Masaryk university

1.2Contemporary Research

The armed conflicts in the South Caucasus have been the subject of increasing number of studies during the last two decades. Different authors have explained dramatic upsurges of armed conflicts in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh from different perspectives. This literature can be divided into two groups: empirical studies of regional authors and theoretical works within the Western academic community.

In the first case, regional authors write in local languages and in Russian. The main objective of these publications is to capture the chronological evolution of the conflicts. Unfortunately, the conclusions of these empirical studies are predictable in accordance with the ethnicity of the author. Indeed, ideological beliefs and lack of methodological standards have negative effects on the scholarly values of these studies (one outstanding exception is the work of Georgian political scientist Ghia Nodia). Because of heavy ethnocentric, nationalistic,¹¹ or Russo-centrist¹² attitudes, the causes of bloody conflict in the South Caucasus are explained along ethnic lines or along the sentiment of a great game in a small place. Such types of explanation neglect the complexity of internal conflict processes and dynamics. These authors tend to overemphasize the strategic importance of the South Caucasus region. This dissertation offers an original way to understand conflicts without any ambition to advocate interpretation of any conflict party. This dissertation posits its findings among those authors’ work who contributed to the study of these armed conflicts in a more sophisticated way – by applying and testing the theories of international relations and the causes of wars in the South Caucasus. In this regard, the work of the following scholars has particular importance.

Stuart Kaufman, one of the most important representatives of the symbolic theory of ethnic conflict, argues that the conflicts in the South Caucasus region were driven by fear. His argument contradicts the rational choice theory and claims that, “rather, ideological and prejudice driven ethnic fears caused conflict and violence that, over time, weakened and finally destroyed the state.”¹³ Kaufman belongs to small number of scholars who utilize empirical material to support the theory of symbolic politics of ethnic wars. The findings of his research are significant as they explore the common indicators (e.g., ethnic diversity, political culture status, emerging national mobilization, etc.) in the Moldova and South Caucasian region. Such approach contributes to the establishment of general patterns of conflict escalation in this area after the collapse of the communist regime. Besides this interesting argument about the origins of the conflicts, other studies propose that the region emerged as a battlefield of clashing national projects,¹⁴ which led to secessionist ethnic conflicts that were escalated by foreign intervention;¹⁵ mass mobilizations aimed to challenge Soviet order and its legitimacy;¹⁶ this led to internal power struggles with a high level of corruption in the newly created, weak states.¹⁷

An outstanding book that offers a cross-case analysis of the armed conflicts in the Caucasus region – Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, and two Chechen wars – is War and Peace in the Caucasus. Ethnic Conflict and the New Geopolitics by Vicken Cheterian. This book helps to understand the unresolved turmoil in this region. In his analysis, Cheterian seeks a common indicator and patterns for these armed conflicts. He argues that even though history played a role, the escalation of these conflicts had its own cause. He views nationalism as a significant but insufficient factor to explain the conditions of war in the Caucasus; the disintegration of the Soviet Union matters more and is a key cause of the armed confrontation in this region.¹⁸ In his most recent book, War and Peace in the Caucasus: Russia’s Troubled Frontier, the author explains the causes of conflicts from a historical perspective, underlying the role of mass mobilization and repression.¹⁹

Thomas de Waal’s research reflected in his book Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War captures special attention among existing literature on Nagorno-Karabakh’s armed conflict. Rich data from the field offer deep insight into the relationship between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.²⁰ One of the first books aiming to test theories of internal armed conflicts on a series of case studies in the Caucasus is presented in Cristoph Zurcher’s famous book The Post-Soviet War: Rebellion, Ethnic Conflict, and Nationahood in the Caucasus. The author explores the reasons for conflict in the Caucasus and addresses the question why the conflicts did not occur in other regions such as Ajara and Dagestan. This ambitious goal is tested by quantitative theories on the causes of civil wars. His research reviews the history of the conflicts and argues that state weakness and nationalist rhetoric increased the likelihood of conflicts.²¹

Svante Cornell, in his book Small Nation and Big Powers, explores the role of the institutional structures of autonomy within the republics of the Soviet Union as a major factor to explain the outbreak of conflicts in the Caucasus.²² Other scholars highlight the role of intellectuals and ideologies of confrontation²³ or historians, who quite often served as source of justification for mobilization of ethnic groups. Some studies have geopolitical appeal and overemphasize the role of external powers in these conflicts.

The international dimension of the Russian-Georgian armed conflict is addressed in Ronald Asmus’s book A Little War that Shook the World: Georgia, Russia and the Future of the West. According to Asmus, the main cause of the Russian-Georgian armed conflict was the political status of Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On the other hand, Russia tried to prevent penetration of Western influence and block Georgia’s aspirations to become a part of European and transatlantic structures. According to Asmus, who had direct contact with the Georgian president, Saakashvili was convinced that Russia would not launch a military operation only over South Ossetia, but in the background of the Russian intervention was an effort to overthrow the Georgian political regime. As the author argues, Russia’s aggression was not directed only against Georgia. The conflict revealed the weaknesses of the European security arrangements. Russia wants to avoid strengthening Western influence and further expansion of NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation by any means. The Russian-Georgian armed conflict is, according to Asmus, the first armed clash between East and West after the Cold War. This conclusion can be debated, and the Russian-Georgian armed conflict of 2008 had no significant impact on the functioning of the international system. Despite an initial cooling of Russian-American relations, Russia is seen as an important partner to the United States and the European Union. And it turns out that the United States and the European Union will not significantly interfere against further important actors in world politics, such as Russia.

The variety of interpretations and the challenges of competing theories on armed conflicts in the South Caucasus create a demand for a scientific inquiry into the nature of the conflicts. In accordance with conventional wisdom about the conflicts, ethnic diversity and historical grievances plus post-communist era equal violent upheavals. This study rejects the common notion that the contemporary conflicts in the South Caucasus region can be understood as “unfinished business” from the past ethnic conflicts that had been “frozen” under the communist regime.²⁴ The author does not deny that ethnicity and system change are significant factors in prolongation of conflicts; however, the link between ethnicity and armed conflict is indirect and should be reconsidered. Furthermore, the issues at stake today are different from what they were more than twenty years ago.