Since the end of the 1980s, a conflict emerged berween Azerbaijan and Armenia over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1992 the conflict culminated into the war between these countries. Cornell (2001), in his book Small nations and great powers: a study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucaus, writes how the conflict over this territory turned to be inter-state issue as well as the casualties of the war:

The conflict has led to over twenty thousands casualties and almost one and a half million refugees, a refugee flow which has resulted in a considerable crisis especially in Azerbaijan, with the number of displaced persons numbering close to one million. Over fourteen percent of the territory of Azerbaijan is occupied, territories which have been ethnically cleansed in the course of warfare of their Azeri population by Armenian Forces. The conflict is regarded as an internal conflict by the major powers and international organizations, and the efforts of the international community to bring an end to the conflict have been half-hearted at best and exiguous at worst. The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh clearly possesses an intra-state dimension, that of the struggle for independence on the part of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, since the beginning of 1992 the conflict also possesses an inter-state dimension in the sense that it involved two sovereign states as belligerents: Armenia and Azerbaijan… p. 31. … By early 1992, the power vacuum created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the loss of the last factor containing the conflict. Thus with the imminent withdrawal of the formerly Soviet forces, Karabakh became the scene of what gradually increased to a full-scale war. The Armenian side, having prepared itself to solve the conflict through military means, did not loose any time to act. p. 61[i]

As stated above, the war outbroke just after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In fact, following the Glasnost and Perestroika policies of Gorbachev, the Soviet Union had already lost almost all its influences on its member republics. Most important fact is that people of this gigantic union themselves believed in the demise of the Soviet Union and its influence. Especially, people of Azerbaijan, after the January Massacre, done by the Red Army of the Soviet Union during the dissolution period, were among the strong believers to this demise. In these circumstances, nationalist movements became dominant in all post soviet republics. On the other hand, according to Abrahamian (1998), there always been nationalism in the Soviet Union in the form of “linguistic nationalism”, caused by the imposition of the Russian language to all Soviet republics instead of the mother tongue of each republic[ii]. Therefore, after dissolution of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict became a war between ‘Armenians’ and ‘Azerbaijanis’, or ‘Hays’ and ‘Turks’, according to Armenian nationalists of this period. Khojaly Massacre ‘performed’ by the Armenian army was the breaking point of the war making these two nations to turn to be enemies for several decades, as history approves. On the official website of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan (mfa.gov.az) the settlement process of the conflict presented by the UN and OSCE is described below:

In general, the legal and political constituent for the settlement of the conflict is based on the norms and principles of international law, laid down in UN Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 as well as in the appropriate documents and decisions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other international organizations. As mentioned above, the UN Security Council resolutions were adopted in 1993 in response to the occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan and reaffirmed respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the international borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan and all other States in the region. The Council demanded immediate cessation of all hostile acts, immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of occupying forces from all occupied regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and called for the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region, ensuring the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes. n. pag.[iii]

Until today, the settlement of the conflict is very (if not the most) significant issue in both domestic realm and the foreign policies of both countries. In this article, public opinion in Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its effects on Azerbaijan’s foreign policy will be briefly analyzed.

PUBLIC OPINION IN AZERBAIJAN ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT, IT’S IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY, AND OPINION-POLICY CONNECTION ON THE CONFLICT

1. 1. Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict as ‘Bread and Butter’ Issue in Domestic Realm

After the January Massacre, and the following declaration of independence followed by dropping the term ‘Soviet Republic’ from its name, Azerbaijan entered into the most difficult phase of its history, where social, economic and political upheavals waited for it.

Firstly, Karabakh War detoriorated the social life in all aspects and throughout the whole country. In addition to dead bodies of soldiers ‘went’ to all cities and villages, the people(now, refugees) displaced from their motherland, Dağlıq(Nagorny) Karabakh, flowed to all regions, especially to big cities of Azerbaijan. According to the report of Chloe Arnold (2002), Baku-based BBC correspondent, until the ceasefire established in 1994, ”an estimated 17,000 people had been killed, another 50,000 had been wounded, and 1.2 million had been forced from their homes. Today, many of the 100,000 Azeris who fled their villages in Nagorno-Karabakh are still living in abandoned railway cars, mud-brick houses, and tents”. Considering the size of population in Azerbaijan which approximately was 7 million(The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan), it is obvious that the number of refugees which was over 1 million created deep social concerns in Azerbaijan. The refugees could not adapt to the ‘new life’ in another lands, and local people did not get well along refugees because they had to share already scarce resources with newcomers. For this and many another reasons, people felt such bitter consequences of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on everywhere in daily life.

Moreover, economic life was as collapsed as demographic situation. Economy had already been collapsed as a result of the Soviet dissolution. According to the World Bank report (2002), “Most of the formerly Soviet states began the transition to a market economy in 1990-1991 and made efforts to rebuild and restructure their economic systems, with varying results. The process triggered a severe transition decline, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) dropping by more than 40% between 1990 and 1995”[iv]. In addition to this, the unexpected and huge migration caused by Nagorno-Karabakh War paralyzed the already deteriorated economy. Inflation and unemployment were at the top of the problems and the public opinion on this issue was formed in a way that all the guilt for the current situation was seen on the Karabakh War, and its initiator-Armenia.

Furthermore, political situation in Azerbaijan was negatively affected by the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Ayaz Mutallibov, the head of the state since September 8, 1991, resigned from his post on March 6, 1992, under the pressure of Azerbaijan Popular Front (leader of which was Elçibey) due to failure in defending Khojaly and giving an opportunity to Armenian army to realize a genocide in Khojaly. The national presidential elections were held on June 7, 1992, and Elçibey was elected the President of Azerbaijan Republic by gaining over 50% of votes.[v] The same issue of Karabakh War made Elçibey also to resign from presidency, and apart from Karabakh issue, there was a threat of civil war in the country. It was not until 1996 the stability and order was established in Azerbaijan under the presidency of Haydar Aliyev. Political landscape, however, were the same throughout this period. Settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict were the first priority of these three governments although Mutallibov was communist while Elçibey and Aliyev rejected communism.

1. 2. Weight of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in Azerbaijan’s Foreign Policy

Generally, since the independence of Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh issue and its settlement have always been among the top priorities of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy. In their speeches, Azerbaijani officials, including president and foreign minister, always claimed about the opportunities that both Armenia and Azerbaijan could benefit if the conflict resolved within the frames of the integrity of Azerbaijani territories, that is, after Armenia’s withdrawal of its army from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Elmar Mammadyarov, Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, in his article published on Wall Street Journal (2008), once again emphasized the importance of the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict not only for the parties of conflict but also for the region:

The current market price for oil and gas is high and we should be able to maximize the economic potential of our strategic resources. The unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, however, threatens the security of the existing pipeline infrastructure, preventing us from optimizing the region’s energy trade with Europe. For us in Azerbaijan this will impede economic growth, which has been averaging around 30% in the past few years. n. pag.[vi]

Above, in the excerpt, again it can be seen that official Azerbaijan wants to return its territorries at any cost and without any compromise. This is the real proof of the huge impact of public opinion on the foreign policy.

The question emerges: How it is possible for public opinion to have such huge links with  foreign policy on this issue?

1. 3. A Multiaxial Evaluation of the link between Foreign Policy and Public Opinion on Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

Nagorno-Karabakh issue, in general, is one of the issues which are difficult to be categorized as an issue solely belonging to domestic or foreign policies. It is for this reason that opinion-policy linkage on Karabakh issue is so huge and ‘fresh’. Therefore, it would be mistake to comment this issue without considering the socio-economic and political factors affecting this links. Based on ‘a Multiaxial Assessment of Policy Climate in Mediating Opinion-Policy Connections’ proposed by Shiraev and Sobel (2003), the link between opinion and policy can be analyzed by several dimensions and axes. There are two dimensions affecting the opinion-policy linkage. First one is ‘basic socio-economic and political factors’ which include two axes, namely, ‘political institutions and communications’ and ‘political landscape’. Second dimension is ‘basic cultural and psychological factors’, again which includes two axes, namely, ‘general socio-cultural variables’ and ’contextual and situational factors’[vii]. In order to clarify the affect of these dimensions and axes on opinion-policy linkage in Nagorno-Karabakh issue, on the Graph 1 the case is shown graphically.

Graph 1 – Analysis of impact of  several factors on foreign policy-public opinion connection on the issue of Nagorno Karabakh conflict

CONCLUSION

Considering the historical, political, social and economic factors on Nagorno-Karabakh issue and the policy-opinion connection on this issue, the following conclusions can be drawn.

First, the history made this conflict escalate into the war in which hundred thousands were killed and over a million people were internally displaced. Second, political life during the early independence period was full of upheavals and instability; however, the political atmosphere on the Karabakh issue has always remained unchanged. This is mainly because of the fact the public opinion has remained unchanged on the issue. Third, socio-economic factors were very effective in the process of opinion forming. The war was considered to be the father of all social and economic upheavals in the country. Fourth, the attention was drawn to the fact that on issues like Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where it is not possible to categorize the issue solely as domestic or foreign, opinion-policy linkage is very huge because public opinion has great impact on foreign policy.

Jamil Islamov

[ii] Abrahamian, L. (1998, 08 01). Mother Tongue: Linguistic Nationalism and the Cult of Translation in Postcommunist Armenia. Berkeley, USA. Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9cm4d9vn

[iii] Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (tarih yok). Republic of Azerbaijan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved on June 12, 2010, from http://www.mfa.gov.az/eng/khojaly_en/index.php

[iv] The World Bank. (2002). Transition: The First Ten Years – Analysis and Lessons For Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington. DC.

[v] Academic dictionaries and encyclopedias.http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/42307

[vi] Mammadyarov, E. (2008). The Caspian Moment. Wall Street Journal , 4.

[vii] Sobel, R., & Shiraev, E. (2003). International Public Opinion and the Bosnia Crisis. Lanham: Lexington  Books.

All these are the “small results” of water shortage and possible solutions to them. But we should not forget the most dangerous possibility that is a “war for water” possibility. We saw some examples not as a war but as diplomatic disputes in recent years. The problems between Turkey-Syria-Iraq and Egypt-Sudan exemplify these disputes.

Doing a full-scale irrigation or building full-scale dams on a river, which is being used by more than one countries, result in increase of one of the countries’ prosperity and living standards but result in decrease of the another countries’ ecologic and economic standards. Moreover, the usage of water resources in high rates by up-stream riparian country results in shortage in the rate of potable water and irrigation water and even in drought in down-stream riparian countries. Also, building of dams and barrages by the countries in the places, where the water enters their lands may cause in spates and flooding in the lands of riparian and neighbor countries.

All these problems and possibilities inspire countries, which have water shortage or have possible problems to meet in the same point: to get on well together and to accord. If a possible war is the result, which is not wanted, communion and sharing are the only choices. The relations between states and condition in the region are pregnancy to a war. To decrease the disputes and to achieve the regional peace should be the main aim of the states.

Nail ELHAN

Thus, there is nothing new in the fact that Yemen is an ideological outpost of so-called radical Islamism. Why, then, there is such a surge of emotion towards Yemen?

It is very simple. The vertical power in Yemen dramatically weakened in recent times. Now, the government is unable to effectively maintain a power balance on Islamists, as it previously did. Now it already became barely legal to send militants to Iraq. Moreover, the previous mechanism by which mullahs and shaikhs were successfully “fed up” was ceased to work. Finally, after the death of “spiritual father” of Yemeni Moslems, Sheikh Ahmar, who is the founder of Islamist Islah Party, there began schism in the party(between the moderate and radical thinkers). The economic situation, which was already poor in the region, has deteriorated, which contributed financial crisis and decrease in oil prices. In the meantime, there is a revival of southern Yemeni separatists and Zaydis(strong Shia community in Yemen)

In addition, no one can deny that events in Afghanistan and Iraq contributed to recruitment of a large number of volunteer Yemeni fighters who were following the path of “being shahid”. However, it seems there emerged “brand new community” consisted of escapees of those volunteers who were previously following the path of “shahid”. Now, they also demand their “share of a cake”. I believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq themselves have become the new stimulator in the revival of old radical Islamists and radicalizing the young population in the country. In such circumstances, Yemen shows resemblances with Morocco for being one of the main cores for recruitment of “infantry militants”.

It is obvious that Yemen’s army is not in a condition(neither physically nor mentally) to contain and control the situation in the country. So Washington started to feel that the case is gradually becoming to be one more “Talibanistan” for the U.S.. Question rises as whether Yemen is the next to get “democracy” from the U.S. army. Nevertheless, for President Barack Obama, war in Yemen, is, at least, an undesirable situation.

For the time being, it seems that the White House and State Department themselves do not know what to do. Hence, “the U.S. military launched cruise missiles … against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen”, as ABC news reported. The U.S. and Britain were first among many countries that closed their embassies in Yemen.

January 28, in Britain, a faithful ally of the U.S., Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for an international meeting to discuss how to confront Al-Qaeda and overall radicalization in Yemen, and this event, in my opinion, again is the evidence of confusion and lack of a clear strategy for the Yemeni question of Washington. Although it is too early to consider this event as complete complication, as far as I observed, it is not going to draw a new strategy neither for the U.S. nor Britain.

For now, what is clear is that the U.S. will not send troops to Yemen, firstly, due to lack of them, indeed. Washington, obviously, feared the reaction of the Yemen, even in the hypothetical possibility of such a step. Identified as Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the U.S. Treasury department, Al-Zindani, head of the al-Islah political movement in Yemen, loudly declared that in the case of the U.S. intervention, jihad will be initiated. I think Washington agrees with him in this regard. After all, subject country is Yemen where weapons of any modifications can be purchased at city markets like tomatoes. By taking these facts into account, one can feel a smell of a guerilla war, which poses a real threat by transferring instability to its neighbour, Saudi Arabia, where the position of immigrants from Yemen is economically strong.

Considering the “transparency” of the Saudi-Yemeni border, which is proved to be “transparent” in Saudi Army’s fighting against Yemeni Zaydis-the Houthis in 2004, this possible guerilla war would not be easy for the U.S. to deal with.  By the way, as spokesman of Somalian terrorist group of al-Shabab(which is considered to have close links with Al-Qaeda) told the BBC, they(Al-Shabab) are successfully exchanging militants and weapons with their Yemeni “brothers”.

Conclusion of beginning

For now, it seems the Yemeni problem of Washington is quite unexpected both for the U.S. and the world. Nevertheless, the Washington is “guilty” for the circumstances: it did not change Saleh when it was possible, maybe hoping “he could handle it”. “He could not”…

Jamil Islamov

Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is bordered by Egypt to the north, the Red Sea to the northeast, Eritrea and Ethiopia to the east, Kenya and Uganda to the southeast, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic to the southwest, Chad to the west and Libya to the northwest. Despite of the drought of Africa, the White Nile and the Blue Nile intersect in the territory of Sudan so it has also strategic importance, in terms of  water. Sudan has variety of religion and ethnicity with its 35 million populations and ethnic groups speaking languages and dialects more than 400. Furthermore, Africa, especially Sudan, is important strategic region keeping natural resources such as oil, uranium, natural gas and copper. Not only being the most important supplier of oil to other countries in the region, but also having fourth copper and third uranium resources of the world provide strategic and geopolitical significance to Sudan among the other countries in the Africa.

Where is Darfur and what is its significance?

Darfur, as wide as France, is the western part of Sudan’s vast deserts and barren land with 6 million population. Most of the people living in Darfur, divided into three distinct regions as north, middle and south, are black Africans. Generally, Muslims and Arabic people are dominant in the region. These characteristics of the region have been seen for years, but the name of Darfur began to be heard mostly for last decade. What is happening in the critical area?  What made Darfur crisis one of the most complicated contemporary problems in the world? The basic answer of these questions is that number of international, regional and local actors acting in Darfur area and increase in actions of these actors are motivating chaos in the region. In order to deeply analyze Crisis in Darfur, firstly we should examine why, when and between whom crisis began in western part of Africa…

Darfur Crisis

War in Darfur started in February 2003 in Darfur, Sudan. Sudan Liberation Army and Justice and Equality Movement took up arms, accusing the government of oppressing black Africans in favor of Arabs. While the one side composed of the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, recruited mostly from the Afro-Arab tribes of the northern  region in Sudan, the other side consisted of the rebel groups, notably the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement, recruited primarily from the non-Arab and Muslim people and other ethnic groups. The Sudanese government is accused of providing financial assistance to the militia, and of participating in joint attacks targeting civilians.

USA has described the conflict as genocide, but the UN has not recognized the conflict as such. On 31 January 2005, the UN released a report saying that while there were mass murders and rapes of Darfur civilians, they could not namel the events as “genocide” because “genocidal intent appears to be missing”. However, many activists refer to the crisis in Darfur as genocide, including the Save Darfur Coalition and the Genocide Intervention Network.

The Sudan Liberation Movement, led by Minni Minnawi, signed a peace agreement with the Sudanese government in May 2006. After that, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1706 which called for a new 26,000-troop UN peacekeeping force called UNAMID to supplant or supplement a poorly funded and ill-equipped 7,000-troop African Union Mission in Sudan peacekeeping force on 31 August 2006. Sudan strongly objected to the resolution and said that it would see the UN forces in the region as foreign invaders. The following day, the Sudanese military launched a major offensive in the region.

The UN mission accused Sudan’s government of taking part in “gross violations” in Darfur and called for urgent international action to protect civilians there in March 2007.

The prosecutor at the ICC filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, charges that included three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity, and two of murder on 14 July 2008. The ICC’s prosecutors have claimed that al-Bashir “masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part” three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity. On 4 March, 2009 the ICC issued an arrest warrant for president al-Bashir, without the genocide charges, claiming they lacked sufficient evidence.

In February 2010, Peace Agreement was signed between Sudanese Government and  Justice and Equality Movement. However, other rebel groups rejected to sign a peace agreement. This agreement was hoped to stop the war in the region and cause the peace in critical area.

Background of the Darfur Crisis

Thus far events mentioned are reflections through media to the world. On the other hand, there is also invisible side of the crisis which is essential cause of the conflict. Crisis reflected as Darfur Crisis does not show realities in the area because draught and economic underdevelopment lead to conflict and disagreement between tribes. Traditional tribal clashes are absolutely acting important role in the shaping the crisis, however, actual responsible for actions are imperialist powers causing ethnic and religious rebellions and supporting rebel groups.

Imperialism with the support of media shows the situation in Sudan as genocide against the Africans by Arabic people and conflict between Muslims and Christians (despite few numbers) to the world. They distorted realities in Darfur case. It means that Western media reflects Arabs as ‘evil’ and there is a division and hard conflict between Africans and Arabic people although draught and economic underdevelopment creates traditional conflicts. This scenario is not strange for us. The logic in the case is simple: Imposing idea of genocide facilitates military intervention in Sudan as we saw in the other regions in the last years. If USA uses this tactic successfully other parts of the world (Iraq), why does not it want to take over resources of Darfur with this tactic?

According to Sudan Research Center, International Criminal Court is a Guantanamo where only Africans were condemned. Court has not imposed any sanctions on USA and other big powers. They only judge Sudan and other African countries despite they did not apply anything against USA due to the crimes in Iraq invasion.

Current Situation

People are dying all over the world because of the starvation or wars. However, in Darfur, people have died for several years because of not only wars, but also the starvation.. Rape, death, drought and famine are continuing in this poor African country and world is continuing to keep silent to this savagery. Nowadays, last events and peace agreement began to give hope, expected for long years, to the people in Darfur, also sensible people in the world…Case will be continued…

Gülşah ASLANTÜRK