Conflict between the states of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) has not stopped since the ceasefire between them in May of 1994. The history of the conflict can date back even further to the end of WWI, or culturally even further than that with the history between cultures in the context of the Russian Czarist Empire (Crisis Group, 2007). For Armenia, the issue is one of self-determination for the ethnic majority Armenians living in the region. For Azerbaijan, it is an issue of territorial integrity (Crisis Group, 2007) because while the region is de facto independent, it is internationally recognized as being part of Azerbaijan. Russia and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) have been the main third parties involved in trying to broker a peace settlement between the two, but have been largely unsuccessful (Herzig, 1999). Any effective solution to managing this conflict would have to take careful consideration of many things including the historical nature of the conflict, the ever increasingly complex relationships between not only the parties involved in the conflict but third party states and NGOs, and the hostile atmosphere between Armenia and Azerbaijan which has only increased in recent years due to vitriol rhetoric, border clashes and arms races.
According to Croissant (1998) origins of the animosity between Armenia and Azerbaijan developed under czarist Russian control, but also had much to do with the relationships with the Ottoman Empire. Pan-Turkism, a nationalist movement at the end of the nineteenth century, became popular ideology amongst Azeris, and it increased hostility against Armenians. It did this in two ways, the first was the racist nature of the ...
... middle of paper ...
...risis Group: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/187_nagorno_karabakh___ris
Crisis Group. (2011, February 08). Armenia Azerbaijan: Preventing War. Retrieved from Crisis Group: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/caucasus/B60 Armenia and Azerbaijan --- Preventing War.pdf
Croissant, M. (1998). The Aremnia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. Westport: Praeger.
Danielyan, E. (2011, Janurary 19). Armenia Displays Sophisticated Air Defense Systems. Eurasia Daily Monitor.
Herzig, E. (1999). The New Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. London: Chatham House Papers.
Kambeck, M. &. (2013). Europe's next avoidable war: Nagorno-Karabakh. Palgrave Macmillian.
United States Institue of Peace. (1992). Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh: State Sovereignty vs. Self-Determination. Peace and Conflict in Emergent States: The Transcaucasus.
International politics as one may imagine includes foreign affairs. This is why the topic and focus of this paper revolves around the current event within Eastern Europe. It will focus on both Russia, Ukraine, and the world, and from it, it will be analyzed by using the resources provided within class. After all it is a International Politics course, and one of the best ways to effectively put the skills and knowledge to use is to focus on an event or current event. The paper will attempt to go over in a chronological order of the events that has happened, and what is happening currently over in Ukraine. Afterwards, an analyzed input will be implemented providing reasoning behind Russia's actions, and actions of the world, and potentially some solutions.
Beecroft, Rachel H. "Armenian Genocide." World Without Genocide. William Mitchell College of Law, 6 Aug. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. .
In a recent White House brief, President Obama called the Russian invasion of Crimea a clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law. When assessing the Russo-Ukrainian crises in Crimea, the commander of European Command (EUCOM) and the Supreme Allied Commander of European Forces (SACUER) must account for U.S. interests in the region before deciding a proper course of action. This essay aims to assess four of the United States’ national interests through the perspective of EUCOM and SACUER. The first section will outline the role of EUCOM and SACUER in the European region and assess the overall problem of Russia invading Crimea. The second section will outline four of the United States’ national interests at stake: international order, trade and economic prosperity, energy supply, and freedom of the seas. In doing so, this assessment of U.S. interests in Crimea supports the options of non-intervention and a non-provocative stance in order to maintain long-term stability because the Russian invasion has only violated peripheral interests of EUCOM and SACUER.
"Peacekeeping and Peacemaking." Reading and Remembrance . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. . (tags: none | edit tags)
Kagan, Donald. On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday, 1995.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Gunter, Michael M. Armenian History and the Question of Genocide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
In conclusion, the organized manner in which the Armenian genocide was carried out made it easy for the Ottoman Empire to rationalize their actions. Since an act of genocide is very calculated only a government has the resources to carry it out. In case of the Armenian genocide the Ottoman Empire’s strong military facilitated the murders that occurred. The actions of the Ottoman Empire were rationalized as the preservation and purification of Turkish nationalism. Majority of Armenian diaspora communities came as a result of the Armenian genocide. The denial of the Armenian Genocide is still an issue till this day.
Ethnic Armenians have resided in the Middle Eastern region of the world since approximately 3500 BC. Armenians lived and still live in many Middle Eastern countries such as Armenia, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Azerbaijan, and the republic of Georgia. Armenians have their own language and alphabet and have a very unique culture, which has set them apart from other countries and ethnic groups. In 300 AD, there was not a single nation who had Christianity as their national religion. “Following the advent of Christianity, Armenia became the very first nation to accept it as the state religion.” Armenian pride in their culture and way of life never wavered, even throughout being conquered by different nations. Armenian lands were taken over by many different nations on several different occasions, but they finally ended up in the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s, when ...
Studying the factors that went into the Armenian genocide not only gives us an understanding of a historical moment but also provides us with the knowledge for finding out if the mass murders actually occurred. Did the Armenian genocide really happen? Or is it all just a myth? The history that comes with the Armenian genocide is a victim of historical distortion, state-sponsored falsification, and deep divisions between the Armenians and the Turkish people (Mustafa 1). In 1915, it was said that leaders of the Turkish government set in motion a plan to expel and massacre Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. However, the Turkish government does not acknowledge these events, in fact it is still illegal in Turkey to discuss what happened to the Armenians (History.com Staff 1). The elimination of the Armenians was the model of modern genocide, the act in which a certain state adopts a scheme geared to the destruction of a group of its own citizens (Gust 1). In order to understand why the Turks continue the denial of being involved in the criminal act that was eliminating the Armenian people, we must first consider both the Armenian people and the Turkish peoples’ thoughts and knowledge of the events that took place, and only then, after extensive analysis of the evidence recovered, then we can come to a conclusion as to what really happened all those years ago.
6. Gunter, Michael M. "What Is Genocide? The Armenian Case." Middle East Quarterly. Winter 2013: SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
Imagine waking up one day to the thundering of blows given at the door telling you to “open up or be shot down.” It is the Serb police, and they are telling you that you and your whole family had to leave your home immediately. This is how it went for many Albanian people during what some Serb extremists called “demographic genocide.” This was the beginning of what many would call the Kosovo War, and it lasted from March to June 1999. After NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, something strange happened. Now the people being victimized were the Serbs and anyone who was “friendly” to them. In this paper, I will speak about what happened before and after the war in Kosovo.