Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Soviet Union Publishing Institution The Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies

1. Polyphonic Country: A Peace Zone in Georgia and South Caucasus

Author:
Irakli Zurab Kakabadze
Publication Date:
12-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Abstract:
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union the South Caucasus region has been plagued with ethnic conflicts—some of them remnants from Soviet times. Armenia and Azerbaijan are in- volved in a lengthy confrontation over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, and Georgia struggles with Russia over the two separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These conflicts have caused multiple military confrontations between different parties and are still unresolved even today. In June 1997 Johan Galtung, founder of Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO), vis- ited three South Caucasian countries in his tour to promote the “Transcend Method” of conflict transformation and to conduct collaborative workshops with the students of Tbilisi State Univer- sity, Georgia; Yerevan State University, Armenia; and Khazar University, Azerbaijan. He held a large meeting with civil society representatives at the Caucasian Institute for Peace and Demo- cratic Development (CIPDD) in Tbilisi. It was at that roundtable discussion, chaired by CIPDD director Dr. Ghia Nodia, that Galtung proposed creating a Peace Zone and a new international airport at the border area between Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia—namely at the Red Bridge area, one of the centers for regional trade for the last fifty years of the 20th century. Dr. Galtung has suggested that creating a Peace Zone in the South Caucasus was the only viable alternative to the continuous state of war and ethnic conflict. Three years later, Ambassador John W. McDonald, Chairman and CEO of the Institute for Multi Track Diplomacy, attended a conference in Tbilisi, Georgia organized by the Georgia- America Business Development Council. At the conference, Ambassador McDonald also sug- gested creating a Peace Zone in Georgia, around the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, as a way of protecting Western energy interests through peace-building and economic development. Throughout the following nine years Ambassador McDonald continued to work with different Georgian governments on the formation of Peace Zones in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In 2003 the Vice-Speaker of the Georgian Parliament, Vakhtang Rcheulishvili, came to Washington, DC to support the idea of Peace Zones in conflict regions. He met various U.S. officials like Senator Tom Harkin, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and Matthew Bryza of the National Security Coun- cil at the White House. In 2004 the new Prime Minister of Georgia, Zurab Zhvania, endorsed Ambassador McDonald’s plan for Peace Zones in conflict regions. State Minister Bendukidze and former Minister of Conflict Resolution Khaindrava were also very much supportive of this plan. After the Rose Revolution, when nonviolent protests brought down the corrupt government of Eduard Shevardnadze in November 2003, the idea of Peace Zones became a grassroots con- cept popular with certain segments of civil society and university students in Georgia. Proposals for establishing Peace Zones faced a setback when the militaristic policies of Georgian, Russian, and separatist governments led to renewed violence, and in August 2008, a full war between different parties in South Ossetia. They still remain however, one of the most promising means of breaking the cycle of violence in the South Caucasus. The purpose of this paper is to present the case for a Peace Zone in Georgia.
Topic:
Civil Society, Diplomacy, Ethnic Conflict, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

2. Deaths in Wars and Conflicts Between 1945 and 2000

Author:
Milton Leitenberg
Publication Date:
08-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Abstract:
"A Beastly Century": It was a phrase used by Margaret Drabble, a British novelist, in an address to the Royal Society of Literature in London, on December 14, 2000. But of course it was no more than a human century. In 1994, the historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote that 187 million people were "killed or allowed to die by human decision" in what he called the "short century"-a period of about 75 years from 1914 to 1991. The period chosen by Hobsbawm spanned the beginning of World War I to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Soviet occupation of its Eastern European "allies." Given that Hobsbawm is a Marxist historian, his choice of the category "by human decision" was particularly significant. However, the sum that he provided was low by just about 29 million people for the full twentieth century, during which approximately 216 million people died in wars and conflict and, in very large numbers, "by human decision." The data to support this statement are presented in the following pages and in a detailed table beginning on page 43 of this document. The purpose of this study is to provide the derivation of the numbers in that table and to briefly discuss several instances in the past decade or so when large numbers of deaths could unquestionably have been averted by international action.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Peace Studies, and War
Political Geography:
Soviet Union and London

3. Conversion at Stepnogorsk: What the Future Holds for Former Bioweapons Facilities

Author:
Sonia Ben Ouagrham and Kathleen M. Vogel
Publication Date:
02-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Abstract:
This study examines the ongoing efforts to convert a former biological weapons (BW) facility in Stepnogorsk, Kazakhstan. The facility, known in the Soviet period as the Stepnogorsk Scientific and Experimental Production Base (SNOPB), was the USSR's largest mobilization facility dedicated to the production and weaponization of anthrax bacteria. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kazakh government has demonstrated its commitment to nonproliferation and international security by opening and providing full transparency into the facility. The Kazakh government has issued mandates for a number of restructuring changes and conversion efforts at the facility. Subsequent U.S. and international assistance have played key roles in dis- mantling the facility and redirecting its personnel to peaceful purposes. Yet, the continuing economic and political instability in Kazakhstan maintains concerns regarding the threat of proliferation involving former BW personnel from the facility.
Topic:
Security, Economics, Government, Peace Studies, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Kazakhstan, and Soviet Union

4. Disintegration and Consolidation: National Separatism and the Evolution of Center-Periphery Relations in the Russian Federation

Author:
John W. Slocum
Publication Date:
07-1995
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Abstract:
Practitioners of the late lamented science of Sovietology have been roundly criticized for failing to predict one of the most momentous events of the twentieth century—the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Anxious to avoid a repetition of past mistakes, post-Sovietologists have in turn devoted a good deal of attention to the question of whether the USSR's largest successor state, the Russian Federation, is itself in danger of breaking apart. Like the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation is a multinational state with ethnically-defined territorial subunits; political elites in these subunits, faced with massive political, economic and social uncertainty, may be attracted by the idea of political independence. During the first half of the 1990s, post-Soviet Russia has indeed experienced more than one crisis of center-periphery relations. The present study, however, suggests that the likelihood of a general disintegration of the Russian Federation peaked in the early 1990s and is now decreasing. In view of this analysis, the war in Chechnya is an exception to an overall trend toward consolidation, rather than an indicator of a general breakdown in center-periphery relations.
Topic:
Democratization, Government, and Nationalism
Political Geography:
Russia, Soviet Union, and Chechnya