For example, Time magazine covered the summer 1993 military coup d’etat in Azerbaijan that overthrew the Elchibei government, the first democratically elected government in Azerbaijan. Quoting one of the inhabitants of Baku, Time printed: “We are given freedom, but we don’t know what to do with it.” A similar quotation was printed in a Financial Times report on the Parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan in November 1995: “The voters say they have got freedom only they do not know what to do with it.” The striking resemblance of these quotations makes me think that there is a stereotypical view at work in the thoughts of Western media editors.
Of course we are not ready to accept the democracy as would have been desired. But to what extent? Then to what extent are our failures to establish stable democracy determined by the above unreadiness? Are not there some other reasons? Why do the scholars and observers pay so little attention to the induced instability in our countries? It is well known that tension imposed on the country from outside often results in the growth of separatism, ethnic nationalism and paternalism. Democracy cannot successfully develop in a condition of a permanent state of emergency, in which we found ourselves because of our geographical location we are too far from God and too close to Russia.
“The Evil Empire” is Reviving What is to be Done?,
“...In the short term the main task of the West towards Russia is not to clear up the prospects of democracy in this country, but to define if Russia will become national state or restore its empire status.” Zbigneiv Brzezinski
In 1994 Western public was seriously concerned for the first time by the fact that the democratic wave on the territory of the former U.S.S.R. began to go down and the pro-imperial public attitude was intensified by the failure of the supporters of independent pro-Western policy at Presidential elections in Ukraine. Although president Kuchma, who won the presidential elections maintained a policy of independence for the Ukraine, we could see the extend of resistance to this policy within the country as well as pressure coming from outside which he had to overcome. Then there was another warning: the communists in Belarus came to power and declared openly the necessity of reconstituting the USSR. They also called for necessity of opposing NATO.
However the backlash to democracy and expansion of neo-imperialism on the territory of the former USSR began even before. It took only a year for imperialistic forces in Russia to overcome the shock, caused with disintegration of the USSR in 1991. Since the autumn of 1992, Russia s force ministries, and especially the General Staff of the Russian Army unintentionally started making the situation unstable, without working out a clear foreign policy. These groups then exercised harsh military pressure on the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), with the aim of reconstructing their influence upon the CIS. Armenia practically has lost its independence; Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Ukraine are oppressed; and the republics of Central Asia and Kazakstan are in continual fear for their future. Of course, the longing for freedom in these countries was replaced by a longing for safety.
The end of 1993 was marked by impressive success of the supporters of the idea of a Russian super power and socialist economy. This year was testament to the victory of Russia s Communists and nationalists at parliamentary elections. Their opinions became stronger and were shared by an eved greater cadre of Russian people from 1994 to 1996, fostering strong backing (some 40 percent) for the advocates of these views at parliamentary elections in December 1995, and for the presidential election in 1996 (41 percent).
Even the representatives of the reform wing of the political elite in Russia, headed by Yeltsin, have to repeat the ideas of the supporters of the Empire about the greatness of Russia and its special interests.
Russia s expansionist ambitions are not only restricted to the territory of the former USSR. Today “admirers of the former greatness” work out actively the idea of “post-Byzantine space,” where Russia must prevail. Further and further they turn their eyes towards the Balkans and Middle East. These people are not looking for space to co-operate, or to be engaged in commerce or to exchange ideas; they want a space to dominate or to have so-called “Lebensraum” (Space for the living), an expression well known since before Second World War. Today it is clear that the “Evil Empire” is reviving regarding its policy toward CIS and that this is going on with the silent connivance of the West. Evidently, such policy will make USA to pay twice, when Russia will take control of CIS without any hindrance.
Russian Ambitions Regarding CIS
How does Russia formulate its national interests and foreign policy problems in the CIS? Today, when Russian society has gained a certain amount of freedom of information, this is easy to see even from sources published officially, as well as from the frank statements of high-ranking Russian politicians.
1. Western countries at present have lost their ability to maintain an active foreign policy, and they are busy with domestic affairs. The U.S. devotes a lot of attention to its domestic affairs; Europe is busy with the Maastricht process; and Germany has problems with unification. So there will not be any special resistance to Russian expansion in the CIS. However the West has enough resources to unleash a new Cold War in which Russia will be defeated again.
2. At the same time, Russia can hardly keep from taking advantage of
the weakness of some of the CIS countries in order to completely recreate
its influence over them, to use their resources, to seize their markets,
to deprive them of the possibility of choosing their own way of integrating
themselves into the economic and political systems of the world.
“Integration with a great number of states of the former USSR... or,
in the case of their disintegration, with regions that broke away
from them is almost inevitable in strategic prospect. There is no way out
of this and the only problem is in its forms and conditions.” This was
proclaimed in the “Theses of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy”
(1993), headed by some well-known Russian political leaders, including
Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and current Ambassador to Great Britain
Adamishin; Yeltsin’s Assistant for Foreign Policy Issues Rurikov; the Head
of Federal Security Service Stepashin; former Deputy Prime Minister of
the Russian Federation Shakhrai; and others.
3. It is nevertheless recognized that Russia should not overestimate its abilities in maintaining political and economic stability in the CIS. The mistakes of the U.S.S.R. must not be repeated, which was broken down because of trying to help all the republics develop simultaneously. Russia needs time to “accumulate strength” to assure the well-being of its people first.
4. These Russian influential political group believe that, at present, there are only two ways to solve the problems of the CIS: a) Unification with these countries or their regions within a federal state; b) creation of an effective defense union and single legal space for all national minorities in the CIS countries in exchange for unlimited access to their resources, markets, stocks and services. Arguably, the costs of creating this federal state of CIS countries are high, especially given Russia s current economical crisis. This policy would definately set Western countries against Russia.
In the highest strata of Russian government there are supporters of the first as well as the second way of “integration” of the countries of the former USSR. These two policies of the “Russian type of integration” promise to cause much suffering for the countries that have chosen independence. They will abandon democracy because of their permanent state of emergency and will be isolated from the entire world. Western countries will then witness a state that is again rising from the ruins, which is great not because of its economical or cultural achievements, but due to its aggressive aspiration for conquest.
Russian Intentions in the Transcaucasus
Will Russia submit to a new reality the independent policy of former vassal states, and leave the Caucasus alone? Never! The imperial approach was restored very quickly in the heads of Russian politicians. It dictates quite another thing to them: “If we leave the Caucasus, others will come: Turks, Americans... And no matter who comes, the Transcaucasian republics will be lost for us.”
Somehow it does not strike their minds that the idea of “coming ...” and “ leaving” makes no sense at the threshold of the 21 century, the century of democracy, with the disappearance of frontiers and unification efforts all over the world.
No changes are seen in Russian policy in Transcaucasus after the victory of Yeltsin in president elections in 1996. The President himself and his new team are forced to keep the same course on the “Russian type to integration” according to pro-imperial public attitude.
Armenia Having gained a victory over Azerbaijan in alliance with Russia, Armenia fell under military, political and economic power of Russia. It is not possible for Armenia to carry on military operations on the territory of Azerbaijan without Russian support. At the same time the present administration of Armenia can not abandon its policy of expansion because it has come to power under slogans that proclaim the annexation of Karabakh to Armenia. Besides this, Armenian industry today is not able to develop without deliveries of oil and raw materials from Russia, as it always get the subsidies from the Soviet budget.
According to a “Segodnya” newspaper report in the summer of 1993, Russia pays 57 percent of Armenian`s budget. Russia took from Armenia anythig that it wanted. As the Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation Pavel Grachev reported in an interview, “Levon Ter-Petrosian has successfully gone through all the trials...” By this Grachev means that the first presidents of Georgia and Azerbaijan couldn’t undergo all these trials.
The frontiers of Armenia are guarded by the Russian army. According to agreement Russian military bases will remain on the territory of Armenia for 25 years, and from these bases military operations are carried on against Azerbaijan which persistently objects to a similar “Russian way of integration. Armenians proclaim that it is not yet clear whether they will conquer Karabakh, but they have already lost their independence.
Georgia Though Russia has attained almost everything it wants
here, the sufferings of this beautiful country, situated on the coast of
the Black Sea, are still going on. Over 300,000 refugees from Sukhumi following
the ravaging of Russian bombers are still unable to return to their native
lands. Georgia has lost control over the South-Osetia before, which remains
guarded by the Russian army. Civil war between the supporters of Gamsakhurdia
and Shevardnadze, stirred up by the Russian politicians, rendered the country
lifeless. To date, about one million people left Georgia and have become
economic emigrants. We can hardly speak about democracy in such a situation.
Russia has maintained its interests in Georgia to the highest possible
extent. The country was forced to join the CIS, to sign “the agreement
on collective security of CIS” and to sign the intention record,
according to which three Russian military bases will be stationed in Vaznani,
Akhalkalaki and Batumi. The last, almost solved the problem of Russia,
is to deploy its naval forces on the Black Sea shore of Georgia in
Abkhazia.
Shevardnadze, stirred up by Russia, rendered the country lifeless. About a million people left Georgia and have become economical immigrants. One can hardly speak about democracy in such a situation. Russian policy makers think that it will be difficult to set active co-operation with Armenia without having the required dependence of Georgia from Russia, because Russia has no common border with Armenia. One can get there only via Georgia or Azerbaijan.
Independent Georgia and Azerbaijan serve as “a bad example”. Moreover, it is widely believed among Russian politicians that these countries are the factors making the situation unstable in the North-Caucasian autonomous republics of Russia.
Azerbaijan Azerbaijan was the first republic among the CIS that, during the democratic government of Elchibei (1992-1993), gained the withdrawal of Russian army and frontier troops from its territories. Moreover, after accession to power, the government of democratic forces switched its orientations towards the West.
Of course, Russia took vengeance over Azerbaijani democratic forces for trying to pursue the independent policy. In June 1993, Elchibei’s government fell with Russian assistance. Almost immediately, Armenia—with Russian help—occupied four regions in the territory of Azerbaijan beyond the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh. This situation led the Azerbaijani government to a state of emergency. From September 1993, Azerbaijan was forced to join the CIS. It seems that Azerbaijani public believed Russian Defense Minister Grachev, who assured the nation in an interview given to Azerbaijani TV that Russia would immediately help Azerbaijan withdraw Armenian troops from the occupied lands. However, in October, after Azerbaijan had joined the CIS, Armenia—again, with Russian assistance—occupied two more regions in the territory of Azerbaijan.
Russian policy threatens Azerbaijan with annexation of its lands, having
the aim of:
- getting the consent of Baku to guarding its borders by Russian
frontier troops and for deploying military bases on the territory of
Azerbaijan;
- Azerbaijan recognition of Russia as the only negotiator
in the Karabakh conflict and deployment of Russian “peacemaking troops”
there.
- taking an active part in extraction of Azerbaijani oil. Moreover,
Russia put forward the demand the oil, being extracted from the Caspian
shelf near Azerbaijan is a common property of all Caspian littoral countries.
Meanwhile, in the former USSR Caspian basin and its shelf has been divided
into sectors between the union republics as an internal reservoir.
- transportation of oil, extracted on the territory of Azerbaijan,
Kazakstan and Turkmenistan via the pipeline, passing through the
territory of Russia; otherwise Russian politicians think they will lose
control over these countries.
Furthermore, Azerbaijan is of great strategic value for Russia. A glance at the map will be enough to understand that in the territory of the former U.S.S.R. all the railways from Russia to Iran and to oil-bearing fields of the Persian Gulf lie through Azerbaijan. The independent democratic Azerbaijan will be the attractive example for Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakstan and Tadjikistan, the countries trying to resist Russian control.
Russia has not succeeded in making Azerbaijan agree with the requirements given above. How long can Azerbaijan stand against Russia without any support from the West? If Armenia will go on occupying district after district on the territory of Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani government has no alternative but acceptance of the suggested “Russian type of integration.” Also it will be difficult for the democratic forces to suggest any other alternative for Azerbaijan.
The Opportunities Russia Has in Azerbaijan
In addition to Karabagh, Russia has some other opportunities to exert influence over Azerbaijan:
a) About 40 percent of the trade turnover in Azerbaijan is with Russia. The Russian borders, recently closed as a result of the Chechnya conflict, drove the economy of Azerbaijan into a desperate state.
b) There are 300 000 ethnic Russians in Azerbaijan. Russian politicians uses their presence as a ground for interference, though all their cultural rights were guaranteed since Elchibei’s decree “On the rights of ethnic minorities” and no evidence of discrimination or mistreatment was discovered.
c) Russia takes an active part in encouraging the separatism of the Lezghins, an ethnic group living in the north of Azerbaijan, and the Talyshis, who live on the south. Lately, Russia and Armenia tried to raise the question of the Kurdish people in Azerbaijan. Armenian propaganda alleges that most regions in Azerbaijan, occupied by Armenians are places of compact residence of Kurdish people, who are in favor of Armenia, while in reality virtually all of them were ethnically cleansed by Armenian army along with ethnic Azeris.
d) The representatives of the former Communist nomenclature are also pro-Russian. This well-arranged force, associated with financial, commercial and industrial groups, is headed by former president A. Mutalibov (currently residing in Russia), is the main hope of Russia.
e) Since the Soviet period, the Russian espionage system, has been created
and supported for 70 years by KGB, military security service and frontier
troops of the former USSR.
According to the numbers of the Ministry of National Security Service
of Elchibei’s Administration at least 100,000 people in Azerbaijan
were linked with the U.S.S.R. secret services. A great number of
adherents to Russia are in the highest echelons of the officer’s corps
of the Azerbaijani Army.
Iranian secret services are also intensifying their efforts in
Azerbaijan. At the time of the Elchibei government, about 100 Iranian
agents and citizens of Azerbaijan, recruited by Iranian secret services,
were arrested as a result of the efforts of the Ministry of
National Security Service. It is clear that the aims of Russia and
Iran are almost the same. Fundamentalist Iran, more than Russian imperialists,
does not want to see the open society near its borders, aware that
about 20 million ethnic Azeris live in Iran.
The Prospects for Democracy in Azerbaijan
A military coup d’etat inspired by Russia in the summer 1993 struck a blow to democracy in Azerbaijan. According to the “Freedom House” reports on human rights, Azerbaijan from the “partly free country” in 1993 has become the “not free country” in 1994 and 1995. In spite of the arrests of the democratic opposition, and severe censorship it was impossible to turn back society to Stalinism. As the result of an unceasing three-year political struggle, the democratic community of the country gained the government recognition, opposition political parties function and partly free mass media exists. The most important is that the current government renewed the foreign policy adopted by democratic forces — towards independence and integration with the democratic world community. Embassies of democratic countries, especially the US Embassy give indispensable help to the democratic forces.
Obviously, without support from the world democratic community, Azerbaijan will not stand long against Russia and Iran. The loss of Azerbaijan means the loss of future Western prospects for a successful struggle against Russian expansion on the South; against Iranian fundamentalism; for support the democratic processes in the republics of Central Asia; and for the protection of markets in these countries. It should be explained to the Russian government that Russia will not be able to become a full member of community of democracies (The Group of the Seven, European Council and others) if it continues a neo-imperialistic policy towards its neighbors.
Should the democratic forces and defenders of independence in CIS countries supported? The answer is yes! They should be given a hand. They need help in establishing contacts with the global system of democratic organizations. They need intellectual and technical support. The situations with human rights in these countries have to be closely watched. The present Azerbaijani administration should be informed by the Western community that they will not communicate with regimes violating civil and political rights.
It is also necessary to intensify the spread of democratic values and the advantages of a market economy in Russia. Russians have lost very quickly the guilt complex gained during the years of perestroika for the injustices of 70 years of Communist imperialism toward individuals and nations. The efforts and means needed for all that are 1,000 times less than for keeping the stability of national financial system in countries sliding towards despotism.
How ready were we for democracy during the time of Elchibei’s administration? The estimate of the experts of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in their March 1993 report notes that “Azerbaijan—with regard to the work that was done in the orientation toward a market economy, as well as the establishment of a multi-party system and democracy, to the economic potential and mental ability of the population—is one of the most prepared countries of the former U.S.S.R. which has already started to carry out the economic reforms.” A similar report following the Parliamentary elections in 1995 by the Joint Mission of the UN-OSCE noted that, “...violations during pre-election campaign casts doubts on democracy of the lection... Elections do not answer the world standards.”
At the same time, a conclusion of great importance made
by the Joint Mission noted that “...Azerbaijan is
able to hold elections true to international standards.”
Yes, we are able to do it, only if they leave us alone.