Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Congressional research reportMar 11, 2010
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security
Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
-name redactedSpecialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs
March 11, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL30679
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Summary
The South Caucasus region has been the most unstable in the former Soviet Union in terms of the
number, intensity, and length of ethnic and civil conflicts. Other emerging or full-blown security
problems include crime, corruption, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
and narcotics trafficking. The regional governments have worked to bolster their security by
combating terrorism, limiting political dissent they view as threatening, revamping their armed
forces, and seeking outside assistance and allies.
The roles of neighbors Iran, Russia, and Turkey have been of deep security concern to one or
more of the states of the region. These and other major powers, primarily the United States and
European Union (EU) members, have pursued differing interests and policies toward the three
states. Some officials in Russia view the region as a traditional sphere of influence, while Turkish
officials tend to stress common ethnic ties with Azerbaijan and most of Central Asia. EU
members are increasingly addressing instability in what they view as a far corner of Europe.
Armenia has pursued close ties with Russia and Iran in part to counter Azerbaijan’s ties with
Turkey, and Georgia and Azerbaijan have stressed ties with the United States in part to bolster
their independence vis-a-vis Russia.
The United States has supported democratization, the creation of free markets, conflict resolution,
regional cooperation, and the integration of the South Caucasian states into the larger world
community. The Administration has backed regional energy and pipeline development that does
not give Iran and Russia undue political or economic influence. U.S. aid has been provided to
bolster the security and independence of the states, including substantial rebuilding aid after the
August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. In January 2009, the United States and Georgia signed a
partnership agreement to underline such U.S. support for Georgia. All three regional states have
supported the global war on terrorism and sent troops to assist the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.
Congress has been at the forefront in supporting U.S. assistance to bolster independence and
reforms in the South Caucasus, but debate has continued over the scope, emphasis, and
effectiveness of U.S. involvement. Congressional support for the security of Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh (NK; a breakaway region of Azerbaijan mostly populated by ethnic
Armenians) led in 1992 to a ban on most U.S. government-to-government aid to Azerbaijan.
Congress authorized a presidential waiver to the ban after the terrorist attacks on the United
States on September 11, 2001, to facilitate U.S.-Azerbaijan anti-terrorism cooperation.
Congressional support for U.S. engagement with the region also was reflected in “Silk Road
Strategy” legislation in FY2000 (P.L. 106-113) authorizing greater policy attention and aid for
conflict amelioration, humanitarian needs, economic development, transport and
communications, border control, democracy, and the creation of civil societies in the South
Caucasus and Central Asia. Congressional concerns about rising Russian military and economic
coercion against Georgia were reflected in legislation criticizing Russian actions and supporting
Georgia’s NATO aspirations. In the wake of the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, Congress
condemned Russia’s invasion and provided boosted aid for Georgia’s rebuilding. Congress
regularly has earmarked foreign aid to Armenia and upheld a South Caucasus funding category to
encourage conflict resolution, provide for reconstruction assistance, and facilitate regional
economic integration.
Congressional Research Service
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Overview of U.S. Policy .............................................................................................................1
External Security Context ...........................................................................................................3
Overview ..............................................................................................................................3
The Confluence of Outside Interests................................................................................4
Regional Assessments .....................................................................................................4
Internal Security Problems and Progress......................................................................................6
Political and Social Disorder .................................................................................................7
Ethnic Tensions...............................................................................................................7
Terrorist Activities ........................................................................................................ 16
Crime and Corruption ................................................................................................... 20
Illegal Narcotics Production, Use, and Trafficking......................................................... 21
Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction ....................................................... 21
Economic and Defense Security .................................................................................... 22
U.S. Policy and Issues ............................................................................................................... 31
Contributions to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan............................................. 33
Georgia ......................................................................................................................... 33
Azerbaijan .................................................................................................................... 34
Armenia........................................................................................................................ 34
Section 907 ................................................................................................................... 35
Support for Iraqi Freedom Operations ................................................................................. 35
After the August 2008 Russia-Georgia Conflict ................................................................... 36
The U.S.-Georgia Charter.............................................................................................. 37
U.S. Peace and Security Assistance ..................................................................................... 38
Nonproliferation Aid ..................................................................................................... 46
Counter-Narcotics Aid................................................................................................... 47
Safety of U.S. Citizens and Investments .............................................................................. 48
Issues for the 111th Congress ............................................................................................... 50
Should the United States Play a Prominent Role in the South Caucasus? ....................... 50
What are U.S. Interests in the South Caucasus? ............................................................. 51
What Roles Should Outside Powers Play in the Region? ............................................... 51
How Significant Are Regional Energy Resources to U.S. Interests? ............................... 52
What U.S. Security Involvement is Appropriate?........................................................... 53
Should the United States Try to Foster Democratization?............................................... 54
Figures
Figure A-1. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia .......................................................................... 65
Tables
Table 1. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Basic Facts ............................................................ 40
Congressional Research Service
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Table 2. Security Funds Budgeted for Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, FY1992FY2008.................................................................................................................................. 41
Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Players ....................................................................................................... 56
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 65
Congressional Research Service
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Introduction
The countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are generally considered as comprising the
South Caucasus region, which borders Russia, Turkey, and Iran.1 This isthmus between the Black
and Caspian Seas is an age-old north-south and east-west trade and transport crossroads. The
region has been invaded many times, quashing periods of self-rule. These invasions and other
contacts have resulted in many and diverse historical, cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic
links with neighboring peoples. Russian and Soviet tutelage over the region lasted nearly
unbroken from the early nineteenth century until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, deeply
affecting economic and social development, borders, and nationality relations. Soviet control, in
particular, resulted in the isolation of the crossroads region from the rest of the world. After
gaining independence, all the states spiraled into economic depression and conflicts began or
intensified that threatened their existence, though in recent years the states have appeared more
stable. The regional states remain weak in comparison to neighboring powers in terms of
populations, economies, armed forces, and other capabilities.
This report discusses the internal and external security concerns of the South Caucasus states and
U.S. interests and policy toward the region. The ambitions of neighboring powers, particularly
Russia, have appeared to pose the greatest threat to the stability and sovereignty of the South
Caucasus states. It is also possible that internal security problems are greater threats. The states
are less able to ameliorate external threats because of internal weaknesses such as political and
economic instability, ethnic and regional conflicts, and crime and corruption.
Overview of U.S. Policy
U.S. security ties with the South Caucasus states increased in the latter part of the 1990s, as a
result of Russia’s military threat to Georgia, regional instability surrounding Russia’s conflicts in
its breakaway Chechnya region, and a U.S. focus on the transport of Caspian regional energy
resources to Western markets. According to Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon, U.S.
policy toward Armenia aims to assist it to “strengthen its security and prosperity by settling [its]
conflict with Azerbaijan over NK and by encouraging Turkey and Armenia to normalize their
relations.” He averred that “Azerbaijan is an important partner of the United States on regional
security (especially counterterrorism) and on helping our European allies diversify their supplies
of natural gas.... The United States has helped generate new progress toward a settlement of the
NK conflict [by] facilitating ... meetings between Presidents Sargisyan and Aliyev.”2 Some
observers have raised concerns that U.S. policy toward the rapprochement of Armenia and Turkey
has complicated U.S. relations with Azerbaijan.3 Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander
1
For background, see CRS Report 97-522, Azerbaijan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests, by (name redacted); CRS
Report 97-727, Georgia [Republic]: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests, by (name redacted); and CRS Report
RL33453, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests, by (nam
e redacted). The Caspian region encompasses the littoral states Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, but
sometimes the region is viewed expansively to include Armenia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, and even Afghanistan. The
Black Sea region also has been viewed expansively to include Armenia and Azerbaijan.
2
U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Europe. Hearing on Strengthening
the Transatlantic Alliance: An Overview of the Obama Administration's Policies in Europe. Statement by Philip H.
Gordon, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, June 16, 2009.
3
Stephen Blank, “Nagorno-Karabakh: A Disaster in the Making?” CACI Analyst, December 23, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
1
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Vershbow has stated that U.S. policy toward Georgia rests on continued support for its territorial
integrity, independence and sovereignty and rejects “any notion of spheres of influence in the
region.... We stand by the principle that sovereign states have the right to ... choose their own
partnerships and alliances.... Most importantly, we will continue to stand by and deepen our
support to Georgia and its people. This support does not come blindly however, and we will
calibrate our assistance to respect the needs of the Georgian people, to strengthen regional
security, and to support democratic and economic reforms in Georgia.”4
The United States provided some security assistance to the region prior to the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, particularly to Georgia. This aid and the establishment
of military-to-military ties facilitated U.S. anti-terrorism cooperation with these states in the wake
of September 11, 2001. The United States obtained quick pledges from the three states to support
U.S. and coalition efforts in Afghanistan, including overflight rights and information sharing and
Azerbaijan’s and Georgia’s offers of airbases. The State Department has highlighted U.S. support
for Azerbaijan’s and Georgia’s efforts to halt the use of their territories as conduits by
international mujahidin for financial and logistic support for Chechen and other Caucasian
terrorists.5
The United States has placed growing strategic significance on energy supplies from the Caspian
region. In the late 1990s, the Clinton Administration backed the building of east-west oil and gas
pipelines not controlled by Iran or Russia. The Bush Administration’s May 2001 National Energy
Report and 2003 and 2006 National Security Strategy of the U.S.A. stated that U.S. energy
security and global prosperity would be strengthened by expanding the numbers of suppliers,
including those in the Caspian region. The Obama Administration has endorsed these long-time
goals, including support for a “Southern Corridor” for the transit of oil and gas—a route
stretching from Central Asia through the South Caucasus region and Turkey to Europe—to
supplement existing transit routes through Russia and to avoid route through Iran.6
Most in Congress have supported U.S. assistance to bolster independence, security, and reforms
in the South Caucasus, but questions have remained about the suitability, scope, emphasis, and
effectiveness of U.S. interest and involvement in the region. Attention has included several
hearings and legislation, the latter including regular earmarks of aid for Armenia, rebuilding aid
for Georgia after its 2008 conflict with Russia, humanitarian aid for Nagorno Karabakh (NK; a
breakaway region of Azerbaijan mostly populated by ethnic Armenians), and sense of Congress
provisions on U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus.
Congressional concern in the early 1990s over the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict contributed in
1992 to the enactment of an aid prohibition for the government of Azerbaijan until the President
determined that Azerbaijan had made “demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other
offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh.” After September 11, 2001,
Congress provided a Presidential waiver of this provision in order to facilitate Azerbaijan’s
4
U.S. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on Europe. Hearing on Georgia: One Year After the
August War. Testimony of Alexander Vershbow, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs,
August 4, 2009.
5
U.S. Department of State. Country Reports on Terrorism, April 2008.
6
The White House. National Energy Policy, May 17, 2001; The National Security Strategy of the United States of
America, April 29, 2003; The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, March 16, 2006. U.S.
Department of State. Richard Morningstar, Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy. 2010 Outlook for Eurasian Energy,
January 28, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
2
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
assistance for the war on terrorism, but emphasized its continuing attention to the peaceful
resolution of the NK conflict. Beginning with FY1998 appropriations, Congress created a South
Caucasus funding category to encourage conflict resolution, provide for reconstruction assistance,
and facilitate regional economic integration. In FY1998-FY2001, Congress specified funding for
a border and customs security program for Georgia, and some of this aid was used by Georgia to
fortify its northern borders with Russia and Chechnya. Congress passed the Security Assistance
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-280) that authorized aid in FY2001-FY2002 for the South Caucasus states
and some others to carry out provisions of the 1999 Silk Road Strategy Act (Sec. 596 of H.R.
3422, incorporated by cross-reference in H.R. 3194; P.L. 106-113) to strengthen national control
of borders and to promote independence and territorial sovereignty. The United States committed
millions of dollars to facilitate the closure of Russian military bases in Georgia and $1 billion
after the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict to help Georgia recover from the conflict.
Congress was at the forefront in calling for greater Administration attention to energy issues in
the Caspian region as part of a broad engagement policy. This interest included a 1997
congressionally requested report on Administration energy policy. 7 This interest was prominently
reflected in the Silk Road Strategy Act (See also below, “U.S. Policy and Issues.”)
Congressional concerns about rising Russian military and economic coercion against Georgia
were reflected in legislation criticizing Russian actions and supporting Georgia’s NATO
aspirations. In the wake of the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, Congress condemned
Russia’s invasion and provided boosted aid for Georgia’s rebuilding.
External Security Context
Overview
Major outside players involved in the South Caucasus include the three powers bordering the
South Caucasus region (Russia, Turkey, and Iran), the United States, and the European Union
(EU). The outside players have both complementary and competing interests and policies toward
the three regional states. Many officials in Russia view the region as a traditional sphere of
influence, while some in Iran view Azerbaijan and Armenia as part of a “new Middle East,” and
Turkish officials tend to stress common ethnic ties with Azerbaijan and most of Central Asia. The
EU states have focused on the region as part of the wider “European Neighborhood” and as a
stable transport corridor and energy supplier, and the United States has focused on antiterrorism
in the post-September 11, 2001, period and on world energy diversity.
Neighboring states have been drawn into the region through threats they perceive to their
interests. Regional turmoil also has drawn in international security organizations such as the
U.N., Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), NATO, the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS), and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO; see below).
Since the early 1990s, Iran has been concerned about Azerbaijanis who called for Iran’s ethnic
Azerbaijani areas to secede. Recently Iran has stepped up efforts to suppress ethnic Azerbaijanis
7
U.S. State Department. Caspian Region Energy Development Report to Congress, April 15, 1997, (required by the
conference managers on H.R. 3610, Omnibus Appropriations for FY1997, including Foreign Operations, P.L. 104208).
Congressional Research Service
3
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
in Iran who advocate increased human rights, regional autonomy, or secession. Instability in
Chechnya and other areas along Russia’s North Caucasus borders has threatened Russia’s security
and created reasons and pretexts for Russian intervention in the South Caucasus. Russia has
attempted to boost influence in the South Caucasus since September 11, 2001, to counter
increased U.S. anti-terrorism assistance to the states. Russia appeared, however, to suffer setbacks
to these efforts for most of the decade. Georgia’s peaceful 2003 “rose revolution” witnessed
closer U.S.-Georgia ties and threatened this Russian aim. Russia also reduced its presence in late
2007 when it closed its last military base in Georgia (although Georgia retained concerns about
the continued presence of Russian “peacekeepers” at the former Russian base at Gudauta,
Abkhazia). These setbacks to Russia’s presence in the region were reversed in August-September
2008 when it invaded Georgia, recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and
stationed thousands of troops at bases and along the borders of the “new states.”
Among other players, Western oil and gas firms have played a dominant investment role in
Azerbaijan, greatly supplementing assistance given to the region by outside governments or
international financial institutions. All three states have benefitted greatly from remittances by
their citizens who work in Russia and elsewhere, but Russia’s efforts to restrict labor by noncitizens, as well as the recent economic downturn in Russia, threatens these remittances.
Armenia’s multi-million member world diaspora has provided important aid and expertise, and
has publicized Armenia’s plight.
The Confluence of Outside Interests
Neighboring and other interested powers, while sometimes competing among themselves for
influence in the South Caucasus, also have cooperated in carrying out certain regional goals. All
the external powers seek influence over regional energy resources, possibly providing grounds for
a common understanding that no one power shall be predominant. Prominent powers Iran,
Turkey, and Russia might also come to agree not to foster instability that could spill across their
borders. Iran and Russia have cooperated somewhat in trying to retain regional influence by
impeding outside involvement in developing Caspian Sea oil resources or transit routes bypassing
their territories. More recently, the two countries have clashed over Caspian Sea border
delineation and regional export routes. Turkey and Russia have boosted their cooperation on
energy, which could threaten EU and U.S. proposals for bolstering “Southern Corridor” oil and
gas export routes that bypass Russia.
Regional Assessments
Dismissing views that the region is a mere playground for outside powers, many observers stress
that the regional states’ own strategic priorities and assessments of threats and opportunities have
influenced their ties with other countries. Given a long history of repeated foreign invasion and
occupation, the states are bound to be concerned with regional and international politics.
However, regional security cooperation has been slow to develop. Instead, conflict has driven the
states and separatist areas to search for outside supporters, often as leverage against each other,
and the outside powers face risks of entanglement in local disputes. The security orientations of
the states and regions—whether toward NATO, the CSTO, or some other group—have become of
great concern to neighboring and other states.
The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over NK heavily colors foreign lobbying by these states and by
NK. Armenia seeks close security and economic ties with Russia and Iran to counter Azerbaijan’s
Congressional Research Service
4
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
close ties with Turkey. Armenia has relied more on Russia for such ties, given Iran’s lesser
capabilities. President Serzh Sargisyan has stressed that Armenia’s top priority in foreign policy is
friendly relations with Russia and that good relations with the United States, NATO, and the
European Union do not jeopardize the Armenian-Russian strategic partnership.8
Armenia’s relations with Turkey have been strained. Armenia is a member of the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation organization, along with Turkey, and the two states have established
consular relations. Obstacles to better Armenian-Turkish relations have included Turkey’s
rejection that there was an Armenian genocide in 1915-1923 and its support for Azerbaijan in the
NK conflict.
In September 2008, Turkey’s President Abdullah Gül visited Armenia, ostensibly to view a soccer
game, and this thaw contributed to the two countries reaching agreement in April 2009 on a “road
map” for normalizing ties, including the establishment of full diplomatic relations and the
opening of borders. After further negotiations, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and
Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandian initialed two protocols “On Establishing
Diplomatic Relations,” and “On Development of Bilateral Relations” on August 31, 2009, and
formally signed them on October 10, 2009.
The protocol on diplomatic relations called for the two sides to establish embassies in each
other’s capitals within two months after the mutual legislatures approved the protocols and after
the exchange of the articles of ratification of the protocol. The protocol on foreign relations called
for the two sides to “agree to open the common border within two months after the entry into
force of this Protocol [that is, after ratification of the protocols by the legislatures of the two
states]; agree to conduct regular political consultations between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs
of the two countries; implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore
mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the
historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations; make
the best possible use of existing transport, communications and energy infrastructure and
networks between the two countries,” and undertake other cooperative efforts. The two sides also
agreed to set up a bilateral commission to boost ties.9 Turkish President Abdullah Gül and
Armenian President Serzh Sargisyan attended an Armenia-Turkey soccer match in the Turkish
town of Bursa on October 14. The Armenian government reaffirmed that obtaining international
recognition of the Armenian genocide would continue to be a element of foreign policy and
stressed that the settlement of the NK conflict was separate from the Armenian-Turkish protocols.
The Turkish government asserted that the protocols would not be implemented to the detriment of
Azerbaijan’s interests. A ruling of the Armenian constitutional court on January 18, 2010—
including a finding that the protocols could not affect Armenia’s position on the genocide—was
criticized by the Turkish government as not being in conformity with the text of the protocols.
The Armenian government stated that the ruling did not affect the conditions of the protocols.
8
Open Source Center. Central Eurasia: Daily Report (hereafter CEDR), June 30, 2008 Doc. No. CEP-9001; ITARTASS, August 23, 2008.
9
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia. Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic
of Armenia and the Turkish Republic and the Protocol on the Development of Mutual Relations Between the Republic
of Armenia and the Turkish Republic, August 31, 2009, at http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/pr_09/
20090831_protocol.pdf. See also The Turkish Weekly, August 31, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Armenia delayed the ratification process until it saw Turkey moving toward ratification, and
Turkey delayed ratification until there was progress toward a settlement of the NK conflict.10
Besides its interest in garnering international support for bolstering sovereignty over NK,
Azerbaijan has a fundamental interest in links with and the well-being of Iran’s multi-million
population of ethnic Azerbaijanis. Azerbaijan’s agreement with Russia and Kazakhstan over
oilfield delineation in the Caspian Sea (see below) seemed aimed at least in part as a defense
against border claims by Iran.
Georgia appears more concerned about reversing Russia’s control over Abkhazia and South
Ossetia and building ties with Turkey and the United States, than about enhancing relations with
non-bordering Iran. Georgia’s ports on the Black Sea link it to littoral NATO members Turkey,
Bulgaria, Romania, and (via the Turkish Straits) to countries around the Mediterranean Sea,
providing it with a geo-strategic orientation toward the West.
The United States has stressed even-handedness in mediating regional conflicts, though other
players have not, harming conflict resolution and regional cooperation. Another view is that the
United States is one of several powers in the South Caucasus that, in parallel with the
uncompromising stances of opposing ultra-nationalist elements in the three states, contributes to
deadlock rather than the resolution of regional conflicts.11 (See also “Issues for the 111th
Congress.”)
Internal Security Problems and Progress
The South Caucasus region has been the most unstable in the former Soviet Union in terms of the
number, intensity, and length of its ethnic and civil conflicts. Other internal security problems
include crime, corruption, terrorism, proliferation, and narcotics trafficking. There are few
apparent bases for regional cooperation in resolving security problems. The ruling nationalities in
the three states are culturally rather insular and harbor various grievances against each other. This
is particularly the case between Armenia and Azerbaijan, where discord has led to the virtually
complete displacement of ethnic Armenians from Azerbaijan and vice versa. Ethnic relations
between Azerbaijanis and Georgians, on the other hand, have been less contentious. The main
languages in the three states are mutually unintelligible. Few of the region’s borders coincide with
ethnic populations. Secessionism by territorially-based ethnic minorities has been of primary
security concern in Georgia and Azerbaijan. Armenia and Azerbaijan have viewed NK’s status as
a major security concern. NK has failed to gain international recognition of its independence, and
Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been recognized only by Russia and a few other countries. NK
receives major economic sustenance from Armenia and diaspora Armenians, and Abkhazia and
South Ossetia from Russia.
10
The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan of
Turkey After Meeting, December 7, 2009; Hurriyet Daily News. December 18, 2009.
11
Bruno Coppetiers, Caucasian Regional Studies, vol. 5, 2000, available online at http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/crs/eng/
Vol5/.
Congressional Research Service
6
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Political and Social Disorder
Azerbaijan and Georgia were engulfed in political turmoil during the early 1990s, but later in the
decade their leaders appeared to consolidate power. In both Azerbaijan and Georgia, new
constitutions in 1995 granted the presidents sweeping powers and their ruling parties held sway in
the legislatures. During the 2000s, however, these states again entered periods of political
instability. In Georgia, the “rose revolution” resulted in then-President Shevardnadze’s ouster in
November 2003 after a tainted legislative election. Further turmoil occurred in late 2007, when
President Saakashvili forcibly suppressed an opposition demonstration, resigned in the face of
worldwide criticism, and won re-election in early 2008. In Azerbaijan, a violent repression of
oppositionists took place in the wake of the handover of power from Heydar Aliyev to his son,
Ilkham, in October 2003 after a tainted presidential election.12
In contrast to Azerbaijan and Georgia, Armenia appeared somewhat stable until 1998, when thenArmenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian was forced to resign by military and other forces
opposed to his rumored concessions to settle the NK conflict. Armenia also was roiled when
gunmen with apparently personal grievances assassinated the premier, legislative speaker, and six
other politicians in late 1999, but a new speaker and premier were chosen peacefully. Robert
Kocharyan, elected president in 1998, was re-elected in a contentious race in February 2003.
Oppositionists in Armenia in 2004 stepped up their protests against the legitimacy of Kocharyan’s
re-election and some were arrested. The opposition claimed that it had little input into drafting
constitutional changes that were approved in a popular referendum in November 2005. After a
presidential election in early 2008, opposition demonstrators claiming fraud were forcibly
suppressed.
The serious decline in the standard of living in all three South Caucasus states during the early
1990s affected their security by harming the health of their populations, which in turn hindered
economic recovery. Although Armenia reportedly has resettled most of the refugees who fled
Azerbaijan after 1988, Azerbaijan has moved more slowly to improve housing conditions for
refugees from NK and surrounding areas. Many people in the regional states remain economically
disadvantaged, with a low quality of life. 13 The widespread poverty has contributed to the
emigration or labor migration of hundreds of thousands of citizens from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Georgia. Azerbaijan obtains sizable revenues from oil exports, but some observers are concerned
that the ruling elite are not using such revenues to broadly raise living standards for the poor. The
economic damage suffered by Georgia during the August 2008 conflict has set back povertyreduction efforts, and the worldwide economic downturn since 2008 has harmed economic
growth in all three states.
Ethnic Tensions
Regional analyst Elkhan Nuriyev has lamented that the South Caucasus states, because of ethnic
conflicts, have not yet been able to fully partake in peace, stability, and economic development
12
Malkhaz Matsaberidze, Central Asia and the Caucasus, no. 2, April 30, 2005.
U.N. Development Program. Human Development Report 2009, October 2009. According to the quality of life index
(which includes measures of GDP per capita, life expectancy, school enrolment, and literacy), Armenia ranks 84th,
Azerbaijan 86th , and Georgia 89th among 182 world countries, placing them among other developing countries with a
“medium” quality of life but far below other top-ranked European states.
13
Congressional Research Service
7
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
since gaining independence in 1991.14 The countries are faced with on-going budgetary burdens
of arms races and caring for refugees and displaced persons. Other costs of ethnic conflicts in the
South Caucasus include the threat to bordering states of widening conflict and inefficiencies and
risks associated with bolstering trade and transport. Some development advocates call for
regional populations to repudiate exclusionary ultranationalism and for outside powers to cease
trying to exploit such views.
Azerbaijan has faced dissension by several ethnic groups, including Armenians in NK, Lezgins
residing in the north, and Talysh residing in the south. Some ethnic Lezgins have called for
seceding and joining kindred Lezgins residing in Russia’s Dagestan, and formed a separatist
group called Sadval, while some Talysh have called for autonomy and have lobbied for the
legalization of a political party. Since 1988, the separatist NK conflict has resulted in about
15,000 casualties and hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons in Armenia and
Azerbaijan. UNHCR has reported that there were 603,000 internally displaced persons in the
country in January 2009.15 Armenia has granted citizenship and acted to permanently house most
of the ethnic Armenians who fled Azerbaijan and who have subsequently not emigrated from
Armenia.
Georgia’s southern Ajaria region, populated by Islamic ethnic Georgians, was substantially free
from central control until 2004. Some residents of Georgia’s southern district of Javakheti,
populated mostly by ethnic Armenians, also have called for autonomy. Repressive efforts by
Georgian authorities triggered conflict in 1990 in Georgia’s north-central region of South Ossetia,
reportedly leading to about 1,500 deaths and tens of thousands of displaced persons, mostly
ethnic Georgians. Beginning in 1992, separatist fighting involving Georgia’s north-western
Abkhaz region resulted in about 10,000 deaths and some 220,000 displaced persons, mostly
ethnic Mingrelians. The August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict led to 134,000 displaced persons in
Georgia and its regions, most of whom were eventually able to return to their homes. However,
about 21,000 displaced persons either could not return to their homes in the conflict zones or their
homes were damaged or destroyed. Also, ethnic Georgians have continued to be coerced by
Abkhaz and South Ossetian militias to leave the regions. The Georgian government and
international donors built or repaired thousands of homes and apartments for displaced persons.
UNHCR reported that at the end of 2009 there were nearly 340,000 internally displaced persons
and other persons of concern in Georgia, including in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.16
Azerbaijan’s Nagorno Karabakh Region
Since 1988, the separatist conflict in Nagorno Karabakh (NK) has resulted in about 15,000
casualties and hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons in Armenia and
Azerbaijan. The non-governmental International Crisis Group estimates that about 13% to 14% of
Azerbaijan’s territory, including NK, is controlled by NK Armenian forces (the CIA World
Factbook estimates about 16%).17 The OSCE’s “Minsk Group” of concerned member-states
began talks in 1992. A U.S. presidential envoy was appointed to these talks. A Russian-mediated
cease-fire was agreed to in May 1994 and was formalized by an armistice signed by the ministers
14
Elkhan Nuriyev, in Gary Bertsch, et al., eds., Crossroads and Conflict, New York, Routledge, 2000, p. 151.
UNHCR. Azerbaijan: Statistical Snapshot, at http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e48d1e6.
16
UNHCR. Global Report 2008, June 2009; UNHCR Global Appeal 2010-2011 – Georgia, December 1, 2009.
17
International Crisis Group. Nagorno-Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground, September 14, 2005. Central
Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. Azerbaijan, http://www.odci.gov.
15
Congressional Research Service
8
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
of defense of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the commander of the NK army on July 27, 1994 (and
reaffirmed a month later). The United States, France, and Russia co-chair meetings of the Minsk
Group.
The Minsk Group reportedly has presented four proposals as a framework for talks, but a peace
settlement has proved elusive. In late 1997, a new step-by-step peace proposal was recognized by
the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia as a basis for further discussion. This led to protests in
both countries and to the forced resignation of Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrosyan in early
1998. Heydar Aliyev in early 2001 stated that he had “turned down” and refused to discuss a late
1998 Minsk Group proposal embracing elements of a comprehensive settlement.18 The
assassination of Armenian political leaders in late 1999 set back the peace process. In April 2001,
the two presidents attended talks in Key West, Florida, and met with then-President Bush,
highlighting early Administration interest in a settlement. Since 2005, officials in both countries
have reported negotiations on a fourth “hybrid” peace plan to return most NK border areas prior
to a referendum in NK on its status.
The Minsk Group co-chairs issued a statement and made other remarks in April-July 2006 that
revealed some of their proposals for a settlement. These include the phased “redeployment of
Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territories around Nagorno-Karabakh, with special modalities
for Kelbajar and Lachin districts (including a corridor between Armenia and NK);
demilitarization of those territories; and a referendum or population vote (at a date and in a
manner to be decided ...) to determine the final legal status of NK.” International peacekeepers
also would be deployed in the conflict area.19
At peace talks in Bucharest on June 4-5, 2006, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
reportedly agreed on some basic principles but failed to reach a settlement. In statements issued
after this meeting, the Minsk Group co-chairs raised concerns that the two presidents lacked the
“political will” to make decisions about a settlement and stated that they would wind down their
“shuttle diplomacy” until the two presidents demonstrated political will.20
At a meeting in Moscow between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers on January 23,
2007, the Azerbaijani foreign minister reportedly termed the negotiations on a settlement of the
NK conflict “intensive” and said that they concerned “the last principle of the settlement.”
Armenian sources allegedly reported little progress. In May 2007, Aliyev reportedly stated that
only after all seven occupied areas around NK had been returned in phases, and Azerbaijani
displaced persons had returned to NK, could the question of NK’s status be determined (he ruled
out the status of independence). 21 The presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia met on June 11,
2007, for talks reportedly lasting over three hours, but no breakthrough on settling the NK
conflict was announced.
On November 29, 2007, the former Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov, and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner presented the then18
19
CEDR, February 27, 2001, Doc. No CEP-262.
OSCE. Statement by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs, July 3, 2006.
20
In June 2006, the duties of the U.S. co-chair were transferred to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. On the
proposals, see RFE/RL, June 23, 2006; U.S. Embassy in Armenia, Statement by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs to the
OSCE Permanent Council, June 22, 2006; and Statement by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, July 3, 2006.
21
CEDR, May 4, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950237.
Congressional Research Service
9
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Vardan Oskanyan and Elmar Mammadyarov with a
draft text—Basic Principles for the Peaceful Settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict—for
transmission to their presidents. These officials from the Minsk Group co-chair countries urged
the two sides to accept the Basic Principles (also termed the Madrid principles, after the location
where the draft text was presented) that had resulted from three years of talks and to begin “a new
phase of talks” on a comprehensive peace settlement.22 Although the text was not released,
Azerbaijan’s then-Foreign Minister Mammadyarov reportedly claimed that the principles upheld
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and NK’s autonomous status as part of Azerbaijan. Armenia’s
then-Foreign Minister Oskanyan asserted, on the other hand, that the principles accorded with
Armenia’s insistence on respecting self-determination for NK.23
The Basic Principles call for the phased return of the territories surrounding NK to Azerbaijani
control; an interim status for NK providing guarantees for security and self-governance; a
corridor linking Armenia to NK; future determination of the final legal status of NK through a
legally binding expression of will; the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to
return to their former places of residence; and international security guarantees that would include
a peacekeeping operation.24
On May 6, 2008, France hosted a meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign
ministers. The foreign ministers also met with the Minsk Group co-chairs. No details were made
available to the public. Armenian President Serzh Sarkisyan and Azerbaijani President Ilkham
Aliyev met briefly on June 6, 2008, while attending a meeting of the Commonwealth of
Independent States in St. Petersburg, Russia. The presidents stated that a certain degree of trust
had been reached during their first meeting, and they agreed that talks should continue on settling
the NK conflict.
Perhaps troubling, Azerbaijan staged a major military parade in late June 2008, at which Aliyev
stated that “the Azerbaijani people are tired of these [peace] talks.... We should be ready to
liberate our territories by military force at any moment.” Answering a congressional inquiry about
similar statements by Aliyev, then-Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried stated that U.S.
diplomats had advised Aliyev that such statements harm the peace process, that renewed conflict
would jeopardize Azerbaijan’s energy exports, that “in the judgment of the United States,”
Azerbaijan does not have military superiority, and that neither side could win in a renewed
conflict.25 In the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict in early August 2008 (see below), Armenian
President Sarkisyan asserted that “the tragic events in [Georgia’s breakaway South Ossetia
region] confirm that every attempt in the South Caucasus to look for a military answer in the
struggle for the right to self-determination has far-reaching military and geopolitical
consequences.”26
22
U.S. Department of State. Office of the Spokesman. Media Note: Support for Basic Principles for Peaceful
Settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, November 29, 2007.
23
CEDR, December 10, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950390; December 13, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950360; December 19,
2007, Doc. No. CEP-950339.
24
The White House. Joint Statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict by U.S. President Obama, Russian President
Medvedev, and French President Sarkozy at the L’Aquila Summit of the Eight, July 10, 2009.
25
U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Hearing: The Caucasus, Frozen Conflicts and Closed
Borders. Testimony of Daniel Fried, June 18, 2008.
26
Open Source Center. Europe: Daily Report, August 27, 2008, Doc. No. EUP-085016.
Congressional Research Service
10
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
On November 2, 2008, Russian President Medvedev hosted talks in Moscow between Armenian
President Serzh Sarkisyan and Azerbaijani President Ilkham Aliyev on a settlement of the NK
conflict. A joint declaration signed by Aliyev and Sarkisyan (also termed the Meindorf declaration
after the castle where talks were held) upheld a continued mediating role for the Minsk Group,
but the talks represented Russia’s intention to play the major role in mediating the conflict, some
observers argue.
Presidents Aliyev and Sargisyan met to discuss NK peace settlement issues on the sidelines of the
May 2009 EU summit that launched the EU Eastern Partnership program of enhanced trade and
other ties with the South Caucasus and other former Soviet republics. Although the Minsk Group
co-chairs reported some progress in the talks, Nevruz Mehmedov, the head of foreign affairs in
the presidential administration, reportedly stated that the co-chairs were “misinforming the
international public and the president and secretary of state of the United States by speaking
about progress.”27 However, there was some subsequent interaction between civil society
representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan who met in NK in early July 2009.
President Medvedev again hosted Minsk Group-facilitated talks between the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents on July 17, 2009. On October 9, 2009, Presidents Sargisyan and Aliyev
held talks at the residence of the U.S. ambassador in Chisinau, Moldova, on the sidelines of a
summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The Minsk Group co-chairs participated
after one-on-one talks by the two leaders. New U.S. co-chair Robert Bradtke reported that the two
presidents discussed line-by-line details of a possible settlement. The co-chairing foreign
ministers and the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State of the Minsk Group met with the Armenian and
Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Athens on December 1, 2009, to urge the combatants to soon
complete work on the Basic Principles, which will “provide the framework for a comprehensive
settlement to promote a future of peace, stability, and prosperity for the entire region.”28 On
December 10, 2009, the Russian co-chair stated that “renovated” Madrid principles had been
prepared and would soon be presented to Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Presidents Aliyev and Sargisyan met in Sochi, Russia with President Medvedev in late January
2010. According to Foreign Minister Lavrov, Presidents Sargisyan and Aliyev agreed on most of
the language of a preamble to the Madrid Principles and pledged to prepare suggestions for the
negotiators on how to resolve the remaining contentious aspects of the principles.
Developments in Georgia’s Abkhazia Region Before August 2008
In July 1992, Abkhazia’s legislature declared the region’s effective independence, prompting an
attack by Georgian national guardsmen. In October 1992, the U.N. Security Council (UNSC)
approved the first U.N. observer mission to a Eurasian state, termed UNOMIG, to help the parties
reach a settlement. Russian and North Caucasian “volunteers” (who reportedly made up the bulk
of Abkhaz separatist forces) routed Georgian forces in 1993. Georgia and Abkhazia agreed in
April-May 1994 on a framework for a political settlement and the return of refugees. Russian
troops (acting as CIS “peacekeepers”) were deployed in a zone between Abkhazia and the rest of
Georgia.
27
Interfax, May 12, 2009.
OSCE. Joint Statement by the Heads of Delegation of the Minsk Group Co-Chair Countries and the Foreign
Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, December 1, 2009.
28
Congressional Research Service
11
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
The U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State worked with the Special Representative of the U.N.
Secretary General and other “Friends of the Secretary General” (France, Germany, Russia, the
United Kingdom, and Ukraine) to facilitate a settlement. Sticking points in talks included
Georgia’s demand that displaced persons be allowed to return to Abkhazia, after which an
agreement on autonomy for Abkhazia would be negotiated. The Abkhazians insisted on
recognition of their independence as a precondition to large-scale repatriation.
In July 2006, a warlord in the Kodori Gorge area of northern Abkhazia, where many ethnic Svans
reside, foreswore his nominal allegiance to the Georgian government. The Georgian government
quickly sent forces to the area and defeated the warlord’s militia. Georgia claimed that only police
were deployed in the Gorge, but Abkhazia asserted that military troops were present, in violation
of the cease-fire agreement. Regular Georgia-Abkhazia peace talks were suspended in October
2006. Abkhazia called for Georgia to remove the government representatives and alleged military
forces.
The United States and others in the international community raised concerns when the Russian
foreign and defense ministries announced on April 29, 2008, that the number of “peacekeepers”
in Abkhazia would be boosted up to the maximum permitted under ceasefire accords. The
ministries claimed that the increases were necessary to counter a buildup of Georgian “military
forces” and police in the Kodori Gorge, which they alleged were preparing to attack the de facto
Abkhaz government. It was also troubling that 400 Russian paratroopers were deployed to
Abkhazia that Russian officials reportedly stated would be fully armed in order to repulse
possible Georgian attacks on Abkhazia.29 In late May 2008, Russia announced that about 400
railway construction troops were being sent to Abkhazia for “humanitarian” work. These
troops—whose role is to facilitate military positioning—reportedly left Abkhazia at the end of
July 2008 after repairing tracks and bridges. According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bryza, the railway was used in August by Russia when its troops moved into Georgia.30
Developments in Georgia’s South Ossetia Region Before August 2008
In 1989, the region lobbied for joining its territory with North Ossetia in Russia or for
independence. Repressive efforts by former Georgian President Gamsakhurdia triggered conflict
in 1990. In June 1992, Russia brokered a cease-fire, and Russian, Georgian, and Ossetian
“peacekeeping” units set up base camps in a security zone around Tskhinvali, South Ossetia.
Reportedly, the units totaled around 1,100 troops, including about 530 Russians, a 300-member
North Ossetian brigade (which actually was composed of South Ossetians and headed by a North
Ossetian), and about 300 Georgians. OSCE monitors did most of the patrolling. According to one
estimate, some 45,000 ethnic Ossetians and 17,500 ethnic Georgians resided in a region that,
according to the 1989 Soviet census, at that time contained over 98,000 residents.31
In 2004, President Saakashvili increased pressure on South Ossetia by tightening border controls
and by breaking up a large-scale smuggling operation in the region that allegedly involved
Russian organized crime and corrupt Georgian officials. He also reportedly sent several hundred
29
ITAR-TASS, May 6, 2008.
30
Pavel Felgenhauer, Eurasia Daily Monitor, June 12, 2008; U.S. Department of State. Foreign Press Center. Briefing:
The Situation in the Republic of Georgia and its Implications for the Caucasus, August 19, 2008.
31
Georgia: a Toponymic Note Concerning South Ossetia, The Permanent Committee on Geographic Names, January
2007.
Congressional Research Service
12
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
police, military, and intelligence personnel into the region. Georgia maintained that it was only
bolstering its peacekeeping contingent up to the limit of 500 troops, as permitted by the cease-fire
agreement. Georgian guerrilla forces also reportedly entered the region. Allegedly, Russian
officials likewise assisted several hundred paramilitary elements from Abkhazia, Transnistria, and
Russia to enter. Following inconclusive clashes, both sides by late 2004 ostensibly had pulled
back most undeclared forces. In November 2006, a popular referendum was held in South Ossetia
to reaffirm its “independence” from Georgia. After October 2007, no more peace talks were held.
The August 2008 Russia-Georgia Conflict
Simmering long-time tensions erupted on the evening of August 7, 2008, when South Ossetia
accused Georgia of launching a “massive” artillery barrage against its capital, Tskhinvali, while
Georgia reported intense bombing of some Georgian villages in the conflict zone by South
Ossetian forces. Georgia claims that South Ossetian forces did not respond to a ceasefire appeal
but intensified their shelling, “forcing” Georgia to send in troops that reportedly soon controlled
Tskhinvali and other areas.32
On August 8, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev denounced Georgia’s incursion into South
Ossetia, asserting that “women, children and the elderly are now dying in South Ossetia, and most
of them are citizens of the Russian Federation” (Russia had granted citizenship to much of the
population). He stated that “those who are responsible ... will be duly punished.” Russia launched
large-scale air attacks across Georgia and dispatched seasoned troops to South Ossetia that
engaged Georgian forces in Tskhinvali later in the day. President Bush stated on August 9 that
“Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected. We have urged an
immediate halt to the violence [and] the end of the Russian bombings.” Reportedly, Russian
troops had retaken Tskhinvali, occupied the bulk of South Ossetia, reached its border with the rest
of Georgia, and were shelling areas across the border by the morning of August 10. Russian
warplanes bombed the Georgian town of Gori and the outskirts of the capital, Tbilisi, as well as
other sites. Russian ships landed troops in Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia region and took up
positions off Georgia’s Black Sea coast.
On August 12, Medvedev declared that “the aim of Russia’s operation for coercing the Georgian
side to peace had been achieved and it had been decided to conclude the operation.... The
aggressor has been punished and suffered very heavy losses.”33 Medvedev endorsed some
elements of a European Union (EU) peace plan presented by visiting French President Nicolas
Sarkozy. On August 15, the Georgian government accepted the French-brokered 6-point ceasefire that left Russian forces in control of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and “security zones” in
undisputed Georgian territory.34 The six points include commitments not to use force, to halt
hostilities, to provide full access for humanitarian aid, to withdraw Georgian forces to the places
they were usually stationed prior to the conflict, to withdraw Russian forces to positions prior to
the outbreak of hostilities (although they are permitted to implement security measures in the
32
See also CRS Report RL34618, Russia-Georgia Conflict in August 2008: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests,
by (name redacted).
33
ITAR-TASS, August 12, 2008. On September 11, Prime Minister Putin stated that Georgia’s aggression was answered
by “a well-deserved mighty punch” by Russia. ITAR-TASS, September 11, 2008.
34
See CRS Report RL34618, Russia-Georgia Conflict in August 2008: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests, by
(name redacted), August 29, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
13
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
zone of the conflict until international monitors are in place), and to open international
discussions on ensuring security and stability in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Russia undertook a pullback of military forces on August 22. However, substantial forces
remained in areas around South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s borders with the rest of Georgia and
near the port of Poti, resulting in condemnation by the United States, NATO, and the EU that
Russia was violating the ceasefire accord. Further condemnation by the international community
occurred in the wake of President Medvedev’s August 26 decree officially recognizing the
independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
On September 8, 2008, visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Russian President Dmitriy
Medvedev signed a follow-on ceasefire accord that fleshed out the provisions of the 6-point peace
plan. It stipulated that Russian forces would withdraw from Georgia’s port of Poti and adjacent
areas by September 15; that Russian forces would withdraw from areas adjacent to the borders of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia by October 11; that Georgian forces would return to their barracks
by October 1; that international observers already in place from the U.N. and Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe would remain; and that the number of international observers
would be increased by October 1, to include at least 200 observers from the European Union
(EU), and perhaps more later. The EU has called for Russia to permit these observers to patrol in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia’s position is that these observers cannot patrol in the regions
without the approval of the regions, and the regional leaders have refused to permit such patrols.
In a press conference after signing the accord, President Medvedev asserted that Russia’s
recognition was “irrevocable.” Although Sarkozy strongly implied that the international
conference would examine the legal status of Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
Medvedev pointed out that the regions had been recognized as independent by Russia on August
26, 2008, and stated that disputing this recognition was a “fantasy.”35 The Russian defense
minister called for retaining “around 3,800” Russian troops in Abkhazia and the same number in
South Ossetia. These numbers differ from troop ceilings permitted under the early 1990s ceasefire
agreements of up to 3,000 Russian “peacekeepers” in Abkhazia and about 1,000 in South Ossetia
(including Russian troops and those ostensibly from Russia’s North Ossetia region).36 Russian
military bases reportedly were being established in the regions, in violation of Russia’s 1999
commitment under the CFE Treaty to close its military bases in Georgia (Russia had announced
in mid-2007 that it was unilaterally suspending compliance with the Treaty).
The EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM) deployed over 200 monitors by October 1, 2008, and
Russia announced on October 9 that its troops had withdrawn from buffer zones. Georgia has
maintained that Russian troops have not pulled out of Akhalgori, a district that Russia asserts is
within South Ossetia’s Soviet-era borders, and the Kodori Gorge. In December 2008, Russia
objected to continuing a mandate for about 200 OSCE observers in Georgia—including some
observers authorized before the August 2008 conflict and some who were added after the August
2008 conflict—and they pulled out on June 30, 2009. Similarly, in June 2009 Russia vetoed a
U.N. Security Council resolution that extended the UNOMIG mandate, and they pulled out of
Abkhazia. The EUMM is now the sole international group of monitors. It reports that the number
35
Open Source Center. Central Eurasia: Daily Report(hereafter CEDR), September 28, 2008, Doc. No. CEP-950425;
CEP-950440.
36
Conor Humphries, “Russia Establishes Ties with Georgia Regions,” Agence France Presse, September 9, 2008;
“Russia to Base 7,600 Troops in Georgian Regions,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, September 9, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
14
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
of staffers in 2010 is 320, that France and Germany are the largest contributors of monitors, and
that the monitors are based in four field offices near the contested borders.37
According to Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow and Assistant Secretary of State
Philip Gordon, the EUMM has been effective at debunking several allegations made by Russia
and the separatist regions that ceasefire violations have been committed by Georgia. The United
States and the EU continue to call for unrestricted access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in order
to monitor the ceasefile. Vershbow and Gordon have praised Georgia’s cooperation with the
EUMM, including Georgia’s agreement with the EUMM at the beginning of 2009 to report all
movements of its security forces near the administrative borders and to permit unannounced
inspections of its military facilities. They contrast this cooperation to the refusal of Russia,
Abkhazia, and South Ossetia to permit patrols in the regions.38
Assistant Secretary Gordon warned in August 2009 that “Moscow continues to strengthen its grip
on [South Ossetia and Abkhazia]. Thousands of Russian forces remain in both regions, a
significant increase from pre-war levels, and in April [2009] Russia signed an agreement with the
separatists whereby Russia will guard the administrative boundaries for the next five years. South
Ossetian and Abkhaz economic dependency on Russia also continues to grow.”39
An international conference to discuss security, repatriation, and status issues related to the
conflict held its inaugural session in Geneva on October 15, 2008. Facilitators at the talks include
the U.N., the EU, and the United States. Russia has insisted at these meetings and elsewhere that
Georgia sign a non-use of force agreement with the breakaway regions and that the international
community impose an arms embargo on Georgia.
Among significant Geneva conference meetings:
•
In February 2009, the sides agreed to set up an “incident prevention and response
mechanism” along the South Ossetian border with the rest of Georgia in order to
defuse tensions before they escalate. On April 23, the first meeting of the incident
team was convened in the Georgian town of Ergneti, with the participation of the
Georgian and South Ossetian sides, as well as representatives of the Russian
Ministry of Defense, the OSCE and the EU. Meetings have been held
sporadically since then.
•
The May 2009 Geneva conference meeting almost broke up, with Russia
delaying proceedings until a report was issued by the U.N. Secretary General on
Abkhazia. The report, issued after the Russia walkout on May 19, was deemed
suitable and proceedings resumed on May 20. At issue was a Russian demand
that the acronym UNOMIG not appear in the report. Although dropping the
acronym, the U.N. Secretary General nonetheless stressed that “the ceasefire
37
EUMM. Mission Facts and Figures, at http://www.eumm.eu/en/about_eumm/facts_and_figures.
U.S. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on Europe. Hearing on Georgia: One Year After the
August War. Testimony of Alexander Vershbow, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and
Testimony of Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, August 4, 2009.
39
U.S. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on Europe. Hearing on Georgia: One Year After the
August War. Testimony of Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, August 4, 2009.
38
Congressional Research Service
15
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
regime ... has continued to erode. Heavy military equipment and military
personnel [from Russia] have remained in the Mission’s area of responsibility.”40
•
At the July 2009 Geneva conference meeting, the sides discussed setting up an
incident prevention office along Abkhazia’s border with the rest of Georgia. A
meeting in Gali to establish the office was held on July 14, 2009. Meetings are
held at roughly 2-3 week intervals.
On September 30, 2009, a special EU fact-finding mission led by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini
released a report on the origins and outcome of the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. On the
one hand, the mission concluded that “open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military
operation against the town of Tskhinvali [in South Ossetia] and the surrounding areas, launched in
the night of 7 to 8 August 2008. Operations started with a massive Georgian artillery attack.” The
mission also argued that the artillery attack was not justifiable under international law. However,
it also argued that the artillery attack “was only the culminating point of a long period of
increasing tensions, provocations and incidents” by the parties to the conflict. On the other hand,
the mission suggested that “much of the Russian military action went far beyond the reasonable
limits of defense,” and that such “action outside South Ossetia was essentially conducted in
violation of international law.” In Abkhazia, actions by Russian-supported militias in the upper
Kodori Valley “constituted an illegal use of force ... not justified under international law.” The
mission likewise asserted that actions by South Ossetian militias “against ethnic Georgians inside
and outside South Ossetia, must be considered as having violated International humanitarian law
and in many cases also human rights law.”41 Commenting on the release of the report, a U.S. State
Department spokesman stated that “we recognize that all sides made mistakes and
miscalculations through the conflict last year. But our focus is on the future....”42
Terrorist Activities
South Caucasus states and breakaway regions have alleged the existence of various terrorist
groups that pursue mixes of political, ethnic, and religious goals, with such allegations having
increased greatly after September 11, 2001, and the intensification of international anti-terrorism
efforts. Armenia and Azerbaijan accuse each other of sponsoring terrorism. Georgian militias
reportedly were active in Georgia’s efforts in 2004 to regain control over South Ossetia. In
reaction, Russian defense and security officers allegedly assisted several hundred irregulars from
Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Russia to enter the region. Such irregulars and Abkhazian and South
Ossetian militias reportedly carried out widespread attacks against ethnic Georgians during and
after the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. South Caucasus governments sometimes have
accused opposition political parties of terrorism and banned and jailed their followers. However,
some of the so-called terrorist violence has been hard to attribute to specific groups or agents that
aim to destabilize the governments. Other sources of violence, such as personal or clan
grievances, economic-based crime, or mob actions, are also prominent.
40
U.N. Security Council. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 1808 (2008), 1839
(2008) and 1866 (2009) S/2009/254, May 18, 2009. See also Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Information for the
Press on the Issues Discussed During the Fifth Round of the Geneva Discussions, May 19, 2009.
41
Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, Vol. 3.
42
U.S. Department of State. Daily Press Briefing, September 30, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
16
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Islamic extremism has appeared a lesser threat in Azerbaijan than in the Central Asian states,
although some Azerbaijani authorities warn that the threat is growing as unemployed young
people are attracted to radical missionaries. The Azerbaijani government has moved against
myriad indigenous terrorist groups, including Jayshullah, the Jamaat al-Muwahidun, the al Qaeda
Caucasus international group, the Northern Mahdi Army, the Forest Brothers, the Islamic Party,
and others (see below). In mid-2006, Azerbaijani officials raised concerns that Islamic extremists
might target the country, after al Qaeda member Ayman al-Zawahiri stated that Azerbaijan and
other Muslim countries should be punished for “aligning themselves with the infidels.”43
According to the State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism, until Russia launched its
incursion into Chechnya in August-September 1999, Azerbaijan had served as a conduit for
international mujahidin, some of whom supported the separatist leadership in Chechnya. After
Russian security forces attacked Chechnya, however, Azerbaijan reinforced border controls to
discourage foreign mujahidin from operating within Azerbaijan. The State Department reports
that Azerbaijan stepped up such interdiction efforts after September 11, 2001, and “had some
success in suppressing these activities.”44
Reportedly, dozens of individuals have been convicted in Azerbaijan in recent years for
supporting Chechen separatism. Several members of Jayshullah (Warriors of Islam; members had
been trained in Chechnya and had set up a training camp in Azerbaijan) were arrested in 1999 and
thirteen were convicted in 2001 for planning or carrying out various terrorist acts. Other young
members of the group were let off. Azerbaijani authorities alleged that some Warriors of Islam
were Lezgin separatists.
In December 2003, Azerbaijan sentenced the leaders of Revival of Islamic Heritage, a Kuwaiti
humanitarian organization, on charges of recruiting Azerbaijanis and sending them to the Pankisi
Gorge for paramilitary training to fight in Chechnya against Russia. In February 2005, six
individuals who called themselves “Al Qaeda Kavkaz” received sentences of 3-14 years on
charges of planning terrorist attacks in Baku. The group was apprehended with arms and
propaganda materials and allegedly had attempted to recruit female suicide bombers. In
December, the government extradited two members of the Kongra-Gel/PKK to Turkey.45
In April 2006, ten members of Jamaat al-Muwahidun were sentenced to prison on charges of
planning training to attack Western interests in Azerbaijan, and sixteen members of al Qaeda
Caucasus International—citizens of Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey, and Yemen who had received
training in the Pankisi Gorge for fighting in Chechnya—were sentenced to prison on charges of
assassination, planned suicide bombings, and terrorism. 46 Azerbaijan’s head of the State
Committee for Work with Religious Structures warned in mid-2006 that al Qaeda-linked Chechen
rebels continued activities in Azerbaijan, that an Iranian Shiite extremist group named “72
Martyrs” was operating in southern Azerbaijan, and that increasing numbers of other Islamic
43
CEDR, June 30, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-950096.
U.S. Department of State. Country Reports on Terrorism 2008, April 30, 2009. Azerbaijan also serves as a conduit
for some terrorist financing, as evidenced by fund transfers to Azerbaijan by the bin Laden-associated organization
Benevolence International. Money Laundering Alert, March 2003. Azerbaijan reportedly has had mixed results in
combating terrorist financing. The Azerbaijani media have reported that Turkey is concerned that the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party (PKK) receives some funds and arms via Azerbaijan. CEDR, June 30, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-950224.
45
U.S. Department of State. Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, April 28, 2006, pp. 88-89.
46
CEDR, April 19, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-950146; April 24, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-25008; April 25, 2006, Doc. No. CEP950069; April 27, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-381001; Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2005.
44
Congressional Research Service
17
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
extremists were entering the country to recruit members and set up cells.47 An imam belonging to
the Board of the Muslims of the Caucasus appeared to back some of these claims in early 2007 by
asserting that Wahhabism was growing in northern areas of Azerbaijan bordering Chechnya and
Russia’s Dagestan republic (region). The National Security Ministry, however, claimed that there
are no terrorist training camps in Azerbaijan. 48
Azerbaijani authorities reported the arrest in January 2007 of fifteen members of the so-called
Northern Mahdi Army who were convicted in December 2007 on charges of plotting a coup to
establish Shariah rule and of working with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Some of the
members of the group allegedly received terrorist training in Iran, and were tasked by Iran with
gathering information about the U.S. and Israel embassies, international firms, and Azerbaijan’s
pipelines to Turkey.49
In November 2007, 18 alleged members of the Salafi Forest Brothers, including Saudi Arabian
citizen Nail Abdul Kerim Al-Bedevi, aka Abu Jafar (who had fought in Chechnya and elsewhere
in the Caucasus and was affiliated with Al Qaeda) were arrested. They had crossed the border
from Dagestan to set up terrorist jamaats in Sumgait (near Baku) and northern Azerbaijan.
Thirteen more Forest Brother members were arrested in connection with the August 17, 2008,
bombing of Baku’s Abu Bekr Mosque. The Azerbaijani Ministry of National Security alleged that
Ilgar Mollachiyev, an Azerbaijani citizen, and his brother-in-law, Samir Mehtiyev, had revived the
Forest Brothers group in Sumgait after the earlier arrests and had led the group in bombing the
mosque. The Ministry later reported that troops had raided the jamaat in northern Azerbaijan and
killed three terrorists. Russian security forces reported in September 2008 that Mollachiyev had
been killed in Dagestan, and Azerbaijani media alleged that Azerbaijani security forces were still
fighting terrorists in northern Azerbaijan in late 2008. In November 2008, Nail Abdul Kerim AlBedevi and 17 other alleged Forest Brothers received prison terms. In mid-2009, two Forest
Brothers allegedly had tried to cross the Azerbaijani border into Iran. In November 2009, 26
alleged Forest Brothers received prison sentences for the mosque bombing and other terrorism. 50
In Georgia, Zviadists (supporters of former President Zviad Gamsakhurdia) in 1998 launched an
assassination attempt against then-President Shevardnadze and an abortive military insurrection
aimed at his overthrow, but a government reconciliation campaign since contributed to
quiescence by this group. Georgian officials alleged that a supporter of ousted Ajarian leader
Aslan Abashidze was behind an abortive hand-grenade attack during the May 2005 visit of thenPresident Bush to Tbilisi.
The State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism for 2002 stated that Georgia also contended
with “third-country terrorists with links to al Qaeda” who used Georgia as a conduit for financial
and logistic support for the mujahidin and Chechen fighters.” Georgia, however, appeared
unwilling and unable to prevent mujahidin activities until prodded and supported by the United
States and Russia after September 11, 2001.
47
CEDR, June 29, 2006, Doc. No. CEF-26001.
CEDR, February 18, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950047; January 24, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950178.
49
CEDR, December 17, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950125.
50
Country Reports on Terrorism 2008; CEDR, September 2, 2008, Doc. No. CEP-950443; September 8, 2008, Doc.
No. CEP-950374; October 10, 2008, Doc. No. CEP-950309; November 14, 2008, Doc. No. CEP-950280; June 23,
2009, Doc. No. CEP-21032; July 11, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950123; October 15, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950241;
November 5, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950238.
48
Congressional Research Service
18
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
U.S. concerns over the presence of international terrorists in Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge were
spurred when, reportedly during the September 11, 2001, attacks, a phone call was made from a
bin Laden operative in Afghanistan to Georgia announcing the success of the first phase of
attacks. President Bush in late February 2002 explained the U.S. decision to launch a military
training program in Georgia (see below) by emphasizing that there were some al Qaeda in the
Gorge.
Russian demands that Georgian forces combat international terrorists based in the Gorge led to
the launch of Georgian police and security operations in the Gorge in August 2002. Concerns
about the renewal of terrorist operations in the area in the springtime, however, led the Georgian
government in March 2003 to send in extra military and police forces to prevent Chechen rebels
from re-entering. In late 2004, Russia claimed that some terrorists remained in the gorge but still
refused to agree to renew the mandate of OSCE personnel who had been monitoring the
Georgian-Russian border area since early 2000. Although they had been effective in publicizing
border violations and were viewed by many commentators as discouraging border incursions,
Russia claimed that they had been ineffective. The OSCE subsequently launched a program to
help train some Georgian border guards.
According to Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, Georgian police discovered and removed
hidden weapon caches in the Pankisi Gorge during the year and otherwise better secured the area
against terrorist acts or transit. However, Georgia continued to be used to a limited degree as a
transit state for weapons and money, including because of corruption at border checkpoints,
according to the State Department. In November 2007, Col. Andrey Sergeyev, Chief of the
Border Directorate of the Federal Security Service for Chechnya, appeared to verify that the
Gorge was no longer a terrorist transit route, stating that “none of our militarized structures have
information indicating that bandit groups have crossed the state border recently in the segment of
the Border Directorate for the Chechen Republic, either from the Pankisi Gorge of Georgia or in
the opposite direction.”51 Just a few months later, however, the Russian Federal Security Service’s
First Deputy Director for the Border Guard Service, Lt. Gen. Anatoliy Zabrodin, stressed that
there were some Chechen terrorists remaining in the Pankisi Gorge that might cross the border
into Russia despite the construction of dozens of border guard posts and the training of rapid
reaction border forces. The Georgian Border Police responded that there were no terrorists in the
Gorge and retorted that “the Russian side has never raised the issue of the presence of rebels in
the Pankisi Gorge at the meetings held regularly between representatives of the border services of
Georgia and the Russian Federation.”52 Georgian media reported that some Islamic
fundamentalists remained in the Gorge, not terrorists, who were influential in local business.
In early 2009, the Russian Federal Security Service claimed that 60 terrorists had received
training in the Pankisi Gorge and had infiltrated Chechnya. A Georgian Foreign Ministry official
termed the claim a “blatant lie and provocation which first of all aims at accusing Georgia of
cooperating with terrorists.”53 In May 2009, however, a jihadist website alleged that Georgia was
permitting, if not assisting, international terrorists to transit the Pankisi Gorge to enter Chechnya.
Other routes were said to include South Ossetia and eastern Georgia. Deputy Internal Affairs
Minister Arkadiy Yedelev, other Russian officials, and the Russian media continued to make
51
CEDR, November 26, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-548002.
52
U.S. Department of State. Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, April 2006; ITAR-TASS, February 7, 2008; CEDR,
February 11, 2008, Doc. No. CEP-950123.
53
CEDR, CEP20090427950168
Congressional Research Service
19
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
allegations that terrorists were located in the Pankisi Gorge, including members of Al Qaeda. On
October 13, 2009, these accusations reached a new level when Alexander Bortnikov, the head of
Russia’s Federal Security Service, claimed that Al Qaeda members and other terrorists were
receiving training and transport from Georgia’s security services for operations in Chechnya and
Dagestan. Georgia was also transferring weaponry and money to the terrorists, he alleged.
Georgia’s Foreign Ministry termed the accusations a “blatant lie” that Russia had concocted in
order to excuse its inability to deal with rising instability in the North Caucasus.
In late October 2009, a delegation consisting of members of Georgia’s Christian Democratic
Party, foreign diplomats, and journalists visited the Pankisi Gorge to investigate the Russian
claims. Christian Democratic legislator Giorgi Targamadze and other delegation members
reported that no signs of terrorists were found in the Gorge. Georgia’s head of the Foreign
Intelligence Service, Gela Bezhuashvili, and the head of the Border Police, Zaza Gogava,
similarly reported to the legislature that no terrorists were entering Russia from Georgia.54
Crime and Corruption
Crime and corruption are serious threats to democratization and economic growth in all the states.
The increasing amount of foreign currency entering the states as the result of foreign oil and
natural gas investments, drug trafficking, and other means, the low pay of most government
bureaucrats, and inadequate laws and norms, are conducive to the growth of corruption. Also, the
weakness of the rule of law permits the Soviet-era political patronage and spoils system to
continue. Saakashvili has pledged to combat corruption, firing many policemen and emphasizing
merit-based examinations for college entrance.
According to the World Bank:
•
in Armenia, corruption decreased during the 1990s, but progress in combating
corruption had slowed by the early 2000s. The country was at the 35th percentile
in 2008 (that is, 138 out of 212 countries had better records in combating
corruption);
•
in Azerbaijan, there has been scant progress in combating corruption since 1996
(the earliest estimate by the World Bank). The country was at the 14th percentile
in 2008 (that is, 182 out of 212 countries had better records in combating
corruption);
•
in Georgia, there has been substantial progress in combating corruption since
1996. The country was at the 51st percentile in 2008 (that is, 104 out of 212
countries had better records in combating corruption). 55
54
ITAR-TASS, October 13, 2009; CEDR, October 13, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950330; October 28, 2009, Doc. No. CEP950249; October 29, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950274.
55
The World Bank. Governance Matters 2009: Country Data Reports, online at
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/sc_country.asp. See also Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions
Index, online at http://www.transparency.org/.
Congressional Research Service
20
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Illegal Narcotics Production, Use, and Trafficking
According to the State Department’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, none of the
South Caucasian states is a major drug producer, but Azerbaijan is an increasing conduit for drug
trafficking from Afghanistan. The other regional states also are potentially significant drug
trafficking routes, since they sit between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea linking Central Asia to
Europe. 56 Armenia’s borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey remain closed due to the NK conflict,
but when these borders open, drug transiting could increase significantly, the State Department
warns. Law enforcement officials in Armenia reported that drug trafficking increased in 2009. Of
particular concern in Georgia are the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which
may already serve as conduits for drug smuggling. Drugs from Afghanistan that transit Georgia
are smuggled out through land routes and Black Sea ports. Previously, Chechen and al Qaeda
terrorists that were based in the Pankisi Gorge area of northeast Georgia at least partly financed
their activities by drug-trafficking. Georgian counter-terrorism actions in the Gorge in recent
years appear to have eliminated this trafficking. Georgia’s border control police and customs
officials state that that they need more scanning equipment and canines trained in drug detection.
Drug seizures have declined in 2009, perhaps at least in part because police and customs officials
have focused on responding to separatism by Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Azerbaijan is a transit route for Afghan opiates that enter from Iran or, to a lesser extent, from
Central Asia, and are then smuggled to markets in Russia, Turkey, and Europe. About 95% of the
illicit drugs enter from Iran. Drug seizures by the government increased in 2009, with most
seizures occurring at the Azerbaijan-Iranian border. Drug consumption also is increasing in
Azerbaijan.
Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The South Caucasus states have only in recent years begun implementing effective export control
regimes to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated technologies.57
There are not as many nuclear fuel cycle-related facilities in the South Caucasus as elsewhere in
the former Soviet Union, but there are various nuclear research facilities and an operating nuclear
power reactor in Armenia. Virtually all of the facilities lacked adequate security systems such as
cameras and computerized accounting to safeguard medical and industrial nuclear materials and
wastes. Some radioactive materials that were inadequately documented during the Soviet era have
been discovered. Border and customs officials have halted some smuggling of WMD materials,
and are receiving increasing levels of U.S. and other international training and other assistance to
bolster their effectiveness (see also below, “U.S. Peace and Security Assistance”).58
56
The State Department. Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. International Narcotics
Control Strategy Report, vol. 1, March 1, 2010.
57
NIS Nuclear Profiles Database. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies.
Armenia has the most developed export control system on paper. The State Department’s Country Reports on
Terrorism 2004 states that Armenian border guards in 2004 seized 42 grams of non-weapons-grade radioactive
material, demonstrating that “they are capable of detecting and interdicting nuclear material.”
58
NIS Trafficking Database. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies. Among
prominent smuggling attempts, Azerbaijani border troops halted a shipment of Russian missile parts bound for Iran in
March 1998 and about one kilogram of uranium 235 allegedly bound for Iran in April 2000. In early 2002, Russian and
Georgian media reported that two of eight Soviet-era small nuclear generators containing strontium-90 were missing in
Georgia. Georgian and Russian authorities on January 25, 2007, verified media reports that Georgian security in
cooperation with U.S. agencies in early 2006 had apprehended a Russian citizen who was attempting to smuggle a tiny
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Economic and Defense Security
The South Caucasus states have worked to bolster their economic and defense capabilities by
seeking assistance from Western donors such as the United States, by seeking private investment,
by joining international organizations, and by cooperating with each other to limited degrees.
Georgia was the first state in the region to achieve World Trade Organization membership in June
2000, followed by Armenia in December 2002. Azerbaijan has encouraged foreign firms and
governments to become involved in energy development to ensure the widest possible
international interest in Azerbaijan’s independence and to attempt to influence attitudes toward
the NK conflict.
Georgia, as a major conduit for oil and gas pipelines,59 and because of its economic and
democratic reforms, has emerged as the key to regional stability and security, according to some
observers. By the same token, instability in Georgia could threaten the whole region by providing
greater opportunities for outside powers to meddle. Georgia has working relations with the other
two states of the region and with Turkey, and is a member with Azerbaijan in GUAM (see below).
Georgia and Azerbaijan have common interests that have encouraged limited cooperation. Both
face separatism, are wary of Russian influence, seek revenues from oil and gas transport, and are
pro-Western. Armenia seeks good relations with Georgia so that it may retain transport links to
Russia, including for energy supplies. During and after the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict,
President Sargisyan carefully maneuvered to retain good relations with both Russia and Georgia.
Georgia must balance its relations with the other two regional states to prevent one or the other
from accusing it of favoritism regarding the NK conflict. Armenia has increasing links with Iran.
Trade ties with Iran already permit Armenia to export electricity and import oil and gas from Iran
and to receive products shipped via Iran.
Gas Prices. In early 2006, Russia charged all three states much more for gas. In May 2006,
Armenia agreed to relinquish various energy assets to Russian firms as partial payment for this
price increase. Some critics have alleged that Russia now has virtual control over Armenia’s
energy supplies.60
•
In late 2006, Russia again requested price hikes for 2007. In the case of Georgia,
Russia’s state-controlled Gazprom gas firm announced in early November 2006
that it would cut off gas supplies to Georgia by the end of the year unless Georgia
agreed to a 100% price hike or sold its main gas pipeline to Gazprom. Spurred by
Russia’s economic sanctions and this announcement, Georgia negotiated an
agreement to receive some Azerbaijani gas via the new South Caucasus Pipeline
(...continued)
amount of highly-enriched uranium into Georgia. CEDR, April 27, 1998, Doc. No. FTS-558; February 4, 1999, Doc.
No. FTS-1112; May 3, 2000, Doc. No. CEP-9; January 24, 2002, Doc. No. CEP-55; January 25, 2007, Doc. No. CEP950026.
59
The oil pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, through Tbilisi, Georgia, to Ceyhan, Turkey (the BTC pipeline) and an
associated South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP) for gas from Azerbaijan’s offshore Shah Deniz fields to Turkey’s gas
pipeline network.
60
Despite earlier denials, Armenian officials announced in late October 2006 that Gazprom would assume effective
management control of an Iranian-Armenian gas pipeline under construction. According to analyst Vladimir Socor, this
acquisition may have provided Gazprom with another source of inexpensive foreign gas so that it could boost sales of
its own gas to Europe. Also, this acquisition may have signaled Russia’s intent to block use of Armenia as a pipeline
route independent of Russian control. Eurasian Daily Monitor, November 3, 2006. See also RFE/RL, Armenia Report,
October 31, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
22
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
(SCP; see below) and another small existing pipeline. It also agreed to continue
to purchase some higher-priced gas from Gazprom. In the case of Azerbaijan,
Russia’s requests for higher prices and reductions in the amounts of gas and
electricity supplies led President Aliyev to announce that as of 2007, the country
would no longer purchase Russian gas (however, agreement was reached to
provide Russian electricity, but at a higher price).
•
During the winter of 2007-2008, Gazprom demanded even higher prices, and
Georgia was forced to continue to purchase some gas from Gazprom to meet its
energy needs.
•
During the winter of 2008-2009, Gazprom continued to supply some gas to
Georgia despite the extremely poor relations between Russia and Georgia in the
wake of the August 2008 conflict. Russia has an incentive to work out a
continued supply arrangement with Georgia because some of the Russian gas
transits Georgia to Armenia.
•
During the winter of 2009-2010, Gazprom continued to supply gas to Georgia
and Armenia. The pipeline was closed for one day in December 2009 when a
bomb was discovered near the pipeline in Russia’s Ingushetia region. Gazprom
announced that gas prices in Armenia would be increased 17% in April 2010. A
separate gas pipeline from Russia to South Ossetia went into service in August
2009, replacing a trunk line through territory controlled by the Tbilisi
government that South Ossetia feared could be cut off. Gazprom charged more
for the gas supplied to South Ossetia than it charged for that supplied to Armenia
during the winter, although the prices will become closer in April 2010.
The activities of Russia’s state-controlled United Energy Systems (UES) in Armenia and Georgia
also have raised concerns among some observers. UES in mid-2005 gained management control
or ownership over virtually all of Armenia’s electric power system, including the Metsumor
nuclear power plant. In Georgia, UES in late 2003 bought controlling interests in the Tbilisi
electrical grid and several hydro- and thermal power generation facilities.
All three states have been faced with constructing military forces to address regional conflicts and
low-intensity threats. Poverty and the need for know-how and equipment have forced them to
seek outside assistance. Armenia has proceeded the farthest. It suppressed most paramilitary
forces potentially dangerous to civil order in the early 1990s. The Yerevan-based Soviet 7th Army,
disbanded in 1992, provided a ready-made model for Armenia’s armed forces. Russia provides
officer training and military equipment, including regional air defenses, including under the aegis
of the CSTO. Azerbaijan’s rejection of many ties with the Russian military stymied its early
military development. Azerbaijan’s and Georgia’s reliance until the mid-1990s on paramilitary
forces to combat regional separatism contributed to wide civil disorder in both states.
Partnership for Peace
All three of the South Caucasus states have joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PFP) to
facilitate the modernization of their armed forces and to increase ties with Europe. PFP status
seeks to assure the South Caucasus states that they are not in a “power vacuum” or completely
vulnerable to neighboring powers. Georgia has looked to links with PFP as the road to eventual
NATO membership that will provide security guarantees against possible Russian revanchism. In
Congressional Research Service
23
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
2004-2005, all three states agreed with NATO to participate in Individual Partnership Action
Plans (IPAPs) for military and civil-military reforms.
The June 2004 NATO summit pledged enhanced attention to the South Caucasian and Central
Asian PFP members. A Special Representative of the NATO General Secretary was appointed to
encourage democratic civil-military relations, transparency in defense planning and budgeting,
and enhanced force inter-operability with NATO. While including the South Caucasus states in
NATO activities, NATO endeavored to reassure Russia—by including it as a member of PFP and
by establishing a NATO-Russia Council—that it was not excluding Russia from a regional role as
long as Moscow supported regional stability, democratization, and the creation of free markets.
Georgia. On September 21, 2006, NATO approved Georgia’s application for “Intensified
Dialogue” with the alliance, ostensibly because of Georgia’s military reform progress, although
NATO also emphasized that much more reform work needed to be done before Georgia might be
considered for NATO membership. Although the United States urged that Georgia be considered
for a Membership Action Plan (MAP; preparatory to membership), NATO’s Riga Summit in
November 2006 reaffirmed support for an intensified dialogue to assist Georgia in implementing
reforms.61 The NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-17), signed into law in April
2007, urged NATO to extend a MAP for Georgia and designated Georgia as eligible to receive
security assistance under the program established by the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (P.L.
103-447).
At a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on February 14, 2008, the
head of Georgia’s mission to NATO transmitted a note from President Saakashvili formally
requesting the alliance to invite Georgia to participate in a Membership Action Plan (MAP). On
February 14, 2008, the Senate approved S.Res. 439 (sponsored by Senator Lugar), which urged
NATO to award a MAP to Georgia and Ukraine as soon as possible. A NATO MAP for Georgia
was a matter of contention at the April 2008 NATO Summit. Although Georgia was not offered a
MAP, the Alliance pledged that Georgia would eventually become a member of NATO. After the
Russia-Georgia conflict, a NATO-Georgia Commission was set up to further systematize NATO
reform guidance. At the December 2008 NATO foreign ministerial meeting, the United States
reportedly agreed with a British proposal to not push for a MAP for Georgia, and instead to
formulate Annual Action Programs for Ukraine and Georgia to assist them in the “significant
work left to do” in meeting the requirements for NATO membership. The United States took the
position that the two countries might work toward Alliance membership without formally
undertaking MAPs but still carrying out the requirements of MAPs.62
Illustrating support for PFP, Georgian troops served as NATO peacekeepers in Kosovo as part of
the Turkish battalion in the U.S. sector.
Azerbaijan. Illustrating support for PFP, Azerbaijani troops served as NATO peacekeepers in
Kosovo as part of the Turkish battalion in the German sector. Azerbaijani troops also serve in
ISAF in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan’s cooperation with NATO allegedly may have cooled in recent
61
NATO. North Atlantic Council. Riga Summit Declaration, November 29, 2006. Then-President Bush stated that the
United States supported Georgia’s NATO membership. Remarks By President Bush In Riga, Latvia, PR Newswire,
November 28, 2006. Sen. Richard Lugar urged soon granting Georgia a MAP and suggested that NATO’s energy
security would be facilitated by eventually offering NATO membership to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Senator Lugar
Delivers Remarks at the Riga Summit, Latvia, Congressional Quarterly Transcripts, November 27, 2006.
62
U.S. Department of State. Remarks on the NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting, November 26, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
24
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
months. It reportedly joined Turkmenistan in denying overflights for AWACS aircraft bound for
Afghanistan, and declined sending more troops to Afghanistan.63
Armenia. Armenia announced in July 2000 that it aimed to increase activities with PFP. Its
Foreign Ministry argued that Armenia was falling behind Azerbaijan and Georgia in such
activities and wished to ensure its security by developing the widest possible international ties,
especially with the world’s “most influential” security body. The Foreign Ministry explained that
Armenia had been reluctant to increase ties with NATO because of possible Russian reactions but
that Russia itself had developed such ties. Armenia’s officials also stressed that participation in
PFP kept the country abreast of PFP training and aid provided to Azerbaijan.64
To support NATO, Armenia began to send peacekeepers to Kosovo in 2003 as part of the Greek
battalion, and 70 Armenian peacekeepers continue to serve there. Armenia decided in December
2005 to further advance its relationship with NATO by adopting an Individual Partnership Action
Plan, but then-President Kocharyan stated that Armenia was not seeking NATO membership.
CSTO
In 1992, Armenia, Russia, and most of the Central Asian states signed a Collective Security
Treaty that stated that the members would mutually defend against security threats and would not
join other security alliances. At an October 2002 CIS summit, Armenia, Russia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan signed a charter to create a Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO) with a permanent secretariat for operational military planning and budget
coordination (Uzbekistan joined in 2006).65 It was stated that this secretariat would permit a
quicker response to threats to internal or external security. On internal security, Russian Gen.
Nikolay Bordyuzha, the secretary general of CSTO, has pledged that the organization would not
intervene in political conflicts, but only intervene by consensus “to resolve military, local and
border conflicts, as well as to prevent ... terror acts of armed groups and to stop drug trafficking....
In addition, they will be used to fulfill special tasks such as protection of pipelines,” or disaster
relief.66 On external security, Russia’s national security strategy, approved by President
Medvedev in May 2009, has proclaimed the CSTO as “the main instrument designed to counter
... challenges and threats of a military-political and military-strategic nature” emanating from
outside the member-states.67 Many observers have viewed the CSTO as a mainly Russian
initiative to increase security influence over member-states and to counter U.S. and other outside
influence. 68
Soviet successor states that are not members of the CSTO—Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan,
and Ukraine—have raised concerns about the organization’s potential role in their regions. Russia
63
Open Source Center. Europe: Daily Report, November 17, 2009, Doc. No. EUP-85004.
64
CEDR, July 26, 2000, Doc. No. CEP-63; January 18, 2003, Doc. No. CEP-166; February 12, 2003, Doc. No. CEP174; February 16, 2003, Doc. No. CEP-66; May 19, 2003, Doc. No. CEP-213.
65
Open Source Center. Central Eurasia: Daily Report (hereafter CEDR), April 29, 2003, Doc. No. CEP-96; April 29,
2003, Doc. No. CEP-132.
66
ITAR-TASS, March 2, 2009.
67
CEDR, May 13, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-557001. The Russian military doctrine similarly highlights the role of the
CSTO in deterring and preventing conflict. The Kremlin. President of Russia. The Military Doctrine of the Russian
Federation, February 5, 2010.
68
Ibragim Alibekov and Sergei Blagov, Eurasia Insight, April 29, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
25
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
did not invoke the treaty during the Russia-Georgia conflict, and the CSTO members have
resisted Bordyuzha’s call to recognize the independence of Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia and
South Ossetia regions. Turkmenistan has eschewed membership in the CSTO in order to protect
its neutral status, while Ukraine, until recently, pursued closer ties with NATO. In the case of the
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, Armenia’s former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan suggested in
2006 that the collective defense provision of the CSTO pertained to aggression from outside the
CIS, so would not pertain to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict (since Azerbaijan is a member of
the CIS).69 In 2008, however, Armenia requested a clarification of this issue. In late 2009,
Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan was asked if the CSTO would support Armenia if
Azerbaijan attacked, and responded that “if hostilities against Armenia resume, the CSTO is
obliged to help us according to its treaty.”70 The issue of the area of responsibility of the CSTO
remains ambiguous, according to some observers.
In July-August 2008, Armenia hosted the largest-scale CSTO military exercise that has been held
by the organization (4,000 personnel from all seven member-states reportedly took part, but most
troops were from Armenia and Russia, and a few from Tajikistan). The exercise focused on
coordination between the Armenian and Russian armed forces in repelling an invasion of
Armenia. Part of the exercise took place in Armenia and part at the CSTO headquarters in
Moscow. Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia voiced misgivings about the intent of the exercise.
Russian troops participating in the exercise were boosted in Armenia just after the outbreak of the
Russia-Georgia conflict, perhaps complicating Georgian security considerations.
In early 2009, the CSTO announced that an air-assault Collective Operational Reaction Force
(CORF) would be set up. However, Uzbekistan raised concerns about the vague character of the
force and balked at contributing troops. President Medvedev stated that the force was needed to
deal with rising tensions along CSTO borders and boasted that the force would “be as good as
that of NATO.”71 The main participants in CORF are Russia and Kazakhstan.
Although most members of the CSTO have bilateral ties to NATO under the Partnership for Peace
program, the CSTO long has called for NATO to cooperate with it as an organization on counternarcotics, anti-terrorism, and other issues. However, the real purpose of such cooperative
overtures is to receive recognition by NATO of a Russian sphere of influence in Soviet successor
states, according to many observers. Bordyuzha excoriated NATO as early as 2003 for increasing
its ties with Georgia, and asserted that the CSTO should play the leading role in security
cooperation with Georgia.72 Bordyuzha claimed that he sent a letter to NATO in 2004 proposing
cooperation, but NATO reportedly did not respond. Attempts by the CSTO to encourage NATO to
establish formal ties were set back in mid-2009 when Russia urged Partnership for Peace
members Armenia and Kazakhstan to boycott NATO’s Partnership for Peace military exercises in
Georgia. In October 2009, Foreign Minister Lavrov urged Secretary Clinton to support NATO
cooperation with the CSTO as an element of the “reset” of U.S.-Russia relations. 73
69
CRS interview, October 26, 2006.
ITAR-TASS, August 21, 2008; CEDR, December 16, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950231.
71
ITAR-TASS, February 4, 2009.
70
72
CEDR, May 26, 2003, Doc. No. CEP-134. Criticizing NATO actions to boost Georgia’s defenses, Bordyuzha
reportedly “indignantly” queried “Is there any danger of a military invasion [of Georgia]?”
73
CEDR, October 15, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-379001.
Congressional Research Service
26
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
The CSTO also has attempted to play a role in global security analogous to that of NATO. Since it
became an observer organization at the U.N. General Assembly in December 2004, the CSTO has
urged the specialized U.N. agencies such as UNODC and the Terrorism Committee and its
Executive Directorate to cooperate more with it. In March 2010, the U.N. General Assembly
approved a resolution drawn up by Russia that called for greater U.N. cooperation with the CSTO
in “regional cooperation in such areas as strengthening regional security and stability,
peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and combating illicit trafficking in drugs and weapons,
combating transnational organized crime, human trafficking, the fight against natural and manmade catastrophes.”74
President Medvedev stated in early 2009 that the CSTO would combat terrorism and offer other
support benefiting ISAF operations in Afghanistan. The CSTO has claimed credit for agreements
by its member-states on the transit of supplies to Afghanistan. However, the CSTO has stressed
that it will not send troops to Afghanistan.
Caucasus Security Pact Proposals
At the November 1999 OSCE Summit and other forums, former President Kocharyan, former
Turkish President Suleyman Demirel, and former presidents Shevardnadze and Aliyev called for
the creation of a South Caucasus security system that would provide regional states and external
powers with shared stakes in regional stability. Kocharyan explained that his “Round Table on
Stability” proposal was prompted by the withdrawal of Azerbaijan and Georgia from the CIS
Collective Security Pact. He called for the creation of a sub-CIS system whereby the three
regional states, buttressed by their neighbors, and aided by the EU and the United States, would
guarantee regional stability. Iran endorsed the creation of such a pact, though calling for it to
initially exclude external powers.75
Seeking to play a leading role in forming such a pact, Putin convened side meetings with the
leaders of the three Caucasus states during CIS summits in 2000 (meetings of lower-level
officials of the four states had begun in 1997), but the region’s leaders appeared to disagree with
Putin that Russia and other “Caucasus countries must alone shape the region’s fate,” excluding
outside interests. The last meeting of the so-called “Caucasus Four” took place in Moscow in
September 2003 among the region’s legislative speakers. A meeting planned for early 2004 in
Tbilisi was apparently sidelined by Georgia’s “rose revolution.” Although Russia and Armenia
called for the resumption of “Caucasus Four” meetings, the Saakashvili government balked at
participating in the Russia-led grouping, rendering it moribund.76
Soon after the breakout of conflict between Russia and Georgia in August 2008, Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposed creating a “Caucasus Stability and Cooperation
Platform” or forum to pursue regional peace, security, and economic development. He proposed
74
United Nations General Assembly. 64th Session. Plenary Meeting. Cooperation between the United Nations and the
Collective Security Treaty Organization, A/RES/64/256, March 2, 2010.
75
Gerald Libaridian, reported in RFE/RL Caucasus Report, June 15, 2000; Wayne Murray, reported in Caucasus
Reporting Service, no. 38, June 30, 2000.
76
Nezavisimaya gazeta, May 17, 2000, p. 1; Caucasus Stability Pact - Iran Counters Russian Expansion, May 25,
2000; CEDR, September 30, 2003, Doc. No. CEP-386. A planned “Caucasus Four” meeting of legislative speakers
planned for November 2006 on the sidelines of a CIS speakers summit in St. Petersburg apparently was not held. At the
CIS speakers’ meeting, Russian Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov reportedly refused to meet with Georgian Speaker Nino
Burjanadze. CEDR, November 16, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-950221.
Congressional Research Service
27
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
that members include the three South Caucasian states, Turkey, and Russia (but not the United
States or others). Erdogan traveled to Azerbaijan later in August 2008, where President Aliyev
endorsed the proposal, and then-Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babajan visited Moscow in
September 2008, where Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov endorsed the proposal. Armenia also
welcomed the proposed regional talks, and Turkish President Abdullah Gul discussed it with
President Sarkisyan when he visited Yerevan in September 2008. According to one Turkish media
report, “the process of normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations is the inevitable consequence
of the new Caucasus vision Turkey has adopted. In order to implement this vision, Turkey started
a process for normalizing its relations with Yerevan, on the one hand, and another process for the
peaceful settlement of the NK issue through talks between Yerevan and Baku, on the other.”77 In a
speech in Nakhichevan in October 2009, President Gul stated that Turkey’s efforts to facilitate
regional engagement as part of the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform would continue.
GUAM
In another area of regional cooperation, the GUAM states (formed from the initials of the
member-states: Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova)78 share common interests in resisting
Russian domination and in securing energy transport and supply that is outside Russian control.
Formed in 1997, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine in early 1999 held joint military exercises
aimed at protecting the Georgian oil pipeline. Russia has opposed GUAM as usurping CIS
functions, but also called for GUAM to admit Moscow as a member. In 2000, the members
agreed to convene regular summits and ministerial-level conclaves.79 At the July 2002 meeting in
Yalta, GUAM countries signed an “Agreement on Cooperation in the Battle against Terrorism,
Organized Crime and Other Dangerous Types of Crime.” At a Georgia-Ukraine presidential
summit in May 2003, the two leaders called for naming military coordinators to work out security
cooperation within GUAM, with Georgian officials arguing that such cooperation could help
prepare the members for NATO membership.80
The “rose revolution” in Georgia in late 2003, the “orange revolution” in Ukraine in late 2004,
and political reforms in Moldova gave GUAM a democratic orientation. At a meeting in April
2005, the members and invited guests (including Lithuania and Romania) proclaimed the goal of
consolidating democracy in the Black Sea region and beyond, called for ending regional “frozen
conflicts,” and discussed energy transport cooperation. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko
suggested that GUAM focus on integration with NATO and the EU. All these subjects had
concerns about Russian behavior at their core. The first GUAM-sponsored Virtual Center for
Fighting Against Terrorism, Organized Crime, Drug Trafficking and Other Dangerous Crimes
opened in Azerbaijan in July 2005 and the second in Kyiv, Ukraine, in May 2006. These centers
in member-states are supposed to exchange data, but reportedly such cooperation still was below
par in early 2010.
77
Today’s Zaman, June 5, 2009.
78
The group admitted Uzbekistan as a member in April 1999, but Uzbekistan stopped participating in most activities in
2002 and formally withdrew in May 2005. In a letter announcing the withdrawal, Karimov reportedly stated that
Uzbekistan disliked “the organization’s emphasis on the resolution of frozen conflicts, the formation of joint armed
blocs, and the review of existing security systems,” outside its geographical area of interests. CEDR, May 9, 2005, Doc.
No. CEP-23004.
79
CEDR, March 17, 2000, June 19, 2000, and September 9, 2000.
80
CEDR, May 7, 2003, Doc. No. CEP-224.
Congressional Research Service
28
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
In May 2006, the heads of state of the GUAM countries signed a charter renaming the
organization “GUAM: The Organization for Democracy and Economic Development” and
proclaiming the of goal of economic and security integration with the West. Combating crime,
terrorism, and separatism were highlighted. In September 2006, the GUAM delegations to the
U.N. General Assembly succeeded in getting their proposal for a discussion of “protracted
conflicts” in the GUAM states placed on the agenda. In October 2006, GUAM foreign ministers
issued a statement calling on Russia to refrain from “unilateral actions” against Georgia and
supporting Georgia’s call for Russian-Georgian talks on introducing international forces in the
separatist areas. In December 2006, Colonel-General Sergiy Kirichenko, chief of the General
Staff of Ukraine’s armed forces, reportedly announced plans to form a GUAM peacekeeping
force to serve in U.N. peacekeeping operations. 81
At the July 2007 Summit of the Heads of State of GUAM, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, the
presidents (Moldova’s president did not attend) agreed to form a permanent secretariat and eight
committees handling economic, trade, security and cultural issues.
At the July 2008 Summit of the Heads of State of GUAM, held in Batumi, Georgia, energy
security was a primary topic. Guests included the Presidents of Poland and Lithuania and
emissaries from the United States, the EU, and other countries. The presidents of the memberstates (Moldava’s president did not attend, but the interior minister and deputy foreign minister
attended) called for the further development of east-west rail and other transport links and
endorsed the delivery of oil from Baku to Poti, and across the Black Sea to Kerch, Ukraine, and
thence to the Odessa-Brody-Plotsk-Gdansk pipeline. They also proclaimed adherence to the
territorial integrity of the member-states and the peaceful resolution of the “frozen conflicts.”
Moldova’s emissaries continued to oppose proposals to create a GUAM peacekeeping force and
urged that the organization focus on economic cooperation.82
The GUAM secretariat facility in Kiev was inaugurated in February 2009 during a meeting of the
ministers of foreign affairs (Moldova was represented by its ambassador to Ukraine). Two more
meetings of member ministers of foreign affairs took place during the year on the sidelines of
other conclaves, but a summit of heads of state was not convened.
Ukraine held the GUAM presidency in 2010. In early February 2010, an official from the State
Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs visited the GUAM
secretariat in Kiev to discuss combating trafficking in persons and drugs, money laundering,
counter-terrorism, and progress in modernizing the GUAM Virtual Law Enforcement System. In
mid-February 2010, the GUAM secretariat in Kiev hosted a workshop with the U.N. Office on
Drugs and Crime on improving legal cooperation for combating terrorism. The inauguration of
Viktor Yanukovych as Ukraine’s president in late February 2010 led some observers to question
the future of GUAM.
81
CEDR, April 22, 2005, Doc. No. CEP-238; April 25, 2005, Doc. No. EUP-87; April 25, 2005, Doc. No. CEP-102;
May 25, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-4002; October 16, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-950116; October 17, 2006, Doc. No. CEP950149; December 13, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-358001; March 2, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950315. According to Georgian
analysts Pikria Asanishvili and Avtandil Tukvadze, GUAM will not meet its full potential until Armenia is admitted—
making GUAM a true regional organization—and the people of the South Caucasus realize that regional integration
will benefit them. Central Asia and the Caucasus, no. 3, June 30, 2005.
82
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. Official Documents of the GUAM Batumi Summit, at
http://mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=542.
Congressional Research Service
29
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
GUAM has received significant encouragement from the United States, including a
Congressional authorization for funding (The Security Assistance Act of 2000; P.L. 106-280),83
that some observers have viewed as sustaining the group. In December 2002, then-Assistant
Secretary Jones and the GUAM ambassadors adopted a framework program of projects to
facilitate regional trade and transport, the improvement of border and customs services, and the
fight against terrorism, organized crime and drug-trafficking.84 Under the accord, the United
States funded pilot programs of customs and border training and GUAM law enforcement offices,
with rotating meetings in each of the GUAM capitals of expert level working groups. The United
States voted for putting the discussion of “protracted conflicts” in GUAM member-states on the
agenda of the 2006-2007 session of the U.N. General Assembly, against the objections of
Armenia and Russia.85 The budget requests for FY2005 and FY2006 called for FREEDOM
Support Act (FSA) funds to be used to bolster Moldova’s and Ukraine’s participation in GUAM,
and the budget request for FY2007 called for some FSA regional funding to be used for GUAM
activities. In the FY2009 and FY2010 budget requests, the Administration called for aid to
GUAM to help set up a coordination mechanism for customs and border service personnel to
combat trans-border criminal activities. The FY2011 budget request called for support for training
law enforcement personnel in the GUAM member-states.
Energy and Transport
Issues of regional security and the balance of regional power, as well as of economic advantage,
have increasingly come to be wrapped up with the issue of pipeline politics. The discovery of
major new oil and gas resources in the Caspian Sea in recent years has contributed to the strategic
significance of the South Caucasus region as an energy producer and transport corridor. The
World Factbook reports 7 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 70.6 trillion cubic feet of
proven natural gas reserves in Azerbaijan. 86 Russia and Kazakhstan have reported finding energy
reserves in the Caspian Sea rivaling those of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan faced many obstacles to fully
exploit and market its energy resources, including project financing, political instability, ethnic
and regional conflict, and pipeline security.
U.S. companies were shareholders in about one-half of about twenty international productionsharing consortiums formed in the 1990s to carry out oil and gas exploration, appraisal,
development, and production. Many of these consortiums were dissolved after the firms did not
find commercially significant resources. The first was the Azerbaijan International Oil
Corporation (AIOC), formed to exploit the Azeri-Chirag-deepwater Gunashli (ACG) oil and gas
fields. In 1995, Heydar Aliyev and the AIOC decided to transport “early oil” (the first and lower
volume of oil from AIOC fields, along with other Azerbaijani oil) through two Soviet-era
pipelines in Georgia and Russia to ports on Russia’s Black Sea coast. The capacity of each of
these pipelines is around 100,000-115,000 barrels per day (bpd).
83
P.L. 106-280 authorized assistance to GUAM and Armenia for International Military Education and Training
(IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), nonproliferation and export control, and antiterrorism assistance for
FY2001-FY2002. Section 907 provisions blocking FMF and IMET aid to Azerbaijan remained in place until FY2002.
84
U.S. Department of State. Office of the Spokesman. Joint Statement of the United States, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Moldova, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, December 23, 2002.
85
CEDR, September 14, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-950244. U.N. General Assembly. Sixty-First Session. General
Committee. Summary Record of the 1st Meeting on 12 September 2006, A/BUR/61/SR.1, October 13, 2006; U.N.
General Assembly. Sixty-First Session. 2nd Plenary Meeting, A/61/PV.2, September 13, 2006.
86
Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. Data as of January 2009.
Congressional Research Service
30
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
A “main oil” pipeline—with a capacity of one million bpd—began delivering oil from Baku
through Georgia to Turkey’s Mediterranean port near Ceyhan in June 2006. The Clinton
Administration launched a major campaign in late 1997 stressing the strategic importance and
suitability of this route as part of a “Eurasian Transport Corridor,” including possible transCaspian links to Central Asia. Volatile oil prices and questions about the amount of oil in the
Caspian region raised concerns among oil firms about financial risks of the route.
Political endorsement of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) route was provided by a 1998 meeting
of the presidents of Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, and then-U.S.
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, where they pledged to cooperate to ensure the commercial
viability of the route. An even more important “Istanbul Protocol” on construction of the BTC oil
pipeline was signed in November 1999 by Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan (with
then-President Clinton in attendance). It is reported that the pipeline cost $4 billion to build.
Kazakhstan has agreed to barge some oil across the Caspian Sea for transport through the
pipeline, helping to address under-utilization of the pipeline until oil production increases in
Azerbaijan. A gas pipeline to Erzurum, Turkey was built parallel to the oil pipeline (the South
Caucasus Pipeline or SCP), and was inaugurated in March 2007. The SCP section in Azerbaijan
and Georgia, completed earlier, was pressed into service in the winter of 2006-2007 to deliver
some gas from Azerbaijan’s offshore Shah Deniz gas fields to Azerbaijani and Georgian
customers (another small pipeline also delivered Azerbaijani gas to Georgia). Azerbaijan had
balked at paying substantially increased prices for Russian gas, and Georgia had reduced its own
purchases of Russian gas after the price increase.
Some analysts argue that the opening of the BTC pipeline and associated SCP, along with the reopening of the region’s roads, railways, and other transport, may well transform the economies of
the region by bringing substantial energy transit fees, energy revenues, and trade. Others are less
optimistic, warning that the states still maintain several transport blockades and barriers. Many in
Armenia are concerned that Azerbaijan is channeling substantial revenues from oil and gas
exports into a military buildup aimed against NK. However, former Foreign Minister Oskanyan
and others have suggested that the completion of the pipelines could make Azerbaijan reticent to
launch a conflict that could result in the destruction of the pipelines. 87
U.S. Policy and Issues
In congressional testimony in March 2008, Gen. Brantz Craddock, then-Commander of the U.S.
European Command, stated that “the Caucasus’ geostrategic location makes the region an
important area for the United States and its Allies. Caucasus nations actively support Iraqi
Freedom and ISAF. They provide alternative hydrocarbon sources from the Caspian Sea and
alternative routes of access to Central Asian hydrocarbon reserves. It is an important region for
European energy diversification.” He stressed that to counteract the harm to regional stability
posed by corruption, ethnic conflicts, and Russian meddling, “the Caucasus require sustained and
coordinated interagency efforts.”88 Former Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones stated in
87
Edmund Herzig, The New Caucasus. London, Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1999, p. 93; Amy Myers Jaffe
and Robert Manning, Survival, Winter 1998-1999, p. 115; CEDR, January 14, 2004, Doc. No. CEP-153.
88
U.S. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Statement of General Bantz J. Craddock, March 13, 2008. In
congressional testimony in March 2005, Gen. James Jones, then the head of USEUCOM, stated that “the Caucasus is
increasingly important to our interests. Its air corridor has become a crucial lifeline between coalition forces in
Afghanistan and our bases in Europe. Caspian oil, carried through the Caucasus, may constitute as much as 25 percent
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
31
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
2003 that, thanks to U.S. security assistance, “as each day passes, the countries of Central Asia
and the Caucasus are becoming better equipped, better trained and better coordinated with one
another to deal with transnational threats.” She also stated that such U.S. security assistance was
“integrated” with programs to enhance human rights and political and economic reforms.89
Conflict resolution is part of U.S. policy to enhance stability in the region. Among the early
foreign policy acts of the Obama Administration, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton supported the
signing of the Armenia-Turkey protocols in October 2009. In yearly appropriations for foreign
operations, Congress has called on the Administration to pursue conflict mitigation in the region.
In some respects, U.S. policy has tended to view the South Caucasian countries (and those of
Central Asia) as part of the Caspian Sea-Black Sea region, to include the Black Sea littoral states
in the west and Afghanistan in the east. This view is partly the result of the air transit of U.S. and
NATO forces and supplies based in Europe across these countries to the Afghan military theater.
Also, U.S. policy has tended to focus on westward oil and gas transit routes from Caspian
regional states. On the other hand, the U.S. State Department in 2005 implemented a persistent
congressional call to re-assign responsibility for the Central Asian states to the Bureau for South
Asian Affairs, leaving responsibility for the South Caucasus to the Bureau for European and
Eurasian Affairs.90 U.S. military operational planning also separated these regions. In 1999, the
Central Asian states were reassigned to USCENTCOM’s area of responsibility, covering Horn of
Africa countries and many Middle Eastern and South Asian states, leaving the South Caucasus
states (and the Caspian Sea) in USEUCOM’s area of responsibility, covering Europe.
As reflected in the Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations (for FY2007,
FY2008, FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011):
•
U.S. national interests in Armenia have included cooperation in the war on
terrorism and combating arms and other illicit trafficking. A durable and peaceful
resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict acceptable to both parties is key to
U.S. interests that include stability in the South Caucasus, regional economic
cooperation that ends Armenia’s isolation, and improved Armenian-Turkish
relations. Armenia’s shift away from a war footing would also further U.S.
interests in Armenia’s economic development and improved standards of living.
•
U.S. national interests in Azerbaijan have included cooperation in the war on
terrorism, the advancement of U.S. energy security, and progress in democratic
and economic reforms, which enhance internal stability. Such stability will
reduce tendencies for Azerbaijani conflict with Iran and Armenia. Azerbaijan’s
creation of a transparent and corruption-free market economy is deemed essential
to its role as a vital link in the trans-Caspian energy corridor, and it has the
“potential to play a significant role in the diversification of American and global
(...continued)
of the world’s growth in oil production over the next five years ... This region is a geographical pivot point in the
spread of democracy and free market economies to the states of Central and Southwest Asia.” U.S. Congress. Senate.
Committee on Armed Services. Testimony by Gen. James Jones, March 1, 2005.
89
Elizabeth Jones, Speech at the University of Montana, April 10, 2003.
90
Jaroslaw Skonieczka, A Black Sea strategy, according to some observers, would “de-link” the South Caucasus
countries from the Central Asian states, so that the former might be more clearly viewed as European countries and
included in European institutions. The Black Sea Region, NATO International Staff, 2004.
Congressional Research Service
32
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
energy supplies.” Azerbaijan’s conflict with Armenia over Azerbaijan’s Nagorno
Karabakh area, and its tensions with Iran upset stability in the critical South
Caucasus region.
•
“Georgia plays a key role in furthering U.S. interests” and has been a “premier
partner” in the global war on terrorism by providing troops for military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other support. Georgia is becoming “a key
conduit through which Caspian Basin energy resources will flow to the West,
facilitating diversification of energy sources for the United States and Europe.”
The U.S. Government will continue to encourage democratization, promote
integration with NATO, support law enforcement and institutions that uphold the
rule of law, support stable economic growth, and support “the sustainable
resolution of conflicts with the separatist regions based on Georgia’s territorial
integrity. The U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership offers a framework
for meeting these goals” (see below).
Contributions to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan
In the wake of September 11, 2001, U.S. policy priorities shifted toward global anti-terrorist
efforts. In the South Caucasus, the United States obtained quick pledges from the three states to
support U.S. and coalition efforts in Afghanistan, including overflight rights and Azerbaijan’s and
Georgia’s offers of airbase and other support. The State Department’s Country Reports on Global
Terrorism has highlighted U.S. support for Azerbaijan’s and Georgia’s efforts to halt the use of
their territories as conduits by international mujahidin and Chechen guerrillas for financial and
logistic support for Chechen and other Caucasian terrorists.
Georgia
Then-President Shevardnadze immediately condemned the “scum” who attacked the United
States on September 11, 2001, and one week later offered Georgian “airspace and territory” for
use by U.S. troops. During his U.S. visit with President Bush in October 2001, he reiterated
Georgia’s “full cooperation and solidarity” with the U.S. and coalition actions in Afghanistan, and
the full use of Georgia’s airspace and airbases. He also reportedly asked for U.S. training
assistance for Georgia’s security forces to help them reassert control in the Pankisi Gorge. 91 On
February 11, 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Georgia declared that the United States was ready to help
Georgia combat several dozen al Qaeda and other terrorists who had fled to the Caucasus from
Afghanistan. Some had relocated to Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge area bordering Chechnya, where
they maintained links with Chechen terrorists. On February 27, 2002, then-President Bush
announced that the United States would provide equipment and training to help Georgia rout al
Qaeda influences. The next day, the U.S. Defense Department announced plans for a “Georgia
Train and Equip Program” (GTEP), as part of the global war on terrorism (see also below “U.S.
Peace and Security Assistance”).
Russia initially reacted critically to the U.S. announcement of the GTEP, but then-President
Vladimir Putin on March 1, 2002, stated that he had received assurances from then-President
Shevardnadze that the United States was not seeking permanent bases. He stressed that “we
91
According to Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002, p. 29, the United States strongly urged Georgia to “regain control
of the Pankisi Gorge,” where terrorists with links to al Qaeda threatened the security of both Georgia and Russia.
Congressional Research Service
33
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
support this fight [in the Pankisi Gorge] no matter who takes part in it,” although he called for
Russia’s participation. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on May 11, 2002,
stated that Russia was a “stalwart asset and friend” in viewing the GTEP as “helpful to Russian
interests.”
Georgia contributed about 50 troops for peacekeeping in Afghanistan during Afghan elections in
late 2004-early 2005. In early 2007, President Saakashvili announced that Georgia intended to
eventually send 200-400 troops to support NATO in Afghanistan. Reportedly, before the August
2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, the United States had urged Georgia not to end its military support
for coalition actions in Iraq upon sending its troops to Afghanistan.
In November 2009, the first Georgian troops left for training in Germany prior to deployment to
Afghanistan. Georgia plans a total deployment of 730 troops.
Azerbaijan
The day after the terrorist attacks on the United States, Azerbaijan’s then-President Heydar Aliyev
averred that Azerbaijan was a “strategic partner” of the United States and would join the United
States in operations against terrorism. Azerbaijan granted blanket overflight rights and
intelligence support and offered the use of its bases. After the commencement of air operations in
Afghanistan on October 6, 2001, Heydar Aliyev endorsed coalition actions in a phone
conversation with then-Secretary Powell on October 9 and with President Bush on October 30,
2001. NK Armenians and U.S. diplomats have censured statements by Azerbaijani officials
calling for international “counter-terrorism” actions against NK. Azerbaijan in November 2002
deployed 30 troops to assist the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan.
Azerbaijan’s cooperation with NATO allegedly may have cooled in recent months. The country
allegedly has declined to boost the number of its troops (90) currently serving in Afghanistan.92 It
reportedly joined Turkmenistan in denying overflights for AWACS aircraft bound for
Afghanistan.93
Armenia
Immediately after September 11, 2001, Armenia’s President Kocharyan offered condolences and
Armenia’s Department for Emergencies proffered rescue aid. On September 19, Armenian
Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisyan stated that Armenia would contribute to U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts, and Kocharyan the next day offered Armenia’s support for international counterterrorism efforts during a meeting with the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia. On September 27, the
presidential press service reported that this support included military overflight rights, and other
reports mentioned intelligence sharing. While supporting diplomatic efforts to convince the
Taliban to extradite those responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks, after the start of
coalition actions in Afghanistan on October 6, Armenia expressed support for the “consistent and
decisive” military actions to safeguard the “global community” from international terrorism.
Armenia explained that this support was consistent with its foreign policy of complementarity,
which calls for good relations with both Russia, the United States, and Middle Eastern countries
92
93
CEDR, December 9, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950188.
Open Source Center. Europe: Daily Report, November 17, 2009, Doc. No. EUP-85004.
Congressional Research Service
34
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
such as Iran in order to buttress the country’s independence, gain support for NK Armenians, and
protect the interests of Armenians living in the Middle East and elsewhere. 94
In January 2010, Armenia sent 40 troops for four weeks of training in Germany before their
deployment in mid-February to Afghanistan to serve under the command of the German-led
provincial reconstruction team in Kunduz, where the troops will assist in airbase security.
Section 907
In the U.S. Congress, the events of September 11, 2001, altered attitudes toward Sec.907, causing
the Members to permit the lifting of aid sanctions on Azerbaijan to facilitate regional cooperation
on anti-terrorism, conflict resolution, and energy development. Permanent Presidential waiver
authority was added to the Senate version of Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY2002
(H.R. 2506) and retained by the conference managers. The President may use the waiver
authority if he certifies to the Appropriations Committees that it supports U.S. counter-terrorism
efforts, supports the operational readiness of the armed forces, is important for Azerbaijan’s
border security, and will not harm peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan or be used for
offensive purposes against Armenia. The waiver may be renewed annually on or after December
31, 2002, and sixty days after the exercise of the waiver authority, the President must send a
report to Congress specifying the nature of aid to be provided to Azerbaijan, the status of the
military balance between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the effects of U.S. aid on that balance, and
the status of peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the effects of U.S. aid on those
talks.
Days after being signed into law (P.L. 107-115), then-President Bush on January 25, 2002,
exercised the waiver. The most recent waiver was exercised in March 2008. The Bush
Administration maintained that the waiver was necessary to support U.S. counter-terrorism and
the operational readiness of U.S. Forces and coalition partners. It also stressed that the waiver
permitted U.S. border security aid for Azerbaijan and did not hamper efforts to settle the NK
conflict.
Support for Iraqi Freedom Operations
Azerbaijan and Georgia are among the countries that openly pledged to support the U.S.-led
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Both offered to make their airfields available and to assist the United
States in re-building Iraq. Azerbaijan’s foreign minister on March 14, 2003, indicated
Azerbaijan’s preference for a peaceful solution, but stated that Azerbaijan would support U.S.
action in Iraq. Azerbaijan has raised concerns about the welfare of some 300-900,000 Turkic
speakers in Iraq. In August 2003, both Azerbaijan (150 troops) and Georgia (69 troops)
dispatched forces to Iraq. U.S. officials reportedly asked Azerbaijan and Georgia in April 2004 to
bolster their troop contributions in the face of Spain’s troop pullout.
Georgia boosted its deployment to 850 troops in 2005, at that time matching the contributions by
Australia and Ukraine. Azerbaijan’s troops helped U.S. Marines guard the Haditha dam. 95
94
Armenian Agency Praises Foreign Policy, BBC Worldwide Monitoring, September 24, 2001.
95
The U.S. and Azerbaijani troops allegedly do not fraternize, ostensibly because of “language and culture” barriers.
Tony Perry, CENTCOM NEWS, June 21, 2005; CEDR, May 20, 2005, Doc. No. CEP-27036; May 23, 2005, Doc. No.
CEP-20005. One of the Azerbaijani officers has alleged mistreatment by Azerbaijani commanders. CEDR, March 28,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
35
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Georgia’s troops guarded military and other facilities, helped patrol around the town of Ba’qubah,
and also helped protect U.N. and coalition offices in Baghdad’s “Green zone.” In March 2007,
President Saakashvili announced that Georgia intended to boost its troop deployment from 850 to
up to 2,000, which made Georgia the second-largest non-U.S. contributor (after the United
Kingdom). The bulk of the 2,000 troops pulled out in August 2008 at Georgia’s request in
connection with the Russia-Georgia conflict, and the rest pulled out by the end of November
2008. Azerbaijan’s troops also pulled out in November 2008.
Armenia initially did not support military intervention in Iraq, citing its concerns about the safety
of 15,000 ethnic Armenians residing in Iraq and 200,000 in the Middle East, concerns about
Turkish expansionism into Kurdish areas of Iraq, and affinities with the views of France,
Germany, and Russia. However, in September 2004, the presidents of Poland and Armenia agreed
that Armenian troops could serve with the Polish contingent in Iraq to carry out humanitarian
work. The Armenian legislature approved the planned deployment, and 46 personnel left for Iraq
in January 2005. Armenia’s troops pulled out of Iraq in late 2008.
Azerbaijan and Georgia reportedly suffered some economic losses associated with the active
phase of the Iraq conflict. BTC pipeline construction was reportedly temporarily delayed because
of material delivery problems, and Azerbaijan reported that its support for the United States led
several Islamic banks and investors to curtail operations or negotiations.96 Some Azerbaijanis
objected to support for coalition actions in an Islamic country.
After the August 2008 Russia-Georgia Conflict
In the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict, Vice President Cheney visited Georgia and Azerbaijan
in early September 2008. In Georgia, he stated that “[President Mikheil Saakashvili] and his
democratically elected government can count on the continued support and assistance of the
United States.” He pledged U.S. aid to help Georgians “to overcome an invasion of your
sovereign territory, and an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country’s borders by
force.... We will help [you] to heal this nation’s wounds, to rebuild this economy, and to ensure
Georgia’s democracy, independence, and further integration with the West.”97
In Azerbaijan, he stated that “the United States has deep and abiding interests in [Azerbaijan’s]
well being and security.” He averred that the United States is “committed to achieving a
negotiated solution to the NK conflict, a solution that starts with the principle of territorial
integrity, and takes into account other international principles. Achieving a solution is more
important now than ever before; that outcome will enhance peace and stability in the region, and
Azerbaijan’s security, as well.” He praised Azerbaijan’s cooperation with Western countries in the
energy sphere and thanked Azerbaijan for its contribution to the global war against terrorism. He
also voiced U.S. support for “the people of Azerbaijan in their efforts, often in the face of great
(...continued)
2007, Doc. No. CEP-950314.
96
CEDR, March 25, 2003, Doc. No. CEP-226.
97
The White House. Office of the Vice President. Remarks by Vice President Cheney and President Saakashvili of
Georgia After Meeting, September 4, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
36
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
challenges, to strengthen democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, and to build a
prosperous, modern, independent country.”98
The U.S.-Georgia Charter
On January 9, 2009, Secretary of State Rice and visiting Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol
Vashadze signed a U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership. Similar to the U.S.-Ukraine
Charter signed in December 2008 and the U.S.-Baltic Charter signed in 1998 with Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania, the accord states that the countries plan to “strengthen our relationship
across the economic, energy, diplomatic, scientific, cultural and security fields.”
•
In the security realm, the Charter affirms that “a strong, independent, sovereign
and democratic Georgia, capable of responsible self-defense, contributes to the
security and prosperity not only of all Georgians, but of a Europe whole, free and
at peace.” The two sides “declare that their shared goal is the full integration of
Georgia into European and transatlantic political, economic, security, and defense
institutions,” and that “the United States and Georgia intend to expand the scope
of their ongoing defense and security cooperation programs to defeat [threats to
global peace and stability] and to promote peace and stability.” Such cooperation
will “increase Georgian capabilities and ... strengthen Georgia’s candidacy for
NATO membership.” The accord highlights ties through the NATO-Georgia
Commission.
•
In the economic realm, the two countries “intend to pursue an Enhanced Bilateral
Investment Treaty, to expand Georgian access to the General System of
Preferences, and to explore the possibility of a Free-Trade Agreement.” Energy
security goals include “increasing Georgia’s energy production, enhanc[ing]
energy efficiency, and increas[ing] the physical security of energy transit through
Georgia to European markets. We intend to ... develop a new Southern Corridor
to help Georgia and the rest of Europe diversify their supplies of natural gas by
securing imports from Azerbaijan and Central Asia.”
•
In the realm of democratization, the two countries “pledge cooperation to bolster
independent media, freedom of expression, and access to objective news and
information,” and to further strengthen the rule of law. The United States pledged
to train judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and police officers.99
•
Before the signing, Vashadze hailed the accord as a “stepping stone which will
bring Georgia to Euro-Atlantic structures, to membership within NATO, and to
[the] family of Western and civilized nations.”100 Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bryza stressed that the charter does not provide security guarantees to Georgia.
He also stated that U.S.-Georgian defense cooperation programs were still being
98
The White House. Office of the Vice President. Remarks by Vice President Cheney and President Aliyev of the
Republic of Azerbaijan After Meeting, September 3, 2008.
99
U.S. Department of State. U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership, January 9, 2009.
100
U.S. Department of State. Signing Ceremony for the United States and Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership:
Secretary Condoleezza Rice Remarks With Georgian Foreign Affairs Minister Grigol Vashadze in the Treaty Room,
January 9, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
37
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
developed. 101 Vashadze later claimed that the U.S. support in the Charter for
Georgia’s territorial integrity would help convince Russia eventually to rescind
its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.102 According
to some observers, the Charter aimed to reaffirm the United States’ high strategic
interest in Georgia’s fate, after it had appeared that the United States (and the
West) in recent months had acquiesced to increased Russian dominance in the
South Caucasus.103
U.S. Peace and Security Assistance
The United States has provided some security assistance to the region and bolstered such aid after
September 11, 2001. Cumulative budgeted funding for FY1992-FY2008 for peace and security
programs (including law enforcement) was $188 million for Armenia, $240 million for
Azerbaijan, and $542 million for Georgia (see Table 1 and
101
CEDR, January 7, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950092.
CEDR, January 12, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950240; Doc. No. CEP-21003.
103
David J. Smith, “US-Georgia Charter is Historic,” Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, January 12, 2009.
102
Congressional Research Service
38
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Table 2). The total funding of $1.13 billion for this region for peace and security programs
amounted to about 24% of cumulative budgeted funding for all South Caucasus programs and
about 10% of the security assistance provided to all twelve Soviet successor states. If such aid
had been distributed equally to all twelve countries, the South Caucasus would have received
25%. The relative dearth of such aid distributed to the South Caucasus mainly reflects the
historical U.S. emphasis on Global Threat Reduction in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan and an
emphasis on humanitarian, democratic, and economic assistance to the South Caucasus states.
Also, until waived, Sec. 907 had prohibited much U.S. security aid to Azerbaijan, and by U.S.
policy, similar aid had not been provided to Azerbaijan’s fellow combatant Armenia. The waiver
permitted an increase in U.S. Peace and Security aid to Armenia from a budgeted $5.96 million in
FY2001 to an estimated $11.53 million in FY2002, and to Azerbaijan from $3.23 million to
$11.33 million. A U.S.-financed center for de-mining opened in Armenia in March 2002.
Similarly, the State Department announced in July 2002 that 25 U.S. Special Operations troops
were assisting U.S. nongovernmental organizations in training troops in Azerbaijan in de-mining.
In April 2002, President Bush issued Presidential Determination 2002-15, making Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan eligible to receive U.S. arms exports and services in order to
“strengthen the security of the United States.”
A U.S.-Azerbaijan Security Dialogue working group has met nearly yearly since 1996 to discuss
mutual security concerns. According to Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov, a March 2006
meeting discussed anti-terrorism, non-proliferation, and energy security cooperation, Azerbaijan’s
relations with NATO and the OSCE, the settlement of the NK conflict, and the military situation
in the Caspian region. In February 2007, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman visited
Azerbaijan and met with Aliyev and other top officials. Reportedly, discussions were held on
energy security, cooperation with NATO, and anti-terrorism assistance, among other issues, and
were termed part of an “expanded dialogue” in the wake of President Aliyev’s April 2006 U.S.
visit. Marking a U.S. emphasis on encouraging the diversity of energy supplies in Europe, thenSecretary of State Rice and Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov signed a memorandum of
understanding in March 2007 on convening annual meetings to discuss energy security.104 In July
2007, the U.S.-Azerbaijan Security Dialogue working group met and discussed “security
cooperation, energy cooperation, and promoting democracy through political and economic
reform,” with emphasis on “counterterrorism cooperation, maritime and border security
programs, nonproliferation concerns, missile defense, critical energy infrastructure protection,
Azerbaijan’s relations with NATO and related security sector reforms, and Azerbaijan’s current
chairmanship of ... GUAM.”105
In November 2009, Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro met in Washington, D.C. with
Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov for the 11th U.S.-Azerbaijan Security
Dialogue. According to Azimov, the sides discussed bilateral defense cooperation, NagornoKarabakh negotiations, Azerbaijan-NATO cooperation, contributing to Afghan stabilization
efforts, Caspian Sea security, and the future of Russia’s Gabala radar site in Azerbaijan. He stated
104
CEDR, April 2, 2006, Doc. No. CEP-950041; April 4, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950285; February 12, 2007, Doc. No.
CEP-950333; February 13, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950116; U.S. Department of State. U.S.-Azerbaijan Memorandum of
Understanding on Energy Security Cooperation in the Caspian Region, March 22, 2007.
105
U.S. Department of State. Office of the Spokesman. Joint Statement Between the Government of the United States
and the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan for the 10th Annual Bilateral Security Dialogue, July 9, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
39
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
that Azerbaijan had proposed a long list of cooperative initiatives, and that working groups would
convene to discuss the initiatives. 106
Table 1. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Basic Facts
South Caucasian State
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Total
Territory (square miles)
11,620
33,774
26,872
72,266
Population (mid-2009 est.; millions)
2.97
8.24
4.62
15.83
Gross Domestic Product (billion dollars, 2009 est., purchasing
power parity)
16.18
81.25
20.75
118.18
GDP per capita (dollars)
5,900
9,900
4,500
7,500
(Avg.)
Proven Oil Reserves (billions of barrels)
0
7 to 13
0.3
7.3 to 13.3
Proven Natural Gas Reserves (trillion cubic feet)
0
30
0.3
30.3
Size of Security Forces (Military and Police/Border Troops)
51,432
81,940
32,850
55,400
(Avg.)
Cumulative U.S. Aid Budgeted, FY1992-FY2008
(millions of $)a
1,821
832
2,108
4,761
—Peace and Security Assistance
(millions of $)a
188
240
704
1,132
FY2009 Budgeted Aid (millions of $)b
52.36
25.84
311.82
390.02
—Peace and Security Assistance
(millions of $)
12.58
5.64
41.45
59.67
FY2010 Estimated Aid (millions of $)b
45.6
28.12
78.95
152.67
——Peace and Security Assistance (millions of $)
8.92
5.41
24.38
38.71
FY2011 Requested Aid (millions of $)b
45.2
29.29
90.09
164.58
——Peace and Security Assistance (millions of $)
9.39
8.46
25.69
43.54
Sources: Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook; Department of Energy. U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Caspian Sea Region and Country Analysis Briefs; International Institute of Strategic Studies, The
Military Balance, February 2010; Department of State. Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and
Eurasia, data as of March 2010; The Secretary of State. Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations,
FY2011.
a.
FREEDOM Support Act and Agency budgets.
b.
FREEDOM Support Act and other Function 150 funds (does not include Defense or Energy Department
funding or food aid).
106
N.Bogdanova, “Azerbaijan, U.S. Develop Package of Proposals During Security Dialogue,” Trend News, November
5, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
40
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests
Table 2. Security Funds Budgeted for Armenia, Azerbaijan,
and Georgia, FY1992-FY2008
(millions of $)
Approp
Program
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Total
DOD/DOS/DOE/HHS
Global Threat Reduction
12.82
110.54
206.5
329.86
DOD
Warsaw Initiative
(Partnership for Peace)
2.51
3.09
4.51
10.11
DOD
Counternarcotics
0
3.07
0
3.07
DOD
Sec. 1206: Counter-Terrorism &
Train & Equip
0
1.744
11.447
13.191
DOD
Sec. 1207: Law Enforcement, Border
Security, Shelter Winterization,
Technical Asst.
0
0
50.0
50.0
DOE
Material Protection, Controls &
Accounting
9.5
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.