E. danelia south caucasus as a regional security complex

Tbilisi State University

Center for Social Sciences

Module: Transformation in the South Caucasus

Course: Post Soviet Politics

The South Caucasus as one regional Security Complex

Lecturer: Giorgi Khelashvili

Student: Ekaterine Danelia

Grade: I

Tbilisi 2011

The South Caucasus as one regional Security Complex

After the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and collapse of the cooperative security, that was accompanied it, the major issue and problem of the region was the internal political insecurity and chaos in the Post Soviet countries. The South Caucasian states: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan as other newly independent Post Soviet countries had lack of statehood and experience, so soon they found themselves in the ethnic conflicts, chaos and disorder. To get over these challenges and decrease the “security deficit” in this region, three small states might consolidate to cooperate and support the idea of the one “security complex.”

Security analysis of the post-cold war era are confronted not only with the challenge of understanding new patterns of instability and ethnic conflict, but also with the emergence of new security complexes on the territory of the former Soviet Union.

Some scholars argue that in the field of International Relations and the world of geopolitics, it has long been common to distinguish between geographic and geopolitical regions.1 The latter are characterized by the role a concrete geographic area plays in the international system. In short, notion of “geographic region” is to a greater extent static, while the notion of the “geopolitical region” is dynamic and it cannot be considered outside the historic context.2 It is debatable issue, is the South Caucasus regarded as region or not? Can it be considered as one regional security complex in the Post Soviet space? It is obvious that the South Caucasian states have regional challenges and threats and the need for a regional response to regional threats is clear and is widely accepted.3 So the failure of the effective Caucasian comprehensive security cooperative to emerge is explored in this paper by the way of Barry Buzan`s dictum of the “security complex.” Therefore, the research question of this essay is: Is there a regional security complex in the South Caucasus? What are the key impeding factors to establish security cooperative in this region?

At first, it is necessary to define major concepts related to the topic. What is meant under the term - security, region, complex? What is security? As Barry Buzan defines, security is a rational phenomenon. It is viewed as only partly divisible, a substantial portion of it residing in essentially indivisible relational patterns among states.4 In his analysis of regional security problems, Buzan

1

1

Ryabtsev, Vladimir. 2007. Why is there no “Security Complex” in the Black Sea-Caucasus Region? via: http://www.core-hamburg.de/documents/yearbook/english/06/Ryabtsev-en.pdf

2

2


3

3

Terrence Hopman, Stephen D. Shenfield, Dominique Arel, Integration and Disintegration in the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Regional and Global Security, Final Report of a Research Project Coordinated by the Program on Global Security: Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies – Brown University, Occasional Paper #30, 1997, p. 42.

4

4

Buzan Barry, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, Second Edition, New York, Harrenter Wheatsheaf, 1991. p. 224

http://www.core-hamburg.de/documents/yearbook/english/06/Ryabtsev-en.pdf


describes a regional level of analysis as an intermediary level between the state and the international system as a whole.5

In the anarchic international system, a regional system mediates between global and local security dynamics. A region should be considered not as an arbitrary-defined set of countries, but as a distinct system of states closely united by geographical vicinity, and whose security relations are so significant as to establish the location of boundaries with other regional formations.6 In order to find an analytical device for identifying and delineating regional formations, Buzan introduces the term "security complex", defined as "a group of states whose primary security concerns link together sufficiently closely that their national securities cannot realistically be considered apart from one another".7The effects of geography on relations between states, their power relations, the interdependence of state rivalries and interests, as well as more or less durable amity/enmity patterns - and including more or less lasting relationships of friendship, protection, support, suspicion and fear - all have to be taken into account in distinguishing and analyzing security complexes. A “security complex” underlines that regional threats should not be understood as belonging only to a set of autonomous sovereign states. Rather, threats may result in affected states closely uniting so as to allow the correlation of geographical boundaries with other regional formations.8

B. Buzan originates two types of complexes: Higher and lower security complexes. Lower level complex is composed of local states whose power does not extend much, if at all beyond the range of their immediate neighbors. This constraint on power is a key element in the existence of relativity self-contained local security dynamics among sets of neighboring states. A higher level complex, by contrast, contains great powers (e.g. USA), who’s power may well extend far beyond their immediate environment.9

Security complexes emphasize the interdependence of rivalry as well as that of shares interests. Looked at from bottom up security complexes result from interactions between individual states. Seen from the top-down security complexes are generated by the interaction of anarchy and geography. By either of these routs security complexes can be seen as characteristic products of anarchic international system. Security complex offers a systemic approach to security analysis which requires attention to the macro level of great power impact on the system, the middle level of

5

5

Ibid.., p.188

6

6

Coppieters Bruno, “Conclusions: The Caucasus as a Security Complex”, Contested Border in the Caucasus, VUBPRess, Brussels, 1996, pp. 193-204.

7

7

Ibid.., p. 190

8

8

Jason D. Söderblom, The Eurasian security complex and comprehensive security cooperatives, World-ICE group, December, 2004.

9

9

Buzan Barry, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, Second Edition, New York, Harrenter Wheatsheaf, 1991. p. 190-200

local state relations, and the micro level of domestic affairs. When we speak about a security complex, what we mean is a special regulatory mechanism. This regulatory mechanism is characterized by a quality of interstate interactions within a specific zone of the world (thus it is important that the states belong to single geographic zone), when the conditions conducive to the emergence of disagreement, disputes, and conflicts between the states are reduced to the achievable minimum. At the same time, the complex provides a framework within which a sophisticated, efficient and effective system of procedures, instruments, and mechanisms for managing crisis and conflict situations exists.10

In the South Caucasus there are three minor states (Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan) that can be considered, as Buzan defines: “actors in the lower level of security complex”. But there are also other major actors in the South Caucasian security complex, as Buzan calls them “actors in the higher level security complex” They are: Russia, Turkey, Iran and may be the West (EU and The USA) too. Georgian scholar and regional security analyst, Andro Barnov argues that the geopolitics of this region is such: for Armenia – the direct threat comes from Turkey; Russia is considered as enemy for Georgia; and Iran – for Azerbaijan;11 Iran has the same interests regard this region as Russia and it main purpose is to isolate Azerbaijan. To discuss this issue according the amity/enmity pattern, it is clear that there are some friendship groups, such as: Russia –Armenia; Turkey – Azerbaijan, and Iran – Georgia. This last one perhaps is a myth and unrealistic, but if the scenario may develop in that way, it might be profitable for Georgia for two reasons: 1. It will cause balance of powers between major actors and Iran will balance Russia and Turkey; 2. Georgia will gain a new “alley”, that will have the direct impact on Armenia and Azerbaijan.12 Regardless of the such obvious amity/enmity relationships between the actors of this region, can one persistently argues that “security complex” in this region does exist? Is this amity/enmity model enough to argue that regional security complex exists in this region? The South Caucasian states may be thought of as parts of a larger security complex, comprising Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan and other Post Soviet countries. As Buzan argues that a security complex can exist and function regardless of whether it is recognized by the players involved. These are aware to a greater or lesser extent of the military and political threats in their surroundings, without necessarily having a full appreciation of the security pattern involved.13

Following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of its enormous sphere of influence, several centres of power have emerged in the South Caucasus. The absence of the hegemony in this region and distribution of powers between major actors defines the region`s

10

1


11

1

Barnov Andro. Georgia, Iran and the South Caucasian security. Tbilisi, StanD, 2008.

12

1

Barnov Andro. Georgia, Iran and the South Caucasian security. Tbilisi, StanD, 2008.

13

1

Buzan Barry, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, Second Edition, New York, Harrenter Wheatsheaf, 1991. p. 210-215


current and future situation. On the one hand, it might be thought that regional security complex in Post Soviet space is surrounding over Russia, but on the other hand Post Soviet space can be distinguished several sub-regions: Central Asia, Baltic States, South Caucasus and etc. It highlights that the situation depends on the political factors, to achieve security cooperative it is necessary to have some kind of institutional framework or mechanism to balance the national interests of all states involved in the process. While there is not such institutional mechanism between these three countries, it is difficult to argue that the South Caucasus is one regional security complex, despite the Buzan`s argument about non-recognition of the complex. There are some arguments to affirm that the South Caucasus cannot be judged as one regional security complex.

1. The lack of a common regional identity: A common regional identity is essential for determining whether territorial units comprise an integrated territorial formation. This identity emerges, first of all, if there is a shared feeling among the population of a given area that they belong to a single territorial unit.14 They have a long experience of living together and common historical destiny. For Western European countries, states in this region are pretty similar, but this region is rather better represented as a complex of mosaic in ethno-national, linguistic and confessional terms. In this context, it is relevant to recall Samuel Huntington`s thesis about identity: “Regions are a basis for co-operation among states only to the extent that geography coincides with culture. Divorced from culture, propinquity does not yield commonality and may foster just the reverse. Military alliances and economic associations require co-operation among their members, co-operation depends on trust, and trust most easily springs from common values and culture.”15

2. Lack of cooperation: International co-operation is defined as a process of interaction among several actors within the system of international relations during which the use of military force is excluded and political activities are coordinated, and all sides tend to search together for ways to realize their common (coinciding) interests.16 The second reason why there is lack of security complex in this region is that according to this definition the region is not a zone of cooperation. There is not an institutional mechanism or framework, where these three states are represented as cooperative actors. There are mutual or multilateral agreements between these states (e.g. CIS agenda (for Armenia and Azerbaijan, after the August war Georgia has left this organization.) but it is not fulfillment of the conditions of cooperation: 1) reciprocity – it means, that states expect to receive obvious benefits from the cooperation and they will fear to lose them if they cease the cooperation. 2) Optimal numbers of members. 3) Iteration - co-operation takes the form of acts repeated over a longer period of time, which develop into deep interregional ties.

3. Interference of major powers. In order to speak seriously about the conditions under which the creation of a regional security complex in the South Caucasus could be realized (in addition to

14

1


15

1

Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, New York 1996, pp. 130-131.

16

1




the fact that creation of a new supranational structure naturally requires a major effort on the part of all regional actors and careful work on political-legal aspects), one more requirement should be mentioned – the non-interference of major powers in regional affairs. Generous attention, advice, and aid are welcome, but interference and, particularly, actions directed against the undertaking should be excluded. Under the current conditions, however, taking the international situation and the circumstances of the region might be taken into consideration, this is fundamentally impossible.17

Perhaps, the main difficulty of the South Caucasus regional security complex is that there is no need for unity among these states. Their economic systems are not complementary; they do not cooperate even in the field of “low politics.” Despite the similarities between these countries, this region does not have its own identity, common perceptions, values, norms. Among these three arguments the first one is the necessary condition to fulfill others, because “Identities perform three necessary functions in a society: they tell you and others who you are and they tell you who others are.”18 To conclude, the existence of the security complex in the South Caucasus is not “objective reality” as Buzan argues, but it depends on the assumptions of the main actors of that region.

Bibliography

1. Barnov, Andro. Georgia, Iran and the South Caucasian security. Tbilisi, StanD, 2008.2. Buzan, Barry. 1991. People, States and Fear. An agenda for International security in the

Post-Cold War Era. New York-London.3. Coppieters, Bruno. 1996. Contested borders in the Caucasus. VUB University Press. Via:

http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi.ContBorders/eng/conclusi.htm 4. Hopf, Ted. 1998. The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. Vol. 23.

No. 1. International Security. The MIT Press. Via: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539267

5. Huntington, Samuel. P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations. New York.

6. Ryabtsev, Vladimir. 2007. Why is there no “Security Complex”0 in the Black Sea-Caucasus

Region? via: http://www.core-hamburg.de/documents/yearbook/english/06/Ryabtsev-en.pdf

7. Söderblom, Jason D., The Eurasian security complex and comprehensive security cooperatives, World-ICE group, December, 2004.

17

1


18

1

Hopf, Ted. 1998. The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. Vol. 23. No. 1. International Security. The MIT Press. Via: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539267


http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539267

http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi.ContBorders/eng/conclusi.htm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539267


8. Terrence Hopman, Stephen D. Shenfield, Dominique Arel, Integration and Disintegration in the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Regional and Global Security, Final Report of a Research Project Coordinated by the Program on Global Security: Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies – Brown University, Occasional Paper #30, 1997.

Technology

E. danelia south caucasus as a regional security complex