Russia in the Transcaucasus, or Democracy in a State of Emergency
by Hikmet HADJY-ZADEH
Hikmet Hadjy-zadeh is one of the
founders of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan.
He worked as chief editor of the Popular
Front Newspaper "Svoboda," he was also Deputy
Prime-Minister and ambassador to Russia during
the term of Elchibay's government(92-93).
At present he is the head of the analytical
centre of the Musavat party.
Address: Azerbaijan, Baku, Bul-Bul pr.14/9;
Phone: (8922)93-09-51; E-mail: far@monitor.baku.az
The difficulties of establishing stable democracy in Central and East
European countries, freed from communism, given rise to various
research works and papers on the problem.
In many of these papers the authors, following the well-known philosophy
that the cause of every phenomenon should be found in itself, come to
the conclusion that these people are not ready for democracy. At the
end of report, concerning military coup d'etat that overthrew
democratically elected government of Azerbaijan (summer 1993) "Time"
magazine quotes one of the citizens of Baku: "We are given freedom, but we
do not know what to do with it." A similar quotation is set forth in the
"Financial Times," in a report about falsification during Parliamentary
elections in Azerbaijan (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 magazine 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 near
to Russia.
It could be argued that western observers in trying to ignore the
above issue are trying to evade the answer to the following
question: "What is to be done and why don't we help them?" Of course
it is so simple to say "we do nothing, because they are not ready and
there is nothing to help them with."
"THE EVIL IMPIRE" 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."
Zbigneiw Brzezinski
In 1994 public opinion in the West was seriously concerned for the
first time by the fact that the democratic wave on the territory of
the former USSR 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 Boleros 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 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
(its force ministries and especially General Staff of Russian Army)
started making the situation unstable almost unintentionally, without
working out a clear foreign policy and then exercised harsh military
pressure into the affairs of the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS) countries, with the aim of reconstructing its influence upon
them. Armenia practically has lost its independence, Georgia,
Moldova, Azerbaijan and Ukraine are oppressed and the republics of
Middle Asia and Kazakhstan are in permanent fear for their future. Of
course, the longing for freedom in these countries was replaced by
longing for safety.
The end of 1993 was marked by impressive success of adherence to the
idea of Russian Super Power and socialist economy. It brought the
victory to communists and nationalists at parliamentary elections in
Russia. In 1994 - 1996 this tendency became stronger and brought a
great success (some 40%) to the supporters of this idea at
parliamentary elections in December 1995 and the presidential
election in 1996 (41%).
Even the representatives of the reformative 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.
These expansionist ambitions are restricted not only to the territory
of the former USSR. Today "admirers of the former greatness" work out
actively the idea of "After 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, 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 -- germ.), 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. There is no need to remind that such policy finally makes America pay twice, when Russia will take control of CIS without any hindrance.
RUSSIAN AMBITIONS REGARDING CIS
How does Russia itself formulates its national interests and foreign
policy problems in 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 quite 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 now with domestic affairs.
USA devotes a lot of attention to its domestic affairs, Europe is
busy with the Maastricht process, Germany has the problems of uniting
its divided territories. 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 entirely return
its unrestrained 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," --
as was confirmed in the "Theses of the Council on Foreign and Defense
Policy" (1993), headed by some famous Russian political leaders:
A.Adamishin (at that time first Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs,
(at present he is the ambassador to Great Britain ), D.Rewrikov
(Yeltsin's assistant for foreign policy issues), S.Stepashin (then
the Head of Federal Security Service ), S.Shakhray (then Deputy Prime
Minister of Russian Federation) and others.
3. However Russia should not overestimate its abilities in
maintaining the political stability and economical situation in CIS
countries -- as they consider in the Kremlin. The mistakes of the
USSR mustn't be repeated, which was broken down because of trying to
help all the republics to develop simultaneously. Russia needs the
time to "accumulate strength" to assure the well-being of its people
first.
4. Russia considers that at present there are only two ways to solve
the problems of the CIS:
a) Unification with these countries or with their regions into a
federate state;
b) Russia is now hampered by economical crisis and it will be a
costly enterprise to form the federate state of out of CIS countries
that would in addition set Western countries against Russia. It seems
to be more pragmatic to choose a policy of keeping the formally
independence of CIS in exchange for unlimited access to their resources, their markets, stocks and services for the creation of an effective defense union and insuring single legal space for all national minorities.
(From the "Theses" of Foreign Policy Council")
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 ways for the "Russian type to
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 they will be isolated from the
whole world. Western countries will then witness a State that is
again rising from ruins, which is great not because of its economical
or cultural achievements but due to its aggressive aspiration for
conquest.
THE INTENTIONS OF RUSSIA IN THE TRANSCAUCASUS.
Submit to a new reality -- the independent policy of former vassal
states and to leave Caucasus alone? Never! The imperial thought that
was restored very quickly in the heads of Russian politicians
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." Why 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.
There are no changes can be seen in Russian policy in Transcaucasus
after the victory of Yeltsin on president elections in 1996. The President himself and his renovated 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 the military, political and economical dependence
of Russia. It is not possible for Armenia to carry on military
operations in the territory of Azerbaijan without Russian support. At
the same time the present administration of Armenia cannot abandon
its policy of expansion because it has come to power under slogans,
proclaiming the annexation of Karabakh to Armenia. Besides, the
Armenian industry today is not able to develop without deliveries of
oil and raw materials from Russia as it always got the subsidies from
the budget of USSR. According to the facts given in the Moscow's
free press, Russia pays 57% of Armenian`s budget (as "Segodnya"
newspaper reported in the summer of 1993). Russia took from Armenia
anything that it wanted.
As then Minister of Defense of Russian Federation, P.Grachov reported
in an interview to the ORT TV: "Levon Ter-Petrosyan has successfully
gone through all the trials..." (by this he means that the first
presidents of Georgia and Azerbaijan couldn't undergo all these
trials).
The frontiers of Armenia are guarded by Russian army. According to
the agreement Russian military bases has settled in the territory of
Armenia for 25 years and from these bases military operations are
carried on against Azerbaijan that persists in objecting to the
"Russian type to integration ."
GEORGIA
Though Russia has maintained its interests in Georgia to the fullest.
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 3 Russian military bases will be settled in
Vaznani, Ahalkalaki and Batumi. The latest, almost solved the problem
of Russia, is to settle its naval forces on the Black Sea shore of
Georgia in Abkhazia.
However, the overall crises is still going on in the country. Three
hundred thousand refugees from Sukhumi, that were ravaged by Russian
bombers, still cannot return home. Georgia has lost control over the
South-Osetia before, which is guarded by Russian army today. Civil
war between the supporters of the former president Gamsakhurdia and
the current president Shevardnadze, stirred up by Russia, rendered
the country lifeless. About a million people left Georgia and have
become economical immigrants. We 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 frontiers with Armenia.
One can get there only via Georgia or Azerbaijan.
Independent Georgia and Azerbaijan serve as "a bad example" and they
are the factors making the situation unstable in the North-Caucasian
autonomous republics of Russia.
AZERBAIJAN
It was the first republic among CIS that during the democratic
government of Elchibey (1992-1993) gained the withdrawal of Russian
army and frontier troops from its territories in the spring 1993.
Moreover, after accession to power, the government of Democrats has
made switch in policy of the country towards the West.
Of course Russia took vengeance over Azerbaijani democrats for
trying to pursue the independent policy . In June 1993, Elchibay's
government fell with Russian assistance. Just after that event
Armenia with Russian assistance occupied four regions in the
territory of Azerbaijan, beyond the borders of Nagorny Karabakh. It
put former CP leader Haydar Alyev's Administration into a state of
emergency. From September, Azerbaijan was forced to join the CIS
being foolished by then Defense Minister, P. Grachov, who assured
them in his interview given to Azerbaijan TV that Russia would
immediately help Azerbaijan to withdraw Armenian troops from the
occupied lands. In October, after Azerbaijan had joined the CIS,
Armenia with Russian assistance occupied two more regions in the
territory of Azerbaijan.
Russia threatens Azerbaijan with annexation of its lands, having the
aim:
- getting the consent of Baku to guarding its frontiers by Russian
frontier troops and for forming military bases on the territory of
Azerbaijan;
- gaining that Azerbaijan will recognize Russia to be the only
negotiator in the Karabakh conflict and to settle Russian
"peacemaking troops" there.
- taking an active part in extraction of Azerbaijan oil. Moreover
Russia put forward the problem that the oil, being extracted from the
Caspian shelf near Azerbaijan is a common property of all Caspian
regions.
(In the former USSR Caspian basin and its shelf has been divided
between the republics as an internal reservoir.)
- making that oil, extracted on the territory of Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan will flow trough the pipe-line, passing
through the territory of Russia; otherwise Russians 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 USSR 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, Kazakhstan and Tadjikistan, the
countries trying to resist Russian control.
Russia could not make yet 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 then, Haydar Alyev has
nothing to do but to accept the suggested "Russian type to
Integration." Also it will be difficult for the Democrats to suggest
an alternative to society.
THE OPPORTUNITIES RUSSIA HAS IN AZERBAIJAN
Russia has some other opportunities, besides the Karabakh crisis, to
exert influence over Azerbaijan.
a) About 40% of the commodity turnover in Azerbaijan belong to
Russia. The Russian frontiers, recently closed, as a result of the
Chechnya conflict, which drove the economy of Azerbaijan into a
desperate state.
b) There are 300 000 ethnic Russians in Azerbaijan. Russia uses them
as a ground for interference, though all their, cultural rights were
guaranteed already by Elchibey's Decree, "About the rights of ethnic
minorities."
c) Russia takes an active part in stringing up the separatism of the
Lezghins, who live in the North of the republic and the Talish
people, who live on the South. Lately, Russia and Armenia try 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.
d) The representatives of the former Communist nomenclature are also
pro-russian. This well-arranged force, associated with financial,
commercial and industrial groups, headed by former president
A.Mutallibov (who has gotten Russian shelter), is the main hope of
Russia.
e) Since the USSR period, the Russian espionage system, has been
distributed for 70 years by KGB, Army Security Service and Frontier
troops of the former USSR.
From the evaluations of the Ministry of National Security Service of
Elchibey's Administration about 100 000 people in any case were
linked with the USSR Secret Services in Azerbaijan. A great number of
adherents to Russia are in the supreme officer's corps of the
Azerbaijan Army.
Iranian secret services are also intensifying their efforts in
Azerbaijan. At the time of the Democrats' 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 itself, considering that about 20 million ethnic Azerbaijani Turks living in Iran..
THE PROSPECTS OF DEMOCRACY IN THE AZERBAIJAN
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 mass arrests of the democrats, informal veto on occupation for
them, 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 of the existence of opposition political
parties and partly free mass media. The most happy thing is that the
present government had to renew the foreign policy adopted by
democrats which towards independence and integration with the
democratic world community.
Embassies of democratic countries, especially the US Embassy gave
indispensable help to the democrats in their struggle for existence.
This demonstrated that there are no bounds for democrats, that morale
support can be affective and it is possible to struggle against
dictatorship by peaceful means...
Obviously, without support of the world democratic community
Azerbaijan won't stand long against Russia and Iran. The loss of
Azerbaijan for the West means the loss of future prospects for a
successful struggle against Russian expansion on the South, against
Iranian fundamentalism, the possibility to support the democratic
processes in the republics of Central Asia, and naturally the loss of
markets in these countries.
It should be explained to the Russian government that Russia won't be
able to become a full member of democratic community (The Country of
the Seven, European Council and others) if it continues a
neo-imperialistic policy towards its neighbors.
Support the democrats and defenders of independence in CIS countries?
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. Their
intellectual community subdivisions need help in making contacts
with the intellectual centers of the West.
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 necessary also intensify the spread of democratic values, of
world coexistence and the advantages of market economy in Russian
Society. 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 as well as to the whole
nations.
The efforts and means needed for all that are 1000 times less than
for keeping the stability of national financial system in countries
sliding to despotism...
How ready were we for democracy during the time of Elchibey's
administration? The estimate of the experts of the European Bank
(EBRD) in their report published on March 1993 is as follows:
"Azerbaijan with regard to the work that was done in the orientation
toward market economy, as well as establishment of 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 USSR
which have already started to carry out the economic reforms."
Then this is the report of the Parliamentary elections in 1995,
written together with the Joint Mission of UN-OSCE.
"...Violation during pre-election campaign casts doubts on democracy
of the election." "...Elections do not answer the world standards."
At the same time, a conclusion of great importance for us made by
the Joint Mission, is as follows:
"...Azerbaijan is able to hold elections true to international
standards."
Yes, we are able to do it, only if they leave us alone.