Suchergebnisse

The dramatic change that took place after the end of the Cold War has brought conceptual changes in the literature of International Relations. Security and stability are two such concepts which were affected on a major scale from this change. 1 In this period, new elements like regional and ethnic conflicts, human rights, religious fundamentalism, international terrorism, economic problems, illegal trafficking of drugs and weapons gained threat status. The South Caucasian region represents one of the most diverse and conflict-ridden regions in the world. It includes the three former Soviet states of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as numerous ethnic minorities and small nations within these states. Three kinds of rivalries have been observed in the region since their independence: Firstly, between the regional states like Turkey, Iran and Russia, secondly between the South Caucasian states themselves and thirdly between nations within the states. 2 These rivalries have become extremely complex, especially since the involvement of the U.S. from the mid-1990s. Each of these states, while trying to influence the dynamics of regional developments, developed policies based on various historical, economic, ethno-linguistic and cultural factors. However, as mentioned before, the main factors that allowed external powers to get a foothold in the region were the continuing regional conflicts, on the one hand, and energy resources, on the other. 3 The conflict of political and economic interests among these powers prevents a solution to the instability in the region. The first of the ethnic conflicts which are the main reason for this instability occurred in the Armenian populated enclave Nagorno-Karabakh located within the territorial boundaries of Azerbaijan. The two other conflicts occurred in Georgia, between the Georgian central authorities of Tbilisi and the autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In all the three cases, ceasefire agreements were reached without final settlements.

The clashes in the ethnic regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not only about Georgia's territorial integrity. Moreover, when analyzed from a different perspective, it becomes clear that the ethnic problems in the region are not only an issue between the ethnic groups and the central government. The ethnic problems in Georgia also depend on a change in the perception of the external actors' interests. This means that when the solution to problems coincided with the interests of the international actors, Georgia was able to solve the problem, as in the case of Ajaria. However, when the solution contradicted the interests of the international actors the clashes could not be resolved and the Georgian government was ineffective, as in the cases of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The clashes determined not only the domestic policy of the Georgian government and the country's social and economic development, but also Georgia's foreign policy. Consequently, in order to strengthen its position and maintain its territorial integrity, Georgia shifted to the EU-U.S. axis in order to counterbalance Russia, which supported the ethnic minorities in the region. So it was argued that the democratic breakthrough in Georgia in 2003 happened because the local activists appealed to EU norms and standards and because they received strong support from the EU and its member states. Moreover, the EU supported the multilateral efforts to constrain the use of force through arms control and disarmament initiatives and provided financial and technical assistance to projects aimed at combating the accumulation and spread of small arms in Georgia and South Ossetia. The EU set up a rule-of-law operation in Georgia, the EUJUST Themis operation (July 2004), which was not a military mission. Georgia views its relations with the EU as an economic and political partnership that will culminate in EU membership in due course. In 2004, the EU and NATO expanded into the former Soviet expanse. The Russians regarded NATO membership of the Baltic countries as an encroachment on the country's traditional periphery. The Russian leadership was alarmed by the West's active support of the regime change in Georgia. The West was keenly interested in Russia's own neighborhood. As the primary Western security organization, NATO epitomizes Russia's insecurities. The first part of the study describes the theoretical framework of governance and explains the management, coordination, and regulation procedures practiced by the security-related international institutions. The second part discusses the Georgian crisis and its historical background, to provide a better understanding of the crisis, and analyzes the interests of the international actors that triggered the crisis. The third part takes a look at the programs being implemented by international institutions with respect to Georgia. The concluding part evaluates the roles and impact of the international institutions during the crisis.

AbstractAhmet Davutoğlu became the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2009, the second term of Justice and Development Party (JDP) government, and he is regarded as the architect of the JDP's foreign policy since 2002. During his term, Turkey has pursued an active and multi-dimensional foreign policy. The model of Davutoğlu in explaining the Turkey's multi-dimensional foreign policy is the bow and arrow analogy. Accordingly, he argues that Turkey, with its ideational and geographical advantages, is an archer, and the more it draws the back of the bow through the East, the farther the arrow flies West. However, the gap between theory and reality undermines the consistency of Davutoğlu's foreign policy formulation.