Media

August 28 , 2007

News Release

Contact:
Stephanie L. Tennyson
703-525-0770
stennyson [at] potomacinstitute[dot]org

Arlington , VA —Although it is not a region often thought about, the United States cannot afford to neglect the Caucasus region. America is losing the battle of hearts and minds in the neighboring countries, particularly Turkey, while fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were some of the ideas discussed at the Scholars’ Seminar on “The Caucasus and Security: The Next Phase?,” held on August 28, 2007. This timely event was hosted by the International Center for Terrorism Studies (ICTS) at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, the Inter-University Center for Legal Studies at the International Law Institute, and the Inter-University Center for Terrorism Studies. As summed up by one of the speakers, the Seminar carefully outlined that security for the Caucasus cannot be separated from larger issues such as Iraq, Iran, Russia and where Europe draws its boundary lines.

The event was chaired by Professor Yonah Alexander, the Director of the International Center for Terrorism Studies, who noted the importance of these dialogues and learning the lessons of terrorism and insurgency so as to not repeat the same mistakes. In his opening remarks, Prof. Alexander remarked that a general can defeat a prepared army, but a general cannot defeat the mind of a determined peasant. He noted that in his opinion, it is guerilla tactics we are seeing used in Iraq and other areas of the Caucasus region—the determined peasant at work. The United States must show leadership, because the role of leadership is important in shaping history.

Ambassador David Smith, Senior Fellow at the Institute and Director of the Georgian Security Analysis Center in Tbilisi addressed the group of fifty with four overarching points on security in the Caucasus region. His first point noted that this region is of vital significance to U.S. geopolitical interests. The South Caucasus region is important as part of the East-West Corridor for the flow of energy, commerce, and people. As Amb. Smith observed, this opens a door to Central Asia for strategic reach through which the ideals of democracy could proliferate because “ideas move via people,” and where democracy can take root is of interest to the United States. His second point was that America should outline a challenging agenda for the region—repairing our relations with Turkey, developing relations with the three countries of the South Caucasus, and addressing recent Russianian actions. Amb. Smith remarked that this is a complicated region, with tough problems that are interconnected; however, that should not result in “paralysis by analysis” or inaction.

Amb. Smith’s third point was that Georgia can and has made progress. Even with ongoing aggression and threats from Russia in the north, Georgia has made remarkable progress in the past four years. The lawlessness that abounds in some parts of the region should not be tolerated—“when no one is responsible, a lot can happen.” And finally, he noted that Georgia is moving closer and closer to NATO partnership and this should be encouraged. The country is moving forward with hard reforms such as judicial system reforms including judge appointments, pre-trial detention policies and other necessary steps towards democracy. He ended stating that, “bringing Georgia into NATO is the single greatest step we can take to change the world overnight.”

In his remarks, Dr. Soner Cagaptay, Director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy illustrated how the relationship between the United States and Turkey is being transformed because of the terrorist group, the PKK. Starting with an overview of the historical relationship between Iran and Turkey—including struggles for borders and the Caucasus during the 17 th century and Iraq in the 19 th century—he noted that this dynamic is changing. Dr. Cagaptay noted the strategic importance of Turkey with NATO bordering the country. He commented that the antagonistic relationship that Turkey has had with Iran has changed as a result of the Iraq war—Iran has changed its behavior. In the 1990s, Turkey had strained relations with both Syria and Iran over the PKK and good relations with the United States, who supported them in their efforts to battle the terrorist group along with Israel and Kurdistan. But now, as the American attention has turned toward Iraq and the ongoing struggle to maintain control there, and Turkish perception of the United States has declined.

Iran has seized the opportunity to make an overage to Turkey and to win their hearts—striking at PKK camps in Iran and arresting their leaders. Iran has replaced the United States as the most popular country in Turkish eyes, apart from Azerbaijan, in large part because of the now shared opposition to the PKK). Iran is taking concrete action to assist the Turks in their battle, while the Americans, who control Iraqi territory from which some PKK operate idly sits by. Dr. Cagaptay said in the Turk’s view, “the U.S. talks the talk, but Iran walks the walk.” For the next phase of security, he ended with the appeal that U.S./Turkish relations must be repaired. “Time for words is long gone by—it is time for action,” he observed.

The final scholar on the panel, Dr. Nikolas Gvosdev, Editor of the National Interest, initiated his comments with a general look at the Greater Caucasus region and the “weak states” that seem to thrive in this area. He noted that these states don’t control all their territories or the actors it their territories for various reasons. One example he gave of a weak state was Chechnya, which does what it wants with free reign. He said although Russia appeared to be a great monolith from the outside—it is not. It lacks control to the North. Dr. Gvosdev questioned, “Do we wall off the troubled areas to prevent spillover?” What is the appropriate course of action? He noted we have gone back to a September 10, 2001 situation—where we consider a bad state better than no state. He said in the first three to six months after 9/11, an act of terrorism against one state was considered an act of terrorism that threatened all states. In that period we witnessed increasing cease fires as the IRA, Tamil Tigers and others laid down arms. This has since faded and the world security view has moved to a regional security view at best. The countries of the world must take note when Russia and China conduct joint wargames. The United States and other countries should make choices—sometimes hard choices. We need to focus on priorities and create sustainable policies that can outlast administrations for the betterment of all nations.

The audience continued to engage the Scholars’ panel on various topics during the question and answer period, including the threat of nuclear power in region, the war in Iraq and the implications for the area, and the roles of India, Russia and China in the region.

Please note that these remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

______________________________________________________________________________

The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies is an independent, 501(c)(3), not-for-profit public policy research institute. The Institute identifies and aggressively shepherds discussion on key science and technology issues facing our society. From these discussions and forums, we develop meaningful science and technology policy options and ensure their implementation at the intersection of business and government.

###