Paper abstract

Today the relations between Russia and the West have seriously deteriorated against the backdrop of the Russia’s war of aggression towards Ukraine. At the same time, on 20 February 2023 the EU has officially launched its Monitoring Mission in Armenia with a two-year mandate “to contribute to stability in the border areas of Armenia, build confidence and human security in conflict-affected areas, and ensure an environment conducive to the normalization efforts between Armenia and Azerbaijan supported by the EU”. However, the establishment of an EU Mission in Armenia has been considered by Moscow as an attempt to undermine Russia’s position in the South Caucasus. According to Russia, it is a “clear geopolitical move”.

In the aftermath of the Second Karabakh war there have been two distinct mediation efforts undertaken by the Russian and the EU intermediaries towards Armenia-Azerbaijani normalization process. France and the United States have also been active in this context. This study is guided by the question of whether or not the mediation process can be effective if it is undertaken by the above-mentioned two geopolitical actors – Russia and the West - that are currently in conflict. I assume that there could be certain difficulties in regard to the outcomes of the normalization process against the backdrop of the current rivalry between the mediators.

I also argue that balance of power in the region has drastically changed since November 2020, which has also led to a sharp increase in Armenia’s dependence on external powers. Some of these powers, instead of persuading Armenia to abandon its revanchist aspirations and move further toward sustainable peace in the region, have increased their support for Armenians’ vindictive behavior that undermines the likelihood of success in the ongoing normalization process. On the other hand, certain destructive attempts undertaken by others such as the summoning of Ruben Vardanyan, Moscow‑based Russian‑Armenian oligarch to the part of Karabakh where the Russian peacekeeping contingent has been temporarily deployed, has undermined engagement in possible direct negotiations of Azerbaijani officials with Karabakh Armenians. However, with Vardanyan’s recent removal from the post of so-called “state minister”, initial steps can be taken towards the gradual reintegration of Karabakh Armenians into Azerbaijani society. At the same time, if Armenian leadership convinces the public and takes a leap of faith then peace can prevail. This research is based on desk review and latest publications on state of play.

Paper abstract

Even though formal bilateral relations were not established until 1987, the United States had multiple interactions with Mongolia after its self-declared independence from China in 1911. After Vice President Wallace’s visit in 1944 these ran the gamut from interchanges at the United Nations and its constituent organizations, occasional visits by U.S. embassy officers from Beijing and Moscow, journalists and academics, and visits by high profile individuals such as Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and scholar Owen Lattimore. For two countries with no formal ties, there was a surprising level of interaction. Yet because of the nature of their relationship, these contacts were limited, sporadic, and took a backseat to other strategic interests including relations with China and the Soviet Union.

On multiple occasions, actions undertaken by one party were misunderstood by the other. This paper will touch on the strategic impediments that delayed relations and the circumstances that had to come together just right to finally enable the normalization of relations. It does this by highlighting three specific moments in Mongol-U.S. relations and examining the misperceptions and driving political factors on each side. We begin by looking at the political dynamics that led to the post-World War II status quo in East Asia from both the Mongolian and American perspectives (including Wallace’s trip, negotiations at Yalta, and the relationship between the U.S., the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China). This is followed by an examination of attempts by both the Kennedy Administration and Moscow that were blown back by political winds. Finally, we look at the 1980s where misperceptions continued, but the circumstances were finally ripe for normalization of relations.

This paper reflects the authors’ ongoing effort to document the events that led to Mongolia’s adoption and implementation of a Third Neighbor policy. This shift in Mongolia’s strategic thinking unfolded against the backdrop of its changing relationship with the Soviet Union and the ending of 45 years of international bipolar strife. Our work builds on six years of research including a chapter in Socialist and Post-Socialist Mongolia (Routledge 2021); memories and memoirs of the American, Mongolian, Japanese, and Russian diplomats; and declassified records from the CIA and the State Department. These research paths opened additional insights and perspectives on the winding path that eventually led to diplomatic recognition and additional interactions in the waning days of the Cold War.

Paper abstract

ENHANCING REGIONAL SECURITY COOPERATION IN CENTRAL ASIA: AN ANALYSIS OF EU AND US PROGRAMS

Today Afghanistan is seen not as a source of threat but the linkage to the south for the Central Asian region due to more consolidation and wiliness to seek regional solutions to the security issues. However, the challenges posed by Afghanistan's instability require regional cooperation in the security field among Central Asian states. Regional security is a priority interest for the US and EU, making Central Asia an increasingly important partner. This paper examines EU and US official development assistance dynamics and the share of assistance to Conflicts, peace and security sector. In addition it explores how the EU and US foster regional security cooperation in Central Asia through the following regional programs: Border Management in Central Asia, and Central Asia Drug Action Program, the C5+1 Diplomatic Platform, Foreign Military Financing (FMF) Program, and Global Train and Equip (GTE) Program.

The first part of the paper overviews threats related to drug trafficking as a major regional security threat. The second part explores EU Institutions ODA to Central Asia for Conflict, Peace & Security during 2002–2020 and overviews EU Initiatives to foster regional security cooperation in the framework of BOMCA and CADAP programmes finalises it with how the EU fosters regional security cooperation in the framework of BOMCA and CADAP part. The third part delves into The US Initiatives in Central Asia for Enhancing Security Cooperation overviewing the United States ODA to Central Asia for Conflict, Peace & Security during 2002–2021 and completes with Perspectives of Experts on U.S. Initiatives Promoting Sustainable Regional Security Cooperation in Central Asia.

The paper concludes by emphasizing the potential for collaboration between the EU and US to create a more integrated and holistic approach to regional security cooperation in Central Asia.

Keywords: Regional security cooperation, US security cooperation with Central Asia, EU security cooperation with Central Asia, The EU and US cooperation in Central Asia.