الگوهای دوستی و دشمنی و بحران‌ها در قفقاز جنوبی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه یزد

2 کارشناس ارشد روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه یزد

چکیده

منطقۀ قفقاز جنوبی پس از جنگ سرد کانون منازعات، درگیری‌ها‌ و بحران‌ها‌ی متعدد بوده است؛ از آن جمله می‌توان به بحران‌ها‌ی قره‌باغ، اوستیای جنوبی و آبخازیا اشاره کرد. این نمونه‌ها نشانگر وجود بحران و ناامنی در این منطقه است. وجود شبکه‌ای از بازیگران هویتی در قفقاز جنوبی که بدون توجه به وابستگی‌ها‌ی هویتی در سه کشور این منطقه، جمهوری آذربایجان، گرجستان و ارمنستان پراکنده شده‌اند و هریک میان خود الگوهایی متفاوت از دوستی تا دشمنی دارند از عامل‌های اصلی بروز تنش و بحران در قفقاز جنوبی است. این نوشتار بر این اساس به‌دنبال پاسخ‌گویی به این پرسش است که الگوهای دوستی و دشمنی در منطقۀ قفقاز جنوبی چگونه است؟ و این الگوها چه تأثیری در بحران‌ها‌ و تداوم آن‌ها در این منطقه داشته است؟ برای پاسخ به این پرسش این فرضیه را مطرح می‌کنیم که در میان هویت‌ها‌ی متکثر موجود در قفقاز جنوبی با توجه به پیشینۀ تاریخی، الگوهایی متفاوت از دوستی تا دشمنی میان آنان شکل گرفته است و وجود این الگوها سبب بروز بحران‌ها‌ و تداوم آن‌ها در منطقه شده است. برای بررسی این فرضیه‌ها با تکیه بر نظریۀ هویت اجتماعی الکساندر ونت با روش «توصیفی- ‌تحلیلی» از داده‌ها‌ و اطلاعات کتابخانه‌ای، سایت‌ها‌، مقاله‌ها و منابع اینترنتی، استفاده شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Patterns of Friendship and Hostility and Crises in the South Caucasus

نویسندگان [English]

  • Elham Rasooli Saniabadi 1
  • Mojtaba Roostaei 2
1 Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yazd University
2 M.A. in International Relations, Yazd University
چکیده [English]

The region known as the South Caucasus is the geographic environment of the three non-independent countries of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. These three countries were raised after the collapse of the Soviet Union as independent countries. These three countries, in particular, the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia after the short-term experience of independence in the years 1920-1917, were for several years under Soviet Union influence. Before the collapse of the bipolar system, many of the security issues in the area were under control of the Soviet central system, and there was little room for the independence of government. But after the collapse of the system, many issues have become more and more of a challenge to the South Caucasus. This region is known for its Balkans and Eurasia because of its diverse ethnic backgrounds. The picture presented today in the Southern Caucasus in many studies is separation, ethnic and religious differences between various identities and multiple crises in the corners of the region, given the friendships and historical enmities between these identities is multiplied.
The South Caucasus region has been the focus of conflict, and crisis since the Cold War. These include the Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia crises, all of which indicate a crisis and insecurity in the region. The existence of a network of identity actors in the South Caucasus, disregarded by identity identities in the three republics of the region, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, each of which has different patterns of friendship and hostility, are among the main causes of tension and crisis in the South Caucasus. Based on this, the research seeks to answer these questions: How are friendship and hostility patterns in the South Caucasus region? And how have these patterns affected the crises and their continuity in the region? The present paper assumes that among the numerous identities existing in the Southwest of Iran, according to the historical background, different patterns of friendship and hostility have been formed between them, and the existence of these patterns has led to crises and their continuity in the region.
To examine such assumptions, this essay focuses on the theoretical basis of Alexander Wendt's social identity theory. Wendt's theory is good for exploring the roots of friendship and hostility in an area where identities play a significant role. He states that identities are interacting with each other, and these interactions play an important role in shaping patterns of friendship and hostility. In other words, the identity of activists does not determine anarchic conditions. These are their interactions that identify their identity, depending on their identity and the other that anarchy finds its meaning. In other words, in these interactions, signs may be exchanged, procedures can take shape and actions that lead to hostility, feelings of threat and lack of security, and may be accompanied by a different set of signs, procedures and actions Friendship, co-operation and common interests are formed. Consequently, the structure of identities and interests is not logically obtained from anarchy. In these circumstances, how the distribution of power on the calculations of governments is also dependent on a perceptional understanding of oneself and the other. That is, any increase in other strength is not considered a threat, but if another is considered an enemy, the slightest increase in his power will be considered a threat. He believes that anarchy does not have any consistent logic, and this is a "culture" or "common ideas" of the system that can provide consistency or contradiction. He divides the logic of anarchic system into three categories: Hobbes, Locke, and Kant, and explains that if Hobbes's culture dominates, governments are more involved in the conflict, if Locke’s culture dominates, both the phenomenon of co-operation and conflict arise The governments are more inclined to cooperate, and ultimately, if the Kantian culture is dominant, collaboration will prevail. In other words, in the Hobbesian model, the dominant role is hostility. The goal of "self" is to secure its own existence and to destroy or occupy (dominate) the "other". Competition plays the dominant role in the Locke's model. The rivals, like enemies, are formed on the basis of representations about "themselves" and "others" and in relation to violence. But these representations are less threatening. Contrary to the enemies, competitors expect each other to act in a way that their sovereignty is recognized. This will allow governments to derive reliable inferences about each other's mentality. In the Kantian model, dominant role is friendship and the intentions and behaviors of "self" toward the other are "peaceful".
The diverse identities of the South Caucasus over the years have shaped patterns of alienation to hostility, which have played a significant role in the emergence of major crises and tensions in the region. There is a pattern of hostility between the Armenians with the Azeris, the Armenians with the Turks, the Georgians with the Russians, the Abkhazians and the Ossetians with the Georgians, as well as the hostilities between the Azeris and the Russians and the Azeri with endeavors, and finally the patterns of friendship. The Armenian identity of the Russians as well as Armenians with the Azeris has played an important role in shaping the numerous crises in the South Caucasus.
The research method is "descriptive-analytical" which has been tried to find answers to the research questions using library data and information, as well as sites, articles and Internet resources. This paper is set up in an introduction, three sections and one conclusion. In the first section, Alexander Wendt's "Social Identity" approach will be described as a theoretical and conceptual framework of the paper. The second part will describe the various and varied identities in the South Caucasus, and finally, in the third and final section the friendship and hostility patterns in the South Caucasus and its impact on the crises and trends and their continuity in the region are examined based on the topics discussed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Crisis
  • Identity
  • Russia
  • Patterns of Friendship and Hostility
  • South Caucasus
Abdullayev, Mahir (1998), Türkiye-Azerbaycan Alakaları, Baki: Mütercim Yayınlari.
Abolhassan Shirazi, Habibollah (2008), “Georgia: from the Rose Revolution to the War with Russia, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-14 [in Persian].
Afshardi, Mohammad Hossein (2002), Caucasus Geopolitics and Foreign Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran: Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, School of Command and Headquarters of the Supreme War [in Persian].
Ahmadi, Hossein (2008), “Ethnic Challenges in the Caucasus”, Central Asia Studies and Caucasus, Vol. 14, No. 63, pp. 93-112 [in Persian].
Blank, Stephen (2015), “US Policy, Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict”, Mediterranean Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 99-114.
De Waal, Thomas (2003) Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, New York: New York University Press.
Herzig, Edmund (1996), “Armenians”, in: Graham Smith, Soviet Nationalities, Tehran: Scientific and Cultural [in Persian].
Iskandaryan, Alexander and Sergey Minasyan (2010), “Pragmatic Policies vs. Historical Constraints: Analyzing Armenia-Turkey Relations”, Available at: http://dealingwiththepast.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CI_2010-AM-TR-Relations-eng.pdf, (Accessed on: 2/9/2017).
Kalafat, Yaşar and Araz Aslanli (2009), “Türkiye Azerbaycan İlişkileri”, Içinde Türk Dış Politikası, No. 21, pp. 382-396.
Kjaernet, Heidi (2009), “The Energy Dimension of Azerbaijani- Russian Relations; Maneuvering for Nagorno-Karabakh”, Russian Analytical Digest, No. 52, pp. 1-2.
Marashlian, Levon (1991), Politics and Demography: Armenians, Turks, and Kurds in the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Zoryan Institute.
Melvin, D. (2016), “8 Things to Know about the Mass Killings of Armenians 100 Years Ago”, Available at: http://uk.reuters.com, (Accessed on: 1/9/2017).
Mercer, Jonathan (1995), “Anarchy and Identity”, International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 229-252.
Mikhelidze, Nona (2010), “The Azerbaijan-Russia-Turkey Energy Triangle and its Impact on the Future of Nagorno-Karabakh”, Instituto Affari Internazionali, Documenti 10/18, Available at: http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai1018.pdf, (Accessed on: 1/12/ 2018).
Minassian, Gaidz (2008), “Armenia a Russian Outpost in the Caucusus?”, Russia/NIS Center, Available at: https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ifri_RNV_minassian_Armenie_Russie_ANG_fevr2008.pdf, (Accessed on: 7/12/2016).
Minasyan, Sergey (2013), “Russian-Armenian Relations: Affection or Pragmatism?”, PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, No. 129, pp. 2-5.
Momeni Rad, Ahmad and Abubakr Imamov (2013), “A Look at the Legal Dimensions of the Impact of Independence of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia on Contemporary International Law”, Law, Journal of Law and Political Science, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 187-202 [in Persian].
Moshirzadeh, Homeira (2013), Evolution of International Relations Theories, Tehran: Samt [in Persian].
Naghdinezhad, Hassan and Naser Pour Ebrahim (2009), “Examining Turkey’s Policies in Central Asia and the Caucasus”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, Vol. 15, No. 68, pp. 33-57 [in Persian].
Roudik, Piter L. (2009), Culture and Customs of the Caucasus, London: Green Wood Press.
Ruinten, Sevinç (2005), Azerbaycan Türk Dövletleri ile Siyasi Elageler Sisteminde, Baki: Adiloğlu Neşriyat.
Shevardnadze, Edward (2009), Reflection in the Past and the Future, Translated by Alireza Aslani and Parvin Houzaee, Tehran: Bureau of Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [in Persian].
Soreanari, Hossein (2014), “The Relations between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia Emphasizing Russia’s Role in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict”, Azaran, Vol. 13, No. 40-41, pp. 6-24 [in Persian].
Tuiserkani, Mojtaba (2010), “An Analysis of the Dimensions and Levels of Intervention in the Geopolitical Crisis of Qarabagh”, Central Asia and Caucasus Studies, Vol. 16, No. 69, pp. 1-24 [in Persian].
Vaezi, Mahmoud (2008), Geopolitics of the Crisis in Central Asia and the Caucasus (Foundations and Actors), Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs [in Persian].
Wendt, Alexander (2005), Social Theory of International Politics, Translated by Homeira Moshirzadeh, Tehran: Bureau of Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [in Persian].
Wendt, Alexander (2007), “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, in: Andrew Linklater, Society and Cooperation in International Relations, Translated by Bahram Mostaghimi, Tehran: Bureau of Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [in Persian].
Yilmaz, Reha (2010), “Türkiye-Azerbaycan İlişkilerinde Son Döne”, Bilge Strateji, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 69-93.