Nagorno-Karabakh:
if there is no peace, there is a threat of
war
Unfortunately South Caucasus is rich not only
with natural resources but also with numerous protracted conflicts, and the
conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region is among them. The ceasefire
agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been concluded on May 5, 1994, but
no substantial progress has been made so far. The main international mediator –
OSCE Minsk Group composed of representatives of Russia, France and the U.S. –
has failed to bring any positive changes into the resolution of the conflict.
The Madrid Principles of the resolution of the conflict adopted by both Armenian
and Azerbaijani leadership in December 2007 have brought a light of hope but
the following “war” over details disappointed many.
At first sight, it seems that the main bone
of contention is whether the referendum defining the final legal status of the
region should be conducted prior or after the return of the IDPs, who are of
Azerbaijani-origin, because that would determine whether the region will remain
as a part of Azerbaijan or proclaim independence. However, after many years of
fruitless negotiations it becomes obvious that Armenia is very reluctant to
return to Azerbaijani control not only the Nagorno-Karabakh region itself, but
also the occupied territories surrounding the region. Armenian leadership is
not yet ready to take such a bold decision; it not only lacks political capital
to spend but also legitimacy among Armenian population. Any concession of land
to the Azerbaijani side could result in the loss of power and political
turmoil. Moreover, one should not forget that the current president of Armenia,
Serzh Sargsyan, is originally coming from the Nagorno-Karabakh region and is
said to be one of the founders of the Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces.
Politics of demonization of Armenians in
Azerbaijan is another argument at hand which prevents any attempts to reconcile
both sides. Armenian side has serious concerns that those Armenians, living in
the Karabkh region, will be simply wiped out of their living places or turned
to be second glass citizens of Azerbaijan.
Meanwhile, Armenia
has adopted a “fence sitting” approach waiting for the more favourable
international environment to come for self-determination of the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh (read: without return of IDPs). Therefore it would be naïve to
hope that a breakthrough in negotiations could be achieved by 2013, when the
Armenian presidential elections are going to take place. While both presidents
at the OSCE summit in Astana signed a joint statement reaffirming their
“commitment to seek a final settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based
upon the principles and norms of the international law”, it still should not be
considered as a safety net to avoid the breakout of the military actions.
Azerbaijani
leadership is well aware of the situation and is trying to push Minsk Group
mediators to put more pressure on Armenia while keeping military option as a last
resort but the more frequent statements made by both politicians and military
on the possibility of use of force to return back the occupied territories
indicate that the patience is gradually running out. In its latest report[1] the
International Crisis Group has warned on a possibility of the resumption of
military hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The situation has
deteriorated over the past year, the cease-fire violations became more frequent
and the causality figures increased. Unlike it is in Georgia, there is no
so-called 24/7 working “hot line” among the parties to the conflict which could
prevent the escalation of the conflict. Therefore any serious skirmish could
easily spiral out of control and
lead to the outbreak of war which could have far more grave consequences for
the region than the Russia-Georgia war in August 2008.
In August
2010 Russia and Armenia signed the 5th Protocol to the Treaty on
Russia’s military base on the Armenian territories concluded in 1995. The
Protocol envisaged that the Russian military base (located in the Northern city
of Gyumri) will not only serve for the protection of the national interests of
the Russian Federation, but will also ensure security of the host country, that
is, Armenia, and provide modern weapons and equipment to Armenian armed forces.
For those who have been following the developments in the region, there is
nothing new in this document as Russia has long been providing armaments to
Armenia. Moreover, both Armenia and Russia are parties to the Collective
Security Treaty which envisages that an aggression against one of the state
parties is an aggression against all. What is important here that the latest
document is just one more explicit proof of Russia’s biased position in the
regulation of the conflict as well as to the fact that the key to the
resolution of the conflict lies in Kremlin.
These
developments led to the conclusion of the Agreement on
Strategic Partnership and Mutual Support between Azerbaijan and Turkey, which
pledges that both countries will support each other in a case of aggression and
enhance military cooperation. The agreement shows an increasing fatigue, and
even frustration with the current state of the negotiation process in
Azerbaijan. The country has increased its military spending up to more than $ 3
billion, which is even more than the whole state budget of Armenia. The current
growth in oil prices will lead to more fortune and more military spending, but
this will not last forever. Azerbaijan’s budget is heavily dependent on oil
revenues. And as some pundits[2] predict
that at the current rate of extraction Azerbaijani oil reserves may be depleted
by 2019, but the oil boom will end in 2013. Less cash would mean fewer chances
to regain Nagorno-Karabakh by force.
Azerbaijani diplomats tend to complain that
foreigners come to Azerbaijan to get something profitable out of this country –
Russians seek for obedience, Europeans seek for oil and gas, Iranians seek for
an opportunity to export Islamic revolution, Americans seek for dominance and
support Europeans in their quest for energy resources – and nobody cares of
Azerbaijan’s top national priority – restoration of the territorial integrity.
The only partner for Azerbaijan which not only takes but also delivers is Turkey.
But the frustration of the current negotiation format, explicit military and
economic support of Russia to Armenia and looming descent in oil production
might push Azerbaijani leadership to opt for the military solution, which would
plunge the region into chaos.
The current format of the conflict mediation
process is ineffective as it very much depends on the domestic situation. The
upcoming presidential elections (scheduled for the first half of 2012) in all
three countries represented in the OSCE Minsk Group – U.S., France and Russia –
mean less focus on the resolution of the conflict. Moreover, due to a large presence of Armenian diaspora
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict often becomes an issue of domestic politics like
it is in the U.S. or France.
The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh has
largely been out of view for the European Union which has left the resolution
of the conflict to the OSCE. In words of the President of European Commission
Barroso, the EU is ready to provide assistance for rehabilitation in case a
conflict settlement is reached.[3] But again
there is a smell of gunpowder in the air, and again the EU is reluctant to step
in. If the EU is not yet ready to make bold political decisions, it should
invest more into reconciliation between two sides financially supporting
non-profit organisations working in this field. Two generations have been
brought up not speaking to each other. Azerbaijanis demonise Armenians, but
latter portray Azerbaijanis as predators. The stalemate in negotiation process
leads to the militaristic rhetoric in Azerbaijan which Armenian side interprets
as an intention to wipe out Armenians from Nagorno-Karbakh region. This is a
vicious circle, which might bring nothing but misery to people trapped in this
situation.
Post
Scriptum
On March 19, 2012, Armenian
media reported on one more
killing on the contact line presumably by an Azerbaijani sniper. For people
living in the region on both sides of the conflict this situation unfortunately
has become a daily routine. Both countries continue to replenish their military
stocks, Azerbaijani government keep on reminding that the military solution of
the conflict is still an option, young generation do not speak to each other,
but the two of the OSCE Minsk-group countries, namely France and U.S., have
plunged into the pre-election process. The International Crisis Group has released
one more warning signal by publishing an op-ed entitled “A Frozen Conflict That
Could Boil Over”,[4]
but we can only guess whether this signal has reached the target audience.
Yes, the conflict
potentially could boil over in the long and medium term, and we should finally
understand that in the end we – the EU taxpayers – will be the ones who will pay
for the consequences by sending humanitarian aid, pumping money in the
post-conflict region and paying higher prices for gas & oil since the
pipelines crossing the region might be affected too.
The time has come to take
this conflict seriously and use all the leverages at our disposal to resolve
it, at least to assist OSCE efforts to introduce an early warning system to
prevent the escalation of the conflict similar to the mechanism which is right
now at place in Georgia.[5]
Essential readings / documentaries
History
Lessons in Armenia and Azerbaijan
In each country, school
textbooks teach one version of history that sustains animosity towards the other.
By Hayhuki Barseghyan, Shahla Sultanova
(Institute for War & Peace Reporting)
The
Passenger
A joint Armenian-Azerbaijani short documentary produced as a part of the
Armenia-Azerbaijan Media Bias Project funded by Eurasia Foundation.
[1] International Crisis Groupe.
European Briefing No. 60. Armenia and Azerbaijan: Preventing War. February 8,
2011, http://www.crisisgroup.org
[2]
Alec Rasizade. Azerbaijan’s Chances in the Karabakh Conflict. Harvard
International Review, January 18, 2011, http://hir.harvard.edu/
[3] Европейский Союз полностью
поддерживает территориальную целостность Азербайджана – Президент Еврокомиссии.
1news.az, January 20, 2011, http://www.1news.az
[4]
Lawrence Scott Sheets. A Frozen
Conflict That Could Boil Over. NYT, 8.03.2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/opinion/a-frozen-conflict-that-could-boil-over.html?_r=4
[5]
PIK TV. Встреча в Эргнети: превенция инцидентов. 20.03.2012. http://youtu.be/9Zd8z1Pf434
No comments:
Post a Comment