“Common House of Caucasus”: History and Modernity

07.05.2008

Image Hijran Guseynova, Chairman of Azerbaijan’s State Committee for Problems of Family, Women and Children took part in the Global Forum on Human Trafficking.

Azeri, Georgian and Chechen diplomacy have a historical role in realization of an idea “common house of Caucasus” which is a result of a severe struggle for integrity of Caucasus. Caucasus with its geo - ethnic - political features is one of the unique regions of the world; over 40 million people representing 128 ethnicity live in this territory of 440.700sq km.1.

However from the beginning of 1990s when the republics of Caucasus declared their independence, this area of geopolitical importance turned into the hurricane of ethnic-political conflicts. Thus, exactly at this time the almost forgotten idea of “Common house of Caucasus” was recalled and this was not an accident. The conflicts with national origins could be solved only with joint efforts. Existing scientific publications concerning the idea of “Common House of Caucasus” identify M. A. Rasulzade as the author of this idea. However, the root of the issue goes back to the beginning of the 19th century and should be searched among the viewpoints of educators of Caucasus, because the theoretic - political ground is necessary for the emergence of the idea, and such ground displayed from the end of 19th century. A notorious Azeri immigrant Mirza Bala Mammedzade, by linking the idea of “Common House of Caucasus” with immigration, wrote: “…Azerbaijani intellectuals were at the pursuit. Therefore a new wave of immigration began. These emigrants alongside with other nations of Caucasus – Muslims and Turks – captives of Russians, struggled in the name of liberation of our Motherland in both Turkey and various centers of Europe… Selim Behbud bey who was in the service of the “Caucasian committee” succeeded to set up secret relations with Baku and Karabakh national organizations and with some political purposes he landed on the shores of Caucasus on the board of a submarine and soon entered Azerbaijani territory. It was at a time of “Caucasian committee”, when volunteers from Azerbaijan secretly started to flow into the Turkish army”.2

One of researchers Kh. Ibrahimli wrote that immigrants from Caucasus under the leadership of Turkish marshal Fuad pasha established an organization called “Caucasian committee” in 1915. The purpose of the organization was to acquaint the world community with problems of Caucasian nations and their struggle fo r independence. The fact that organization was headed by high - ranking military official of Turkish army shows how serious was the approach to this issue in Turkey. A special Presidium was created to manage the organization and Salim Bey Behbudzade from Azeri emigrants represented Azerbaijan.3

Turkish patronage over this organization during the World War I indicated about the Turkey’s strategic plans concerning Caucasus. It is not an accident that in December of the same year special envoys, sent by Presidium, visited Berlin and Vienna palaces and introduced the plans of establishment of a confederate state together with the idea of “Free Caucasus” to the ruling elite of Germany and Austria - Hungary.4

After the fall of the Romanov dynasty the Caucasian deputies of All-Russian Constituent Congress united in Transcaucasian Seym (Assembly) (February 23 - May 26, 1918), this was the first experience in integration of Caucasus, on April 22, 1918 was declared independent federative republic, and on April 26 Transcaucasian government was established.5 As a result of anti - integration activity three republics emerged instead of “Transcaucasian Seym”: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Republic of Highlanders was founded in North Caucasus. The failure of the last meeting of “Transcaucasian Seym” on May 26, 1918 was connected with following decisions: as a result of divergent viewpoints among the nations of the “Seym” concerning peace and war, and failure of creation of a mighty state which could speak out on behalf of all nations, division of “Transcaucasian Seym” should be considered as a fact despite constant foreign threat (Denikin , Baku commune , Bolsheviks).6

The idea of integration was reflected in the program of the party “Musavat”7, which was accepted in 1917 as “confederate alliance”, later on it was also reflected in demands of Azeri envoys to Paris Peace Conference.

The program of Azeri envoys stated: “Azerbaijani Republic is ready to start warm relationships with its old neighbors – Georgians, Armenians, and North-Caucasians; all Caucasian nations have common interests in different spheres and especially in economic cooperation. Surrounded by the Black and Caspian Seas and Caucasus Mountains, the region turns into the unique unity not only geographically, but also economic and political unity could be expedient. And the best form of such unity of the Caucasian states is confederation of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and North - Caucasians. Supporters of the Caucasian confederation – Azeris and North Caucasians consider this type of unity as the best way of avoidance of ethnic and territorial hostilities.”8 The idea of Confederation was positively accepted by participants of Paris Peace Conference and especially by US President W. Wilson, and surveillance over the confederation of one of the great powers under the mandate of League of Nations was identified as the only real way out.9 Besides all, just before the soviet occupation Georgia and Azerbaijan on July 27, 1919 endorsed military - political alliance 10, while Armenia, as now, acted destructively. It was not accidental that the lack of military cooperation facilitated the occupation of Transcaucasia by 11th Russian Army.

After the sovietization the idea of Caucasian unity was accepted by Bolsheviks and actualized in a specific for manner. The first step in realization of this plan was separation of Northern Caucasus from Southern i.e. independence of the Highlanders’ Republic, gained in 1918, was eliminated, in 1921 this land became Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Highlanders, and by 1924 it became a part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR)11, which put an end to the idea of independent Northern Caucasus.

Reviewing the experience of Transcaucasian Seym Bolsheviks had to accept formal independence of the republics, although they tried to establish a federate state. According to these facts, three purposes were pursued:

1. Establishment of centralized governance system to be facilitated by presenting vague “independence” to the republics.

2. Establishment of economic model of Caucasus; it was planned to revitalize Georgia and Armenia at the expense of Azerbaijan’s resources.

3. Ceasing national-ethnic conflicts, settlement of territorial disputes. It is not a surprise that V. Lenin proposed to transform the Caucasus into an economic unity as one of the ways of preventing geo-ethnic tensions and reviving the Caucasian economy.12 Created on March 12, 1922, the Transcaucasian Soviet Federate Socialist Republic existed until 1936 and its structure resembled a Bolshevik institution. However the experience of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Transcaucasia13 can not be ignored. The struggle around the realization of this idea was reflecting clashes of ideas in Caucasus. Naturally such implementation of the idea of “Common house of Caucasus” could not satisfy Caucasians perished in the struggle for independence. The long struggle of Caucasian immigrants resulted in creation of the Committee of Caucasian sovereignty in 1927 in Poland. Azerbaijan was represented by M.A. Resulzade and M.E. Mehdiyev; Georgia – by N.Jordania, A.Chkhenkeli, A.Asantnani, S.Mdivani; North Caucasus – by M. Sunshev and I.Chumshov.14

By the end of 1920s the idea of Pan-Europe and was living its heyday. Caucasian intellectuals were trying to involve Armenians in the work of the committee. “New Caucasus” magazine played a significant role in promotion of the idea of Caucasian unity. The first issue of the magazine explicitly described its purpose in the program article: “While thinking over the e, we imagine the beautiful land between Caspian and Black seas, the rich region pursued by ancient Greeks, a century long struggle of Shamil full of victories and failures, courageous defense of Javad khan and immediate use of chance in restorationof independence, revolts arisen for independence in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Northern Caucasus, sacrifices recall the struggle of Prometey and eagle”.15

The new step in the way of creation of united Caucasus was made in 1934 when the Pac of Caucasian Confederation was endorsed.16 The severe struggle of Caucasian immigrants reached its pinnacle on February 14-23, 1935 when Council of Caucasian Federation was created. The council included representatives of national organizations of Azerbaijan, Georgia and North Caucasus and had authority to deal with all issues related to Caucasus. Thus the Council had the rights to unify Caucasian organizations, established confederate court in order to regulate the army of the Confederation and disputable issues. The Council’s main objectives were:

• Restoration of independence of Caucasian Republic and preparation work for unification of Caucasian
• republics in the form of Confederation.
• To establish organizational and political links with other nations within the Soviet Union.
• The Council is ready to come to an agreement with Russian powers, who unconditionally accept the
• independence of all captive nations of Russia.
• The Council fights for its independence with its own forces.17

The reason of keeping the Pact and Declaration of establishment of Council of Caucasian Confederation open was connected directly with Armenia. Armenians joined the Council in the beginning of World War II – in 1940, when the positive attitude of Germany towards the Council of Caucasian Confederation was already clear.18

The joint organization of Caucasian Committee for independence was the last cooperative organization created by Caucasian immigrants. In December 11-16, 1952 All-Caucasian conference was held in Munich.19 The conference accepted the testament of experienced strugglers for Caucasian independence to the new generation.

The broadening national movement did not bypass Caucasus, as in the beginning of the 20rh century, the center of the struggle concentrated in Caucasus in the end of the century too. Ethnic divergence of the Caucasus was leaving a chance maneuver for Moscow. Moscow posses leverages that would ignite a broader ethnic conflicts. This fact was ignored by leaders of national movements and while struggling for independence at the same time they were on the track of creation of alliances.

However, at that time the republics i.e. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, were engaged in the struggle for liberation, while leaving the struggle in North Caucasus that played the role of buffer zone between Russia and Transcaucasia, thus making the situation in North Caucasus more complicated.

The Assembly of Caucasian Highlanders was established August 25-26, 1989 in the meeting held in Abkhazia by the nations living in this country.20 This was the main reason why the All-Caucasian meeting was not convened. Only in 1991 when Johar Dudayev took under auspice the assembly, in November of the same year structural changes were made and the assembly transformed into the conference. However, the conference’s strong anti-Russian position discouraged many other nations i.e. Ingush, Nogay, Daghestan Azeris and some other Turkic nations of Caucasus (Kumik, Balkar, Karachay) boycotted the conference (only Mesheti Turks expressed their will to join the conference) and Association of Turkic Nations was created.21

As the result of these events, there was a split between the Caucasians and the conference was attended only by Chechens, Kabardins, Adigeys, Abkhaz. In orderto manage the conference, the president was chosen and corresponding to 16 represented nations the same number of vise-presidents was elected. Later a tension emerged between President Dudayev and Board of the conference, and the reason was friendly relations between Dudayev and Gamsakhurdia (President of Georgia), who was taken by almost all-Caucasian nations as a foe.

Dudayev’s increased attention to the Caucasian unity was caused by difficult military and economic withstanding with Russia, thus he was able to receive a support from Turkey and some other Muslim countries via Georgia and Azerbaijan.22 In addition, United Caucasus was a force able to stand Russia’s pressure and eliminate national-ethnic conflicts. Taking this fact under the consideration, Russian political observer V. Lebedev noted that Russia would soon have to retreat from the North Caucasus and he accused unskilled leaders of Russian government. In reality, it was not the fault of the Russian government, the reason was in persistent struggle of Caucasian nations for creation of united Caucasus.

On September 4-5, 1992 with initiative of J. Dudayev a “round table” for the members of organization of “Common House of Caucasus” was convened in Grozny. Azeri delegates also participated in this conference and the appeal “to Caucasian nations and states, the social, religious organizations and unions, political parties and movements” was accepted. At the conference it was decided to set up:

1. Religious Council of Caucasian Nations;
2. United Caucasian Information Center.

Haji Allahshukur Pashazade, Ph.D. was elected the chairman of the Religious Council of Caucasian Nations, and Muhammad Alsanbekov as deputy chairman.24 One of the important articles of the declaration was dedicated to “necessity of establishment of Caucasian confederation”. Although this point of the declaration did not only have political importance, afterwards it had negative effect, i.e. this idea coincided with interests of Iran and Russia. This factor was also connected with enormous centrifugal and centralizing forces that had to be taken under consideration. After the “round table” the Common House of Caucasus was registered as an international forum and President of Chechnya J. Dudayev was elected the Chairman of the forum.25

In a short period of time the Program of the forum was elaborated, and the ways mechanism of unification of Caucasian nations, legal bases for the realization of the Program, the directions of the general political concept to be conducted in the region, and the structure of the organization of Common House of Caucasus was portrayed in the Program. In accordance with the Program, the Common House of Caucasus should include the following bodies:

1. Consultative Council represented by envoys of member states;
2. Higher Religious Council – included religious leaders of the member states;
3. Security Council – represented on the level of Heads of the states, Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Johar Dudayev took the responsibility to head this body.
4. Executive body – engaged in implementation of adopted decisions.26

A great role was given to the Religious Council as the conflict regulating body, although almost all conflicts had ethnic-national origins. As the result of work of the conference, two meetings were held with participation of religious figures, one in Grozny27 on October 17, 1992 and another in Baku28 on September 24-25 of the same year. Representatives of Armenia, metropolit of Stavropol and Baku – Kedeon, rabbi of European Jews’ Baku synagogue – Rev Alkan Freedman also participated in Baku meeting.29 The status and the structure of Higher Religious Council was worked out and adopted. The conference also created an organizational committee for convening meetings of the Caucasian religious figures and defined its authority.

Considering the important location of the region, availability of rich energy resources and collision of interests of great powers stipulated the emergence of new scientific concepts. Some of were based on religious, political and economic motives, some regarded Caucasus as a bridge between West and East and made the conclusion that there was no need to build a general model of Caucasus, because “bridge had never been a dwelling”.30 The history of Caucasus responded itself to this argument, which did not have any scientific, historical or theoretical bases.

Caucasus has historically been a bridge between West and East, South and North, and prospered profiting from trade routes. While speaking about historical peculiarities of Caucasus, its successes and mutual difficulties, one of the architects of the idea of “Common House of Caucasus”, Heydar Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, stated that “Caucasus is a unique region that distinguishes from the rest of the world by its specific features. Caucasus is a multi-national region with divergent cultures and beautiful nature”.31

The idea of “Common House of Caucasus” has been taking strong position in public opinion and penetrating deeper and deeper. Meetings of Consultative Council of the Forum, organized by Johar Dudayev in March of 1993 and February of 1994, did not have continuation due to the outbreak of Chechen-Russian war.32 However the work started in Chechnya was continued in Georgia and Azerbaijan. On 21-23 January 1993 international women’s conference “Women for Peace in Common House of Caucasus” was held in Baku. All republics, except Armenia, were represented in the conference. The conference ended with appeal to the Caucasian nations, which portrayed the idea of Common House of Caucasus as the only way to avoid ethnic conflicts.33

Stabilization of the situation in Azerbaijan and Georgia, successful “oil transport diplomacy”, future realization of “Transcaucasian silk route” increase Azerbaijan’s role in the region and Europe is starting to accept the region as its own integral part. On his visit to Baku in February of 1997, E. Shevarnadze, President of Georgia, said that “the most important factor in the field of integration with European structures is establishment of close relationships with European Union. After signing the agreement on cooperation and partnership with one of the mighty unions of the world, three Caucasian republics were presented the status of honorable guests, and a new era in the history of Caucasus began. Efforts made by European Union allowed Caucasian republics to sign this agreement. This indicates the fact that European and world communities wish to see Caucasus as an integral region. This witnesses that the problems of peace in Caucasus on the principles of the international union, economic prosperity, promotion of moral values do not concern only Caucasian republics, but also strong world powers.”34

In our opinion, the reason why Georgian-Azerbaijani relations became the main basis of the organization “Common House of Caucasus” is connected with following factors:

1. Both republics are independent Caucasian states.
2. Both republics similar problems and especially those of territorial intactness and their settlement is
3. connected with foreign factors.
4. Equal opportunities for both republics to participate in the processes of European integration.
5. Efforts of both republics to decrease Russian influence.

Emergence of famous “Tbilisi Declaration on Peace, Security and Cooperation in Caucasian Region” created the theoretical basis for the idea of Common House of Caucasus. The Tbilisi declaration was signed during the visit of President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev to Georgia on April 8, 1996. The document is in 3 languages: Azeri, Georgian and Russian and consists of Introduction and six articles.35

The Introduction expressed the concern over the protracted conflict, break up of economic, political, and cultural ties, agreed to observe the principles of International Law, to take under consideration purposes and principles of the United Nations and OSCE, broaden and strengthen close relationships and promised to cooperate in realization of foregoing issues.

1. Restoration of sovereignty of the states within internationally recognized borders, provision of territorial integrity, guarantee of the security of refugees and their return to the permanent place of living.
2. Respect for human rights and freedom, including respect for the rights of representatives of national minorities.
3. Cooperation and guarantee of security in development of transportation and other communication links.
4. Multi-lateral cooperation in preservation of unique natural resources of Caucasus, coping with consequences of natural disasters, armed conflicts, development of international tourism in the region.
5. Ethnic and confessional tolerance, preservation of the diversity of languages and cultures in one of the unique places of the world – Caucasus.
6. Active support of international projects, attraction of foreign investments.36

Although the declaration was signed by Heads of Georgia and Azerbaijan, interested states and international organizations were welcomed to join the declaration by accepting the foregoing principles. It was the first time in the history of the national liberation movement when such a significant document was signed on the level of Heads of States. It’s not surprising that the document caused concern in Russia and Armenia. Despite that the document was open for new Parties, Russia and Armenia did not join. In contrary, for the first time the President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin proposed to hold a meeting of the Heads of Caucasian republics and North Caucasian constituencies. Russia’s concern was not accidental, as the significance of “Tblisi Declaration” was, in one hand, in leaving Armenia alone (because the 1st and the 2nd articles confined Armenia from joining the declaration) and in other hand Russia was loosing its role of referee in Caucasus. Such situation would certainly make Russia to take an opposing action, and Yeltsin proposal was directly connected with these issues and “Kislovodsk Declaration” emerged as an alternative to “Tbilisi declaration”.

In July 3, 1996 Heads of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia and Georgia, and also leaders of North Caucasian nations gathered in Kislovodsk. “Declaration for security, peace economic and cultural cooperation” was adopted in the conference. The declaration expressed general interests of participants: “Caucasus is our Common House, it is our duty to turn Caucasus into peaceful and prospering region of people proud of their heritage and assured in their future”.37 However the ways of realization of this goal were not identified. “Kislovodsk Declaration” presented ” struggle for security, peace and economic cooperation” instead of concrete program, and completely ignored more serious disarmament problem. It is not surprising that “Tbilisi Declaration” was not recalled in the Kislovodsk conference. In reality “Kislovodsk Declaration” became a late reaction of Russia and Armenia to “Tbilisi Declaration”. If “Tbilisi Declaration” identified concrete ways of stopping wars and conflicts in Caucasus, then “Kislovodsk Declaration” implied “conservation” of conflicts and problems in Caucasus and preservation of status quo. Russia’s attempt to keep Caucasus in her sphere of influence in such manner played the role of “catalyst” of the process of disintegration from Russia in the region. One of the Russian authors, expert of the Center for Strategic Development V.Mesheryakov determined “hindering” of Karabakh problem and the issue of the status of Caspian sea as Moscow’s immature policy at a time of strengthening American and European influence, and noted that Russia would eventually lose not just Azerbaijan as the “key” to the Caspian sea but also entire Caucasus.38 Analysis of Russia’s position towards Caucasus since 1991 makes us conclude that Caucasus is leaving Russia’s geo-strategic sphere, and if imperialistic ambitionsand willingness to stay in Caucasus using force are not corresponding with correct geo-strategic policy, Russia soon will have worries not on how to stay in Caucasus, but “willingness to get rid of Caucasian belt” will be a concern.

The issue of creation of All-Caucasian publication bureau bared an important significance, which would be a lever to broaden and develop cooperation between the regional countries. Works conducted in this sphere, resulted with creation in 1997 of the bureau.

In February of 1997 deputy chairman of the Journalists Federation of the Republic of Georgia, G.Gegiya proposed the idea of creation of United Information Space. According to the author, unlimited and fast information exchange between the mass media of the Caucasian republics, establishment of a unified database elaborated by Transcaucasian Journalists Center, All-Caucasian collaboration of the “fourth power” would stipulate a new stage of cooperation in the region, realize the Caucasian unity, cease ethnic conflicts, and guarantee peace and mutual security (G. Gegiya even calculated the amount of money – 200,000 USD – needed for implementation of this project).39

In this aspect, publication of monthly social-political magazine “Caucasus” (in Russian) since August of 1997 played a great role in widening processes of integration. The magazine was edited in publication houses of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Kabardin-Balkar, Karachay-Cherkes, Ingush and Chechen republics, its main goal was a struggle to broaden integration of “Common House of Caucasus” processes and inter-constituency cooperation (the magazine’s headquarters are located in Baku).40

It’s impossible to imagine the political model of Caucasus without its economic model, only creation of economic model can guarantee All-Caucasian and Caucasian-European integration. Important components of the establishment of economic model of Caucasus are unified infrastructure, financial-credit mechanism, and creation of All-Caucasian market. Specialists connect a unified financial-credit mechanism with creation of financial-credit center. According to contemporary scientific-theoretical viewpoint, the structure of Caucasian financial center has to contain the following bodies:

• Caucasian Investment Fund,
• Caucasian Investment Bank,
• Caucasian Insurance Committee,
• Caucasian Leasing Company,
• Caucasian Consulting Company,
• Caucasian Audit Company,
• Caucasian Monetary Exchange,
• Caucasian Stock Exchange,
• Strategic Research Center of Caucasian development,
• Caucasian Analytical Journal,
• Eurasia-Caucasus Common Market.41

In our opinion, the Common Market and full sovereignty of Caucasus can be guaranteed only when the established economic model integrates into the economic model of Eurasia-Caucasus Common Market and blends organically with it, because unity of Common House of Caucasus can be guaranteed only after creation of Caucasian Common Market.

Increased importance of the Transcaucasian corridor turns establishment of Caucasian Common Market into the demand of the time. Integration of Caucasian Common Market with the European Common Market means restoration of “Great Silk Route” after a two-millenium pause. This also shows the historical importance of creation of Common House of Caucasus.

1 Thesis of international scientific conference “Caucasus: history, modernity and geopolitical perspectives.” Baku, 1996, p. 169.
2 M. B. Mammadzade. Azerbaijani national movement. Baku, 1992, p. 172-174.
3 Kh. Ibrahimli. Political emigrants of Azerbaijan (1920-1991). Baku, 1996, p. 159-173.
4 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #1, p. 12.
5 Balayev A. Azerbaijani national-democratic movement. 1917-1920. Baku, 1990, p. 16, 24.
6 Hussein Baykara. History of Azerbaijani liberation struggle. Baku, 1992, p. 230-231.
7 Balayev A. Azerbaijani national-democratic movement. 1917-1920. Baku, 1990, p. 76-77.
8 Azerbaijani Democratic Republic. Collection of articles. Baku, 1992, p. 185.
9 N. Nasibzade. Azerbaijani Democratic Republic. Articles and documents. Baku, 1990, p. 25.
10 B. Najafov. Azerbaijani Democratic Republic. Baku, 1992, p. 49.
11 O. I. Chistyakov. Foundation of Russian Federation (1917-1922). Moscow, 1996, p. 73-77; “Newsletter of North-Osetin scientific research institute.” Orjonikidze, 1957, p. 87-93.
12 V. I. Lenin. 3rd volume, p. 469; 42nd volume, p. 283.
13 For creation of USSR. Documents and materials. Tbilisi, 1972, p. 36
14 Kh. Ibrahimli. Political emigrants of Azerbaijan (1920-1991). Baku, 1996, p. 159-160.
15 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #1, p. 13.
16 Kh. Ibrahimli. Political emigrants of Azerbaijan (1920-1991). Baku, 1996, p. 160-162.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., p. 168.
19 Ibid., p. 170.
20 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #2, p. 28.
21 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #1, p. 19.
22 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #1, p. 20-21.
23 “Izvestiya”(News), November 17, 1993.
24 “Khalg Gazeti” newspaper, 1992, September 7; November 25.
25 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #1, p. 18.
26 “Khalg Gazeti”, 1992, September 7.
27 “Khalg Gazeti”, 1992, October 18.
28 “Respublika” (Republic), newspaper, 1994, June 28; “Khalg Gazeti”, 1992, November 25.
29 Ibid.
30 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #1, p. 3.
31 “Ayna” (Mirror) newspaper, 1992, January 20.
32 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #1, p. 19.
33 “Respublika” (Republic), newspaper, 1994, June 28.
34 “Khalg Gazeti”, 1997, February 20.
35 “Azerbaijan” newspaper, 1996, March 12.
36 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #2, p. 5.
37 “Azerbaijan” newspaper, 1996, June 5.
38 V. Mesheryakov. Parameters of interdependence. Journal “Asia and Africa today”, 1997, #8, p. 69.
39 “Ayna” (Mirror) newspaper, 1991, February 15.
40 “Kavkaz “(Caucasus), 1997, #1, 2.
41 Thesis of international scientific conference “Caucasus: history, modernity and geopolitical perspectives.”, p. 51-54, 170-172.

Foto: Today.az