Spartak Zhidkov, Sukhumi-Vladikavkaz. Exclusively to VK
In late April issues of contemporary policy of Russia in the Caucasus were discussed at the international scientific conference organized by the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies in Vladikavkaz Management Institute. Experts from all Caucasian countries, except Georgia, came to Vladikavkaz, but it didn’t prevent the participants from discussing Georgian foreign policy.
The initiators of the discussion intended to make it widely covered by analysts and predictors. The topic was the Strategy of Russia in the Caucasus in the 21st century. It is obvious that sooner or later Moscow will have to make decisions similar to those made in August 2008. Even if Russia doesn’t want any changes, sooner or later the waves of the Arab Spring will cover the Caucasus or the Iranian crisis will be settled; and these circumstances will change the political atmosphere.
For most experts who deal with Russian policy in the Caucasus the complex solution of all these problems is an essential task. For example, the unsettled contradiction between Russia and Georgia on the Abkhazian and Ossetian issues (political and military targets are clear) and on cooperation with Armenia, which is very important for this country. On the one hand, a direct opponent of Russia like Mikhail Saakashvili is beneficial for Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. While Saakashvili is President, Moscow sees no reasons for changing the course: strict confrontation with Georgia and intensive military security of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia is not a threat to Russia. On the other hand, we shouldn’t forget that Moscow’s ally, Armenia, as well as Nagorno-Karabakh are separated from Russia by Georgian territory. Therefore, if the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict starts again, if Turkey remains hostile to Armenia, and Iran is involved in a conflict with NATO, how can Moscow protect the Armenians? Is power change in Georgia beneficial for Russia? There is no clear answer.
The second problem discussed at the conference was the problem of terrorism in the Caucasus. The phenomenon has always had a political basis. Today terrorism in the North Caucasus is more acute than in the 1990s. In that period it was obvious that the common center of anti-Russian forces in the Caucasus were the authorities of rebellious Chechnya. Today there is no clear center, and it is difficult to define where the threat comes from, what targets the terrorists have and whether they cooperate with the local population. Terrorism doesn’t weaken, it evolves. The number of specialists on terrorist operations reduced. They are residents of the post-Soviet republics and Russia itself. A new model of extremist organizations appeared, i.e. transnational net structures that are able to commit terrorist attacks in any place of the world.
According to experts, the situation is caused by several negative processes in the North Caucasus – consolidation of extremist and criminal groups and conveyance of new political concepts. One of them is the idea of the “genocide of the Circassians” launched by Georgian politicians. It should be admitted that this project of Georgian diplomacy appeared to be viable and influences the minds of the population of the North-Caucasus republics. It is interesting that in the 1990s such an initiative had no chances of being understood, despite the Chechen war. But now the idea is perceived not only by young people, but also by ideologists-Caucasiologists.
What is the reason? It seems Russian analysts are not fast at reacting to new phenomena. Sometimes the Caucasian mentality is not taken into consideration, while tolerance is lacking. The senior vice-principal of the Vladikavkaz Management Institute, Taimuraz Kusov, urged a reconsideration of some of the concepts of economic development which are aimed at tourism promotion in the North Caucasus. The connection between social phenomena and political attitudes is obvious.
At the same time, it is necessary to deal with an ideological contradiction, which often dominates other problems. Vladimir Chernous thinks that the establishment of the NCFD caused a contradiction which is used by Georgian political technologists. They try to form pan-Caucasian identity in opposition to a Russian one. Russia is slow to react and misses many important moments.
A surprise opinion was voiced by Arif Yusufov on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. According to him, for Armenians the Karabakh war is not only a national, but a religious conflict, they see a confrontation of the Christian and Muslim worlds in it. The political scientist Rachya Arzumanyan replied to this: “You think Armenians are reckless, but not nearly as bad: to live among Islamic countries and fight against Islam is nonsense for real politics.”
In Vladikavkaz an effort to gather information on the situation in the various regions of the Caucasus was made, and it was discussed through benefits of and threats to the influence of Moscow. This work should be fruitful.
