And yet to the Armenians, they're Turks pure and simple and
if you know anything about Armenian-Turkish relations you'll know there's a
real and lasting hatred between the two peoples.
As the USSR broke up in the early 1990's one of the most
violent and enduring conflicts was born in the Sub-Caucasus between the nations
of Armenia and what was Soviet Azerbaijan. There's also an Iranian Azerbaijan
which just further complicates the politics of the region but in this case doesn't
affect the Armenian-Azeri conflict.
The serious fighting surrounded the area of Nagorno-Karabakh.
This area now represents an exclave, an area captured by Armenia but is not
geographically contiguous with the main borders of the Armenian nation. The
Armenians who live there today are still wary and everyone knows that war could
break out again. There are areas near the Azeri border that are effectively
'no-go' regions due to snipers.
To add to the confusion Nakhchivan is an Azeri exclave, a
region cut off from the main land borders of Azerbaijan... by Armenia no less.
In other words to drive to Nakhchivan from Azerbaijan, one would have to cross
Armenia. This is not done. If you need to travel by land, you pass through Iran
and in fact there's a bridge being built to further facilitate this travel.
Recently Azerbaijan has been sabre rattling and claiming to
have militarily re-captured land in the north Nakhchivan. This is peculiar
because Azerbaijan already controls the territory. There are some areas in the
north of the exclave that are under de
facto Armenia control but most are left wondering what's the fuss all
about? It doesn't make sense other than perhaps representing a threat to
Armenia proper or to the Armenian exclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.
And yet, Nagorno-Karabakh isn't directly connected to
Nakhchivan. So unless the Azeri's are planning to grab the southern corridor of
Armenia that extends to the Iranian border (dividing Azerbaijan proper from
Nakhchivan) and use it as a platform to re-take Nagorno-Karabakh, their actions
and rhetoric make little sense.
Even more puzzling, Russia seems to be indicating support for
Azerbaijan.
Why is this puzzling? The Azeris are very closely allied with
Armenia's arch-enemy, NATO member Turkey. The Eastern or Oriental Orthodox
Christian Armenians have traditionally found their friends in Orthodox Russia
and across the border in Iran. There are many Armenians in Iran and the two
peoples have a shared history that is ancient. Remember as far as the history
of the region the Turks are relatively speaking the newcomers, the interlopers.
Islam transformed the region but the Turks who arrived a little over a thousand
years ago... smashed it.
In the 1990's with the break-up of the USSR, Azerbaijan was
largely and successfully wooed by the West. Turkey's NATO membership and (at
the time) aspirations to join the EU proved influential in bringing Azerbaijan
into the Occidental camp. Western money flowed into Baku as oil deals were
signed. Both the US and Israel established military ties with Azerbaijan and it
seemed to many that the Armenian-Azeri faultline would become an expression of
the Russian/Persian-Western faultline.
This of course is an oversimplification as there are layers
to these relationships. We could also talk about the Chechens, Syria, the
Kurds, Georgia, the Greeks and on it goes. The infamous Turkish agent Abdullah Çatli
even enters the story. Needless to say the Greeks and Armenians have remained
cordial. They have a common hatred for the Turks. The Greeks also have helped
both the Kurds and Armenian guerilla/terrorist groups like ASALA which were
dedicated to fighting the Turks. This led to bombs and gun play from the
streets of Greece, to France and even in Africa.
While the Armenians have strong financial and congressional
contingents in the United States, Washington has basically continued to support
what could be called the Turkey-Azerbaijan-Israel axis as opposed to the
Russia-Armenia-Iran axis.
Some Armenians (like those in the now defunct ASALA) have
found common cause with groups like the PLO and Hezbollah and yet like the
Greeks, they are in many ways caught between East and West.
The same is true of Azerbaijan. While they've cozied up to
the West, like the Turks, the relationship is at times strained.
Russia has continued to sell arms to both Armenia and
Azerbaijan but their primary relationship is with Armenia who continues to host
Russian military bases.
Why then would Russia 'support' Azerbaijan's aggressive
rhetoric and military manuevres in Nakhchivan, something that has Armenia quite
perturbed?
Those that understand the region believe it comes down to
this...
Armenia is in a state of tumult. It has become a front in the
Washington-Moscow fight. Western backed elements are fomenting unrest and the
pro-Moscow factions are in the process of being forced out. This is a major
coup for NATO and the West.
So, then wouldn't you expect Moscow to back their factions
and work to countermand the efforts of the pro-Western parties?
It hasn't worked so far but military threat will bring the
nation together. Moscow might be utilising a chapter right out of the NATO
playbook. It's the strategy of tension. Use terror and/or the threat of
military violence, an external threat to steer the nation to the hard-line
Right-wing position. Armenia won't last without a backer and Russia is the
devil they know and the one who will come through for them. An Armenia under
threat will turn to and rely upon Russia and thus the political figures who are
in agreement with this necessity, will also find favour.
This cannot be proven of course but it's plausible.
It also indicates that Moscow may not view Baku as a totally
lost cause. They can score some points with both camps, re-trenching in Armenia
and at the same time building bridges and re-establishing stronger ties with
Azerbaijan. Baku has never 'broken' with Moscow but everyone knows that Baku's
focus is directed toward Ankara and Washington. Moscow's support and
encouragement of Azeri windmill tilting in Nakhchivan certainly won't hurt.
Western media will pick up something like this and run with
it, painting Moscow as cynical and manipulative. To the West, Moscow is an evil
force capable of virtually anything. And they're right but of course the West
plays the same game. Western media will happily broadcast every conspiracy
theory about Russian plots, some of which are true and some aren't and yet they
will at the same time lambast Russian media for daring to accuse the West of
political conspiracy. Both nations and their elites are cut from the same cloth
and both play the same cynical games that lead to war and destruction. The
Caucasus are like the Balkans, volatile and very dangerous. The stability
should not be taken for granted.
A war in the Caucasus could... and God forbid... have the
potential to turn into another Syria.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.