DEDUCTIONS

1. Peace-making is not going through its best times. And this fact should be admitted not only in relation to the South Caucasus, but to everywhere. The effectiveness of military solutions to ethnic problems, beginning with the former Yugoslavia, creates an illusion of the lack of prospects in peaceful dialogue and grassroots diplomacy. These sentiments were consolidated even more in the wake of 9/11 and the reaction to those events from the United States and the Western alliance.

2. War is eventually waged or justified by the necessity of establishing peace. But what should this peace be like? Probably, it ought to be just, so as not to create reasons for a new war on the part of those who were deprived of justice or think that they were. If a war lays new mines under the future – we simply shift the responsibility onto the next generations.

3. The anti-terrorist operation after September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq introduced a new political rhetoric in the South Caucasus confrontation. The authorities of the three republics were trying to gain dividends by juggling terminology and obtain credit for strengthening their monopoly on the negotiating process on settling conflicts, the monopoly which deprives the grassroots diplomacy of any support.

4. A careful analyst or simply an observer familiar with the situation in the republics of the South Caucasus can unequivocally arrive at the opinion about the striking likeness of the political regimes in the states of this region. The regimes are largely preserved due to the unresolved nature of the conflicts, the presence of contradictory external interests in relation to the region, and a more or less successful balancing between these interests. There is an impression that all sides involved in the conflict or in its settlement admit the necessity of conserving the situation, further “freezing” the conflicts and this forms the illusion of the necessity to stabilize the regimes and power of their main characters. It is still difficult to say how soon these approaches will change after the recent change of power in Georgia.

5. It is quite evident that despite the existence of such a structure as the Minsk Group, the political interests and intentions of the United States, Western Europe and Russia in relation to the South Caucasus essentially contradict each other. Is it possible in these conditions to ultimately resolve the problem of the conflicts in the South Caucasus?

6. The political, economic and demographic situation in the countries of the South Caucasus is very similar: authoritarian regimes, economies agonizing in the grip of corruption and an impending demographic disaster. Today every fifth (being optimistic) or third (being pessimistic) young, able-bodied person has left the region in search of work. It is absolutely obvious that decisions regarding the South Caucasus should be complex and applicable simultaneously to all three republics. A new type of “Marshall Plan” for the South Caucasus is implied. But this is, to be more precise, first of all, political rather than economic assistance to Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia in their aspiration to be rid of the burden of totalitarian consciousness and new authoritarianism. The post-electoral situation in the three republics caused new problems without solving the old ones.

7. The political and economic situation in the region turns citizens and intellectuals into a mere appendix of the state devoid of their basic rights, an autonomy of a person, and an opportunity to influence the political life in conditions of the actual absence of guarantees of security. Any forms of self-organization of citizens into structures not dependent on the state and, especially, their attempts to influence the situation in the country and the region, cause a painful reaction of the authorities, leading to their sophisticated methods of discrediting them in the eyes of society and exercising intimidation. Such a situation has formed around the peace-making organizations in Azerbaijan today.

8. It is quite evident that the Armenians and the Azeris, as well as the Georgians, Abkhazians and the Ossetians, will either learn to live peacefully and cooperate in the region and in the places of their former common residence, or the countries will permanently be at war with each other, ruling out any prospect of the region’s advancement.

9. The integration policy of seeking peace in the South Caucasus can and must be realized. It can suggest principally different approaches based on unification and not on the division of the region into antagonistic countries, relying on different foreign forces.

10. A need is ripe to create a Forum of Intellectual Forces of the South Caucasus – a permanently acting body of cooperation of non-governmental organizations, the intelligentsia, the press and opposition groups in the region. It is especially important because there is an artificially created informational blockade in the region, dividing people and obstructing their cooperation.

11. In the long term, there is no alternative to a peaceful dialogue. However, it is necessary today to render concrete assistance to the movement for the settlement of conflicts in the South Caucasus, which is still weak, and for the recovery of mutual trust.

12. Can some “Stability Pact” become a final document for the resolution of problems of conflicts in the South Caucasus? When will the destiny of the South Caucasus be solved? Under what regimes? What is to be done with the “frozen” conflicts and uncontrolled zones? There are no clear answers to these questions yet.

13. A vital problem is the falsification of election results in the South Caucasus and the “liberal” attitude to these facts by the world’s leading powers and international organizations “justified” by the fear of “radicals” coming to power in these republics.