“The reaction of the international community is very weak”: Armenian analyst
4 years ago
Face to Face with Ruben Elamiryan
Ruben Elamiryan is the Chairperson and an Associate Professor at the Department of World Politics and International Relations at Russian-Armenian University. He spoke to Aditi Bhaduri on the current conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Excerpts:
Please walk us through the dispute of Nagorny Karabakh – it’s genesis, negotiation and current situation.
I will not go back into centuries to show for how long Artsakh (the Armenian name for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) was a part of Armenia and, what is probably more important, populated by Armenians. But I would mention, that Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has a history of more than one hundred years, when after the disintegration of the Russian Empire in 1917, it received independence. However, later during the bolshevization of the South Caucasus, this piece of land (with approximately 95 per cent of Armenian population) was granted to Azerbaijan, expecting in return Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk to join the “global communist revolution”.
The situation changed in the late 80th of the 20th century with weakening of the central power in Moscow and later on the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Armenians of Artsakh again raised their voice to join Armenia. Azerbaijan reacted with Armenian pogroms in Sumgait, Baku, etc., which triggered a full-scale war between Azerbaijan and Artsakh Armenians. Armenia supported Artsakh’s fight for freedom and security.
The war ended in 1994 with Bishkek ceasefire agreement, signed by Azerbaijan, Artsakh, and Armenia, which in fact recognized the independence of Artsakh. Since then it is functioning as a de-facto independent state.
Since 1994 the sides have been negotiating a peace deal under the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group mandate. Since 1997 the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs in face of Russia, US, and France are leading the negation process.
However, we witness a stalemate in that process, provided the maximalist position of official Baku, which demands Artsakh to be under his jurisdiction.
UN Resolutions claim that Nagorny Karabakh (NK) is occupied territory by Armenia and it should withdraw its troops from there.
The truth is that it is not the UN resolutions, which claim anything like that, but Azerbaijani propaganda, which manipulates these resolutions and presents them as they wish them to be. In reality, when you read those resolutions, you see that they ask Armenia to apply all its influence to provide peace and security in the region. And this is basically what Armenia is doing for the last 25-30 years by protecting Artsakh Republic and its Armenian population from the Azerbaijani aggression and atrocities of civilian population, which they did, for instance, during the April war of 2016.
The Nagorny Karabakh can be categorised as one of the numerous frozen conflicts worldwide. What caused the flare-up this time?
There are several reasons for the current escalation. First of all, it is about the Covid-19 pandemic. It triggered rather tough economic and political crisis in Azerbaijan. I mean, being authoritarian in nature and lacking popular support, [President] Ilham Aliyev used “old, but gold” trick to redirect the social attention from domestic problems to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as they usually do.
At the same time, for about thirty years the Aliyevs (Heydar Aliyev and now his son Ilham) have been promising its population that they are going to conquer Artsakh. And now, given the situation with Covid-19, when the whole world, including Armenia, is busy fighting it, I assume, Ilham Aliyev and his advisers thought, that it is a good time to wage a war.
Additionally, Azerbaijan initiated a military attack against Armenia’s Tavush region this July but failed to succeed. And Aliyev might wish to use this chance to pay back, especially because July’s loss was fostering political crisis in Azerbaijan and weakening his position at home.
Finally, I would like to mention the role of Turkey, which, in my understanding, encouraged Aliyev to start this war to increase its influence over Azerbaijan or in better scenario over the whole South Caucasus. At the same time, by doing this, Turkey redirects the attention of Russia and international community in general from Eastern Mediterranean, Libya, etc.
Your President and the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs claim that Turkey is intervening in this round of conflict. How true and how big is the Turkish role in the current military standoff between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
I think Turkey’s role in current military standoff is rather significant. As we know during the last decade [Turkish President] Erdogan is developing nationalism in Turkey [and] acting as an international strongman and even claiming to review the Lausanne treaty of 1923 (which framed the current borders of Turkey). This clearly talks about the expansionist aspirations of Turkey.
From this perspective, the current military standoff might be triggered by Turkey, which, in case of success, is a good chance for Erdogan to increase its influence in the region. Moreover, given the weakening positions of Aliyev, this might be a trap to increase Turkish influence in Azerbaijan.
Continuing with your question, I would like to add, that Turkey is also arming Azerbaijan. And during this three days of war Artsakh and Armenia was attacked by both Turkish F-16 and Turkish drones.
Moreover, we cannot exclude that Turkish instructors are fighting the Armenian armies.
Finally, there is information that Turkey is recruiting and sending Syrian terrorists to fight against Artsakh and Armenia.
Armenia has a defense alliance with Russia. How do you view/evaluate Russia’s role in the conflict?
Russia tries to balance between Armenia and Azerbaijan, having strong interests with both countries. So, these days we do not see unanimous support from Russia for Armenia, as [we see] happening in case of Turkey-Azerbaijan relations.
However, given that Armenia is a full Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization’s member, Russia has its only military base in the region in Armenia, and Russia considers the South Caucasus as a region of its major interests.
The growing Turkish influence in this region might lead to Russia’s stronger involvement in the conflict to stop it and play a decisive role in peace facilitation process.
It seems a ceasefire may soon be in place. What would it take for a resolution of the conflict?
Your question contains two parts: restoration of ceasefire regime and conflict resolution. For the first one, it is a big question when the ceasefire would be in place. Hopefully, soon. However, it shows no evidence of near end at the moment.
Regarding the conflict resolution, the thing is that Azerbaijani position is very maximalist without room for consensus. So, in my view, if there is no complete defeat of one side now, the conflict will be back to a “frozen” condition.
Finally, this time the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict seems to have caught international attention unlike earlier phases of the conflict. What would you ascribe that to?
I would not put it that way. The conflict is internationalized probably from the first day, the conflict started. It is enough to check the negotiation framework to make an opinion. The Minsk Group Co-Chairs, which lead the negotiations, include Russia, US, and France (presenting the EU). So, it is fully internationalized.
Probably two things bring more international attention – the scale of the current escalation and almost direct involvement of Turkey into the conflict.
On the other hand, given the strong Turkish involvement, the reaction of the international community is very weak, which at the end of the day diminishes the positions of all major powers in the South Caucasus and Middle East.
The OIC in general and Turkey and Pakistan in particular have always supported Azerbaijan in this ethno territorial conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan which remains unresolved despite prolonged intervention by global players. The involvement of ISIS mercenaries reportedly on behalf of Turkey has given a new and dangerous dimension to the conflict .
It would be in the interest of regional stability and global security that a cease fire is reached soonest possible.
As far the conclusive resolution of the conflict, we must understand that the conflict is between two principles : the principle of territorial integrity ( from Azerbaijan’s perspective) and the principle of Right to Self Determination ( from Nagori Karabakh Armenians’ perspective. The failure so far in resolving this issue is in fact the failure to find a meeting point between these two principles. Both sides will have to climb down from their maximalist positions !