meet contemporary standards of nuclear security.

Alexander Rusetski: to Avyaz Rustamov

Your text makes it clear that you are paying attention to the factor of the time resource. It seems to me that the Azerbaijani leadership has a wasteful attitude towards this serious resource. I mean first of all their blocking of relations with Armenia and consequently trilateral relations. Today we must not waste time, but collaborate in order to work out various projects and programs. This does not mean that they must immediately be realized, but this intellectual product should be created. Even the Bolsheviks used the old Nikolay projects, because they did not have any of their own. We must get ready for the future, as time goes by so fast (you, by the way, have mentioned pace, too). Unfortunately, we do not regard time as a national resource, but still it is of no less significance than oil or mineral water.

Laura Baghdasaryan: to Avyaz Rustamov

Dear Avyaz, I am very much interested in Point 2 on your list of factors, where you speak of terrorism in the religious and fundamentalist sense. The rest of what you wrote are well known arguments. To tell the truth, I have always had the impression that they were the product of the information war between our countries; now, as you point out, the source is the national security agency of your country.