16

Comparative analysis of the impact of the ethnoterritorial conflicts on the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian national security documents Artak Beglaryan Introduction
The three countries of the South Caucasus have faced serious security challenges since their independence in 1991, including ethnopolitical conflicts and devastating wars. Those challenges and the approaches of the countries to them needed to get structural and conceptual frameworks to work efficiently. For those purposes, the three countries accepted their national security documents as a step of deepening cooperation with NATO (Georgia and Azerbaijan in 2005 and 2007 respectively) or strategy (Armenia in 2007). In 2011 Georgia adopted its revised national security concept as a result of considerable shifts in the Georgian security environment since 2008. The purpose of this paper is to reveal the impact of the ethno territorial conflicts in the region on the national security documents of the discussing states. Since all three countries have been actively involved in ethnoterritorial conflicts as well as those conflicts are still influential sources of enormous tension, this study could definitely be considered of high significance both practically and academically. The work is a comparative study. Comparison is drawn among the perceptions of threat in the taken documents, among the impact of the countries own conflicts on their national security documents as well as among the other conflicts impact on them. Since it simply compares the texts of the documents without scrutinizing the contexts of adopting and implementing them, thats why the main and primary

3 2013 A. BEGLARYAN

17

sources of the analysis are the documents themselves. However, some other secondary sources also have been used in the paper.

 eneral view of the perception of threats G in the taken documents

Comparing the national security documents of the mentioned countries, first of all it should be indicated that their names are different. While the Georgian and Azerbaijani documents are called concept, the Armenian one is called strategy. In theory, concept is considered more abstract and broader document than strategy. While concept draws conceptual frameworks of national security, strategy pays attention to defining more concrete steps and directions of national security. Notwithstanding the basic differences of those names, no essential differences are visible among the taken documents in the sense of their contents, methods and strategic planning. To understand the differences and similarities of the national security documents of the selected three countries, first of all the specified threats should be reviewed. Only the Armenian national security strategy separates external threats from internal ones under different subheadings. Since The Georgian concept uses Russia/Russians the target of this paper is 86 times and most of them are used in the external side of security negative meaning, presenting Russia as an concepts/strategies, for that aggressor and occupant. reason only external threats of Armenia will be presented here. According to the national security strategy of Armenia those threats are as follows: use of force; ethnic conflicts, internal unrest and military activities in neighboring states; disruption of transit through neighboring states; weakening or inefficiency of strategic alliances; terrorism and transnational crime; energy dependence; Armenias isolation from regional projects; decline of national and cultural identity in the Armenian diaspora; epidemics and natural disasters.1 The Georgian national security concept specifies external and internal threats, risks and challenges to the national security of Georgia under the same subheading. The list is as follows: occupation
1 National security strategy of the Republic of Armenia, 2007.

18

3 2013

of Georgian territories by the Russian Federation and terrorist acts organized by the Russian Federation from the occupied territories; the risk of renewed military aggression from Russia; violation of the rights of internally displaced persons and refugees from the occupied territories; conflicts in the Caucasus; international terrorism and transnational organized crime; economic and social challenges; energy challenges; cyber threats; environmental challenges; demographic challenges; challenges to civic integration; destruction or damage of cultural heritage monuments.1 Similar to the Georgian national security concept, the Azerbaijani concept combines the external and internal threats to its national security under one subheading. It designates the following threats: attempts against the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and constitutional order of the Republic of Azerbaijan; actions undermining the ability of the State to ensure the rule of law, maintenance of public order and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; separatism, ethnic, political and religious extremism; terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; regional conflicts and transnational organized crime; actions against energy infrastructure of the Republic of Azerbaijan; external political, military or economic dependence; economic destabilization; inadequate professional human resources; regional militarization; environmental challenges.2 The securitization of ethnoterritorial conflicts and its comparative analysis among the taken documents As it could be noticed, for all three countries ethnoterritorial conflicts are decisive factors in For all three countries ethnoterritorial defining their security threats. conflicts are decisive factors in defining However, that factors influence their security threats. on the national security concepts/strategy is not the same for all countries. While Azerbaijan and Georgia highly underline the issue of their territorial integrity because of the conflicts of the Artsakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia,3
1 National Security Concept of the Republic of Georgia, 2011. 2 National security concept of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2007. 3  TerMatevosyan, Vahram. 2011. Territorial Reintegration as a National Security Objective: The Cases of Azerbaijan and Georgia. Journal of East European and Black

3 2013 A. BEGLARYAN

19

Armenia, based on its security environment and its different status in the conflicts, highlights such things which are derived from its role in the Artsakh conflict, for example, use of force; ethnic conflicts; Armenias isolation from regional projects. As seen, Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan and Georgia, does not have a problem with territorial integrity and sovereignty. Instead, similar to its neighbors, Armenia has a threat of use of force or external aggression. Logically, the influence of the conflicts on the whole text of the national security documents of Azerbaijan Interestingly, the Azerbaijani security and Georgia is much more document avoids using NagornoKarabakh, apparent and deeper, than on which is mentioned there only 1 time. the Armenian one. Almost in all subsections of threats and even of the other sections as well, the ongoing territorial conflicts are presented as essential sources of threats. For instance, speaking about environmental challenges or damage of cultural heritage monuments, both concepts refer to the impacts of those conflicts and aggression by Armenia and Russia. Significantly enough, that linkage to the conflicts is present in the overwhelming majority of the sections/subsections. As a quantitative measure of the abovementioned claim, we can observe the number of usage of the word of Russia/Russian in the Georgian national security concept and Armenia/Armenian in the Azerbaijani one. The Georgian concept uses Russia/Russians 86 times and most of them are used in negative meaning, presenting Russia as an aggressor and occupant. It is an unusual case, when a security concept uses a country name so much. To imagine the influence of the ongoing territorial conflicts of Georgia and its relations with Russia over the Georgian concept, lets see how often the other main countries and organizations are mentioned: NATO 27 times, the USA 17 times, Azerbaijan/Azerbaijani 17 times, Turkey/Turkish 15 times, Armenia/Armenian 13 times.1 It speaks about the fact that according to the Georgian main document of national security, their security threats come mostly not from Abkhazia and South Ossetia themselves, but from Russia. In a broad sense, the picture does not differ in the Azerbaijani national security concept. Although Armenia/Armenian is mentioned
Sea Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 2. 1 National Security Concept of the Republic of Georgia, 2011.

20

3 2013

28 times (not as often as Russia/Russian is used in the Georgian concept), however, the document frequently speaks about the Azerbaijani occupied territories both with and without using the word of Armenia, which The Armenian national security document is means that the contextual more balanced. usage of Armenia/Armenian is much more than 28 times. Interestingly, the Azerbaijani security document avoids using NagornoKarabakh, which is mentioned there only 1 time. It means that Azerbaijan presents the conflict not in the frameworks of selfdetermination of people, rather than as an interstate conflict, looking Russia is mentioned there 16 times, Georgia at Armenia as an immediate 12 times, Turkey 11 times, Iran and party. In comparison with the Azerbaijan 10 times. usage of Armenia/Armenian, the picture of using the names of other key countries is as follows: Turkey 6 times, Georgia/ Georgian 5 times, Iran 4 times, Russia/Russian 3 times.1 The rare usage of other countries names in the concept also speaks about the high concentration of the Azerbaijani concept on Armenia. From the aspect of quantitative measure, the Armenian national security document is more balanced, which could be explained by the fact that Armenia does not have a problem of territorial integrity. Russia is mentioned there 16 times, Georgia 12 times, Turkey 11 times, Iran and Azerbaijan 10 times.2 Although Azerbaijan is mentioned less than the The word of NagornoKarabakh is used others, however, the Armenian in the document 22 times, more than other document does not ignore the countries. Looking at Armenia and Artsakh threat coming from Azerbaijan as a joint security unit, the Armenian national and the Artsakh conflict security strategy gives a separate section to Artsakh and its issue. is considered as the most influential security issue for 3 Armenia. This claim is approved quantitatively as well, since the word of NagornoKarabakh is used in the document 22 times, more than other countries. Looking at Armenia and Artsakh as a joint security unit, the Armenian national security strategy gives a separate section
1 National security concept of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2007. 2 National security strategy of the Republic of Armenia, 2007. 3 National security strategy of the Republic of Armenia, 2007, p. 4.

3 2013 A. BEGLARYAN

21

to Artsakh and its issue. Under its use of force subsection the Armenian national security strategy considers mostly Azerbaijan and with a less probability Turkey as potential threats to the Armenian statehood.1 Importantly, the three national security documents feel some threats not only from their own conflicts, but also from the other conflicts of the whole region, which form the security environment of the South Caucasus. The Armenian security strategy in particular says that such destabilizing developments Any destabilizing development in other like ethnic conflicts, internal conflicts may have spillover effect on the unrest and military activities Artsakh conflict, which is defined as the key in neighboring states may issue of the security of Armenia. create a more diverse set of security threats for Armenia, from the disruption and disintegration of transit infrastructures to the spillover of ongoing military actions from neighboring states.2 Supposedly, the Armenian document hints about the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts. That claim of the Armenian NSS was proved during the RussianGeorgian war in August 2008, when the transit communications to Armenia were paralyzed, posing serious threats to the Armenian national security. Besides, any destabilizing development in other conflicts may have spillover effect on the Artsakh conflict, which is defined as the key issue of the security of Armenia. Other possible effects are underlined in the Georgian national security concept. Speaking about the threats coming from the conflicts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it then says in particular: another challenge is the continuing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The renewal of military confrontation between these two states would weaken the security of all three South Caucasian nations and increase Russias political influence over the entire region.3 As noticeable, even from this perspective, Georgia has fears mostly on the possible increase of Russian weight in the region, not some other effects of renewal of ArmenianAzerbaijani war.4
1 National security strategy of the Republic of Armenia, 2007, p. 4. 2 National security strategy of the Republic of Armenia, 2007, p. 4. 3 National Security Concept of the Republic of Georgia, 2011, p. 8. 4 MacFarlane, S. Neil. 2012. Georgia: National Security Concept versus National Security. Chatham House, Russia and Eurasia Programme Paper REP PP 2012/01.

22

3 2013

Unlike the Armenian and Georgian national security documents, the Azerbaijani one pays attention to other aspects of the impact of regional conflicts on its interests. It in particular says: Outbreak of conflicts in the regional countries represents also a threat to the Republic of Azerbaijan. Regional conflicts may seriously harm the external economic relations of the Republic of Azerbaijan and cause largescale influx of refugees as well as increase transnational criminal activities such as the illegal arms trade, human and drug trafficking and other illegal activities.1 Unlike Armenia, which is dependent on the Georgian transit as a security and life corridor, Azerbaijan looks at that transit route through the economic security prism, because the Azerbaijani hydrocarbon pipelines (BakuTbilisiCeyhan oil pipeline and BakuTbilisiErzurum gas pipeline) are crossing the Georgian territory. This particular interest has been challenged during the 2008 RussianGeorgian war, when the pipeline infrastructures were damaged. Besides, the Azerbaijani concept pays attention to humanitarian possible effects of outbreak of regional conflicts, too, which are ignored in the Armenian and Georgian documents.

Conclusion
Comparing the impact of the ethnoterritorial conflicts on the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian national security documents, some differences and similarities have been found. The first general difference is the names of them. Unlike the Armenian document, which is called strategy, the Georgian and Azerbaijani documents are called concepts. In theory, that should make difference in content and future planning, but in reality no serious difference is visible among them in that sense. A key similarity is noticeable in those documents that all of them are highly affected by ethnoterritorial conflicts they are involved in. Hence, the issue of conflicts is the most securitized factor in the national security documents of the discussed countries. However, the impact of that factor does not work similarly, since unlike Georgia and Azerbaijan, which look at the conflicts as a matter of territorial integrity and sovereignty, Armenia stresses the norm of self determination of people and exclusion of use of force.
1 National security concept of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2007, p. 4.

3 2013 A. BEGLARYAN

23

One of the main findings of this paper is that the Azerbaijani and Georgian national security documents more securitize their ethno territorial conflicts, than Armenia does. It could be explain by the aforementioned fact that for them it is an immediate issue affecting their territorial integrities. Georgia emphasizes the possible spillover As a quantitative indicator of effect of the Artsakh conflict on Abkhazia that claim, this paper shows and South Ossetia comparatively the usage of the names of the enemy countries in the documents, which also approve the argument that the Armenian security document has less concentration on the ethnoterritorial conflict, than its South Caucasian neighbors. Finally, not only their own conflicts, but also the other regional conflicts have impact on the national security documents of all three countries. Interestingly, each of them has looked at that threat through different prisms. While Georgia emphasizes the possible spillover effect of the Artsakh conflict on Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well as increase of Russian influence in the region as threats coming from other conflicts, Armenia securitizes the possible impact of the other conflicts on its communications, whereas Azerbaijan looks at that factor through the prism of its economic interests in the region and likely humanitarian negative effects of any renewal of warfare in the conflict zones.

, , ` : : ,

24

3 2013

, : , , : . , : , : , , : , , : , : , , , , :