February 2017 marks the 25th anniversary of the Khojaly genocide, which is one of the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history. Even after 25 years, the scars remain raw and the trauma as stark as ever.
Khojaly Massacre
The Khojaly massacre is one of the most heinous and bloodiest events of the 20th century. It is still a black spot on the collective human conscious of the region and the globe as well. It is an act of barbarism and discrimination. The town of Khojaly came under intensive fire from the town of Khankendi and Askeran already occupied by Armenian armed forces February 25, 1992. According to an official report, 613 civilians were killed, including 106 women, 70 elderly and 83 children, and a total of 1,000 civilians were disabled. Moreover, 1,275 innocent people were taken hostage.
Khojaly assault by Armenian armed forces was predetermined by strategic location of the city. The city with population of 7000 people is situated 10 kilometers to South-East from Khankendi. Khojaly is situated on the way Aghdam-Shusha, Askeran-Khankendi and has an airport, the only in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Khojaly tragedy was another terrible example of the policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Azerbaijani people, which is pursued by the Armenian nationalists and their patrons for a long time.
Khojaly: Integral Part of Azerbaijan
“The Khojaly genocide was an integral part of the occupation policy of Armenia against Azerbaijan, and this led to the massive and gross violation of the norms and principles of international law and human rights and freedoms,”
Illegal Referendum
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan strongly condemned Armenia plans to conduct so-called “referendum on constitutional changes” in the puppet illegal regime it has established in the temporarily occupied territories of Azerbaijan. It reiterates that through aggression and occupation Armenia established an illegal regime in the temporarily occupied territories of Azerbaijan which is under its military, political and financial obligations as as was confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 16 June 2015 on the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia.
Armenia’s Provocative Step
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan termed it as provocative step Armenia’s deliberate attempts to change the name of integral Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. It is yet another clear manifestation that Armenia is not genuinely interested in seeking a political settlement of the armed conflict, it added. It is of the view that Armenia always pursues the path of escalation. It undertakes consistent measures to consolidate the results of its occupation policy and to maintain unacceptable and unsustainable status quo. It undermines efforts for the peaceful resolution of the conflict through substantive talks. It illegally changes the demographic, cultural and physical character of the occupied territories. Moreover, it engages in negative economic and other activities, including transfer of Armenian population into these territories with the ultimate goal change the nature of demography. Armenia also undermines and puts under jeopardy the regional and international peace and security. It is also against the true spirits of international law.
| International Organizations | Resolutions | Year | Confirmation of Azerbaijan’s Stance |
| United Nations Security Council | 822 | 1993 | UN accepted and endorsed the legitimate stance of Azerbaijan towards illegal occupation of Armenia to its territories. |
| 853 | 1993 | It once again reaffirmed that the Nagorno-Karabakh region is an inalienable part of Azerbaijan and demanded immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces from all occupied territories of Azerbaijan. | |
| 874 | 1993 | ||
| 844 | 1993 | ||
| General Assembly | 62/243 | 2008 | It condemned the use of force against Azerbaijan and occupation of its territories and reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the inviolability of its internationally recognized borders |
The illegal “referendum” constitutes a clear violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the norms and principles of international law, and, therefore, has no legal effect whatsoever. This so-called “referendum” is also being conducted in the seized lands under a situation created through the use of force and threat of force against the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan by Armenia and accompanied by the notorious practice of ethnic cleansing and other flagrant violations of the norms and principles of international law. the foreign ministry Azerbaijan.
Responsibility of International Community
It calls upon the international community to reject this fabricated illegal “referendum” exercise and to exert political and diplomatic pressure on Armenia with a view to drop its futile attempts to mislead its own people and the wider international community, cease its policy of occupation and annexation, engage constructively in the conflict settlement process and comply with its international obligations.
Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
Azerbaijan and Armenia have been fighting the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for many years but reconciliatory efforts have not yet succeeded due to many reasons. On the other hand Armenia’s media wars, propaganda missions and active role of lobbyists are going on around the clock due to which human stakes are at risk in the said occupied areas. Human misery, poverty, unemployment, backwardness and strategic isolation are the ultimate dividends of the persistent conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh in the South Caucasus for Armenia where poverty, unemployment and human capital flight is rampant. The continued occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenian armed forces is a threat to peace and stability in the South Caucasus, as well as a source of destabilization for the region and beyond in the future.
Visit of Representatives of Diplomatic Missions of Foreign Countries
Most recently, representatives of diplomatic missions of foreign countries and heads of international organizations in Azerbaijan visited the liberated Jojug Marjanli village in the country’s Jabrayil region. The village was fully liberated from the Armenian occupation in April 2016, when Azerbaijani Armed Forces prevented an Armenian provocation on the contact line. To protect civilian population the Azerbaijani army launched counter attacks and as a result the Azerbaijani troops retook hills around the village of Talish, as well as Seysulan settlement, and also took over Leletepe hill located in the direction of Fizuli region. The State Committee for Affairs of Refugees and IDPs informed that the delegation also got acquainted with the ongoing reconstruction work in Jojug Marjanli.
Decisive Role of USA President Trump
The US President Trump has the historic opportunity to truly earn the Nobel Peace Prize by using his self-proclaimed mastery of deal-making to resolve one of the world’s intractable conflicts of the former Soviet Union; namely, the “frozen conflict” between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1991, full-scale war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan and despite a cease-fire in 1994, border skirmishes and fighting has continued. Over one million people have been displaced as a result of the conflict and today close to 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s territory is occupied by Armenian forces.
Minsk Group
The United States, along with Russia and France, is the co-chair of the Minsk Group tasked with resolving this conflict. Russia has not only sabotaged numerous attempts at resolution of the conflict but has provided military support to Armenia thus prolonging the conflict. Washington has been too busy with distractions in the Middle East to take a lead role in establishing a lasting peace between Yerevan and Baku. And yet, both Armenia and Azerbaijan deserve a permanent peace.
Trump can deliver this dream of a new beginning to the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan by leading a robust diplomatic initiative resulting in a permanent solution that is fair to both sides. Mr. Trump’s success would signal to the world that America is back in the business of policing the world to maintain global stability.
For its successful conflict resolution the key is Armenia and Mr. Trump’s ability to persuade Mr. Putin the President of Russia to get Armenian President Sargsyan to agree to a permanent peace settlement.
Azerbaijan’s Foreign Policy
Resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains the primary objective for Azerbaijan’s foreign policy. This conflict has already defied regional boundaries and now poses a great threat for the political configuration across a wider geography. Meanwhile, the Armenian side aims to mislead the world by persisting that the conflict has religious roots and to that end it is engaged in a broad international propaganda.
Armenians’ Groundless Territorial Claims
regrettably, this lie aimed at disguising Armenians’ groundless territorial claims has found support among certain quarters in the West. In the modern world, with increasing religious and cultural phobias, such attitude is indicator of the impact of phobia instead of truth in the international system. This in turn places the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that has already spilled across the regional boundaries in the category of conflicts with global relevance.
Deadly Clashes of 2016
during 2016 unprecedented developments took place both in terms of military and peaceful resolution of the said conflict. The parties have never been so close to either all-out war or public peace initiatives since the ceasefire deal was reached back in 1994.
President of Azerbaijan H.E. Ilham Aliyev
The President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev highlighted the significance of April events in shattering the Armenian myth, by saying: “The April battles are a brilliant victory for us. They have demonstrated the power of the Azerbaijani state again. At the same time, they showed once again that we will never put up with this situation. We will give an adequate response to all provocations. At the same time, we have completely dispelled the myth Armenia had been creating for years. Without receiving the weapons, money and other assistance from outside, they can’t cope with us even for a week. They recognize that themselves”.
| Creation of an Armenia-Azerbaijan Reconciliation and Reconstruction Fund that would invest in infrastructure projects between the two countries such a bullet train from Baku via Armenia to Nakhchivan | Creation of a U.S.-Franco-Russian partnership to build a safe and reliable nuclear plant in Armenia that would replace the old Soviet-era Metsamor nuclear plant |
This is Azerbaijan’s principled position. In the meantime, the military junta in Armenia is capitalizing on the conflict to retain power. This is why it resorts to derailing of negotiations and provocations at crucial moments thus evoking growing discontent within the Armenian society. Forced protraction of the conflict increases negativity on the part of the Armenian people who are living under severe economic constraints and are frustrated due to constant pressure by the military junta.
Landlocked Region
Nagorno-Karabakh is a landlocked region in the South Caucasus and situated in south-western Azerbaijan, the region is mostly mountainous. According to official data (2002-2003) it has a total area of 4,400 square kilometers and is an enclave surrounded entirely by Azerbaijan; its nearest point to Armenia is across the Lachin corridor, roughly 4 kilometers across and population is 145,000.
Forced Armenians Settlement
Historically Tsar Peter I the Great or Pyotr Alexeyevich Romanov wanted to control Caucasus so he made a settlement plan for Armenians in the South Caucasus despite it being Muslim populated. It formed approximately 30 percent of the Azerbaijan territory. Strategically it was very big loss for Azerbaijan.
Emergence of Conflict
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict emerged in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Since a lengthy war in the early 1990s that displaced over one million Azerbaijanis, Armenian armed forces have occupied over 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent regions. International community and power brokers i.e. the U.S. along with Russia and France, has long been working to achieve a solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the Minsk Group, but their efforts have been largely fruitless so far.
Different Stages
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict emerged in the Soviet era. Former USSR created the said conflict in order to keep Azerbaijan and Armenia closer to Soviet government. Initially the conflict was only confined to internal dynamics, after the collapse of the USSR, it turned into an international conflict. Efforts of the presidents of the Russia and Kazakhstan, including efforts of Iran could not bring any solution. Afterward, OSCE was involved as a mediator in order to promote the solution of conflict in 1992. Then, Co-chairs Institute was established and mediation still continues in this order.
Caucasus’s Geography
The Caucasus is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse regions on Earth.
| Different States | Details |
| Independent | Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan |
| Quasi States | Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia |
| Russian Divisions | Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai |
| Autonomous Republics | Adygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, and Dagestan |
| Different Wars | |
| Nagorno-Karabakh | 1988-1994 |
| Ossetian-Ingush | 1989-1991 |
| Abkhazia | 1992-1993 |
| First Chechen War | 1994-1996 |
| Second Chechen War | 1999-2009 |
| South Ossetia War | 2008 |
The above table clearly indicates that North and South Caucasus has remained one of the ideal playgrounds for the wars even after the fall of former USSR because of securing their lion shares in the emerging socio-economic conflicting realties, geo-political superiorities and geo-strategic bounties. The military force has been used to dismantle other states in the region and Russia emerged as the ultimate victor and a shrewd manipulator.
Complicated and Complex
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been remained complicated and complex. Overlapping of socio-economic, geo-political and geo-strategic vested interests have been kept the issue unsettled till now. Regional power brokers like Russia, Iran and some CIS along with global icons of imperialism have been playing with the feelings of innocent IDPs. Spirits of regional domination could not keep itself at bay to achieve peace in the Nagorno-Karabakh territories. Historical context, massive culture diversity, psychological barriers and to some extend religious ethnicity have been one the main reasons for its conflict existence.
Food and Energy Security
Energy and food security preferences and priorities have been one of the main strategic obstacles in the peaceful settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh issue for many years. Now sustainable economic development has become prey of that said issue. The resolution of the conflict will create new opportunities for regional cooperation, leading to stability and prosperity in the region and beyond.
Conflicts and Human Civilization
Conflicts have emerged with the dawn of life on our earth but conflict resolution has remained a rare and precious commodity in the world. Ultimately survival of human beings has been secured through the management of conflict resolution. There are different conflict resolution models working in different levels and parts of the world. To take first step towards normalization it is necessary to ensure the withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia from the occupied Azerbaijani territories and return of IDPs to their homes.
On its part, right from the beginning Azerbaijan has been calling on the international community to demand from Armenia to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through negotiation.
United Nations Security Council
We live in a civilized world where the world order is based on U.N. principles which derive its strength from the two main internationally legally binding documents i.e. U.N. Charter and Security Council resolutions. According to the U.N. Charter, states’ territorial integrity is more important than people’s right to self-determination. In this regard, the U.N. Charter applies to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as to Azerbaijan territorial integrity.
UNSC’s Resolutions
The U.N. Security Council adopted four resolutions regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 1993 that confirms the occupation of Azerbaijan territories by Armenian armed forces. Resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 adopted in 1993 by UNSC call for the withdrawal of Armenian troops from Kelbajar, Agdam, Fizuli, Jabrayil, Qubadli and Zangilan. Moreover, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution on March 14, 2008 reaffirming the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanding the withdrawal of all Armenian armed forces from the occupied territories. The General Assembly also reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Azerbaijani population to return to their homes.
Non-Aligned Movement
The Non-Aligned Movement has adopted a number of resolutions related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that call for the resolution of the conflict respecting Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and internationally recognized borders. The OIC has also adopted several resolutions related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict acknowledging Armenia as an aggressor, discussing financial and economic assistance to the victims of the aggression, and condemning the destruction of historical Islamic monuments in Azeri territories.
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) & the Eurasian Economic Union
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is also on the agenda of regional organizations such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union, of which Armenia is a member but Azerbaijan is not. Notably, Armenia’s “allies” in these organizations refrained from supporting it during the April clashes in 2016, and the Armenian position has been seriously weakened since then in both organizations.
Pakistan’s Political, Moral and Diplomatic Support
On its part, Pakistan does not recognize Armenia as an independent state because of its occupation of Azerbaijani territories. Most recently, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs demonstrated solidarity with the Government and people of the Republic of Azerbaijan which was unanimously approved by the Standing Committee. It condemned the occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenia and the massacre committed by Armenian armed forces in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly on February 26, 1992 against the civilian population.
Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Azerbaijan
The Committee reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders. The Committee demanded implementation of resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly on immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and calls upon the international community and international organizations to urge Armenia for the implementation of these decisions.
The Committee supported the efforts of the Republic of Azerbaijan to resolve the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by peaceful means.
Conflict Resolution and Role of International Organizations
The resolutions adopted by international organizations on conflicts are very important, as they are one of the main sources of international law. International principles and the resolutions of international organizations are in favor of Azerbaijan, and there is no example of an international organization that has adopted a resolution in favor of Armenia. This is why Russia and other strong members of international system are obliged to fulfill the resolutions of international organizations.
Azerbaijan’s Stance
The Azerbaijani Government stated that if Armenia will give up its occupational policy and show political willingness for solution of the conflict, it will initiate renewing process of the infrastructure of Mountainous Karabakh and opening of communication lines between the two Republics. In the aftermath, participation of Armenia in the huge economic projects would be possible.
Armenia’s Annexationist Approach
On the contrary, Armenia did not alter its annexationist approach to hold the occupied territories of Azerbaijan with a view to further consolidating the current status quo of the occupation and preventing the return of hundreds of thousands internally displaced persons to their homelands. This represents an open challenge to the conflict resolution process and poses a serious threat to international and regional peace and security.
Negative Role of Armenian Lobby or Diaspora
strong Armenian lobby or diaspora exists in the world and there is a small Armenian population in the USA, Russia, France, Argentina, Syria and Lebanon. Rich Armenians help Armenia, they earn money abroad and send this money to Armenia. Furthermore, Russia helps the Armenia militarily and politically. Russian Federation is the most effective state in the OSCE Minsk Group which is only peaceful solution mechanism for Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
Unconstructive Policy of Armenia
It continues to violate internationally recognized border of Azerbaijan to keep under occupation territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan without any attention to international norms. The reason of the failure in negotiations held for resolution of conflict is that Armenia does not commit to the norms of international law.
Armenian’s Annexationist Policy
Practically, its annexationist policy has no moral, political, legal or economic justification and the said areas are and will be an integral part of Azerbaijan. De-occupation of the Azerbaijan territories “Nagorno-Karabakh” would establish durable solution which further establishes civilized relations between two neighboring countries. Respect for Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and settlement of IDPs and refugees would be a game changer.
Russia: A Successful Mover & Shaker
Armenian forces with the help of Russia had driven out Azerbaijani troops as well as ethnic Azeri communities from the province. Since then, Armenia has succeeded to occupy the unrecognized, separatist quasi-state of Nagorno-Karabakh, and international efforts to peaceably resolve the conflict have fallen short, leading to frequent descriptions of the dispute as a frozen conflict. The failure to resolve the said conflict is intended to keep both Azerbaijan and Armenia dependent upon Russia.
When the former USSR collapsed, Russia obviously lost its influence on Georgia and Azerbaijan. It was a big loss for Russia, because, these were 2 of 3 countries of the Caucasus and these two countries had some important influence over other Caucasian nations. The only state which can help to spread Russian influence on the Caucasus was Armenia. Nagorno-Karabakh is like Nakhchivan, this region can cut Turkish influence over South Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia always sees Turkey as a danger for its vested regional interests. Because Turkey is a NATO member, it has 99 percent Muslim population and it has very important ethnic and historical ties with Caucasian and other Turkic people within the Russian Federation. So, Armenia is a buffer zone between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Armenia is the only country that can cut the ties between Azerbaijan and Turkey. If Armenia could be successful on cutting ties between Azerbaijan and Turkey, it would cut Turkish influence on Caucasus and Turkic Republics of Central Asia.
Historic Perspectives of Nagorno-Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh was shared for centuries by Muslim Azeris and Christian Armenians. But after the First World War, the former USSR created a largely Armenian autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh within the republic of Azerbaijan. In February 1988, the local Soviet parliament for Karabakh voted to join Armenia, touching off an inter-ethnic explosion. Afterwards, some 30,000 people were massacred in conflicts that left ethnic Armenians as victors, who occupied new territory in Azerbaijan linking Karabakh and Armenia. Since then, the tiny territory of about 160,000 people, one-fifth the area of Nova Scotia has become a frozen conflict zone despite rounds of peace talks to settle its status.
Main Reasons
Rapidly changing socio-economic strategic priorities, geo-political vested interests and geo-strategic preferences are some of the main reasons of the said conflict. Occupational-nationalist policy of the Armenian-lobby is also a vital factor in the status-quo. It has now become a flash-point in the region and has turned into an international geopolitical struggle.
Ineffective Performance of OSCE
The OSCE could not achieve the desired goals due to unconstructive position of Armenia to give up its occupational position. Unfortunately, OSCE co-chairs do not put pressure on Armenia to commit its obligation arising from the resolution of UN Security Council and European organizations on Mountainous Karabakh. The Minsk Group of OSCE carries the regulative mission of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It was established in May 1992 and Turkey is one of its members. Turkey has a power of influence in finding a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict not only as a member of the Minsk Group, but also as an influential state in the region but it has its strategic limitations. Turkey took an active part in conferences of Minsk Group and showed its insistence on fair solutions under OSCE frame and demanded the withdrawal of Armenian military forces from occupied Azeri lands, resettlement of refugees and the maintenance of the territorial unity of Azerbaijan.
Conflict Resolution Efforts: A Historic Context
1. OSCE
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was created by the Minsk Group in Helsinki 1992. It comprised 11 nations and was co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States with the purpose of mediating a peace deal with Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Minsk group could not become successful in 1990s; because there were other problems such as war in Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Moldova, Abkhazia and Ossetia in the same region. NATO could not become active in the said conflict, because, Russia was especially opposed to allowing a multinational peacekeeping force from NATO to entering the Caucasus, because this region is Russia`s backyard. So role of OSCE and that of NATO was marginalized by the Russia, the white man burden.
2. Cease-fire at Bishkek
On May 5, 1994, a Russian-brokered cease fire which is Bishkek Protocol was signed between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan in Bishkek. The protocol, still in effect, terminated the Nagorno-Karabakh War and froze the issue. But still no effective outcome has been achieved due to ill designs of the competitors in the region.
3. Budapest Summit
On 6 December 1994, the Budapest Summit decided to establish a co-chairmanship for achieving the peace process. Both countries met in different places between 1995 and 1998. Nevertheless, there was no comprehensive solution for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In 2001, the presidents of both countries met for talks in Key West, Florida. But there was no solution again.
4. Prague Process
In 2004, the Prague Process was initiated, which entailed direct bilateral negotiations between the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers. The two states met eleven total times, though little progress was made. In February 2006, the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents met near Paris for talks with French President Jacques Chirac.
5. Madrid Principles
The Madrid Principles was promulgated in 2007 indicating the return of the regions surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan control; ensuring the security and self-government of Nagorno-Karabakh by granting a temporary status; establishing a corridor linking Armenia with the Nagorno-Karabakh. Moreover, the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh will be determined by a popular referendum which would have legally binding power; right of all the refugees to return back to the territories, where they were living before and the last but not the least, the conflict; providing international security, which includes peace-keeping operations. Its detailed principles clearly uphold Azerbaijan rightful claims i.e. “Nagorno-Karabakh territories’ as its integral part.
6. Presidential Meetings
On 2 November 2008, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian traveled to Moscow for talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The talks ended in the three Presidents signing a declaration confirming their commitment to continue talks. The two presidents have met again, most recently in Saint Petersburg and New York.
Central Independent States (CIS)
Central Asian States support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are members of Collective Security Treaty Organization created by Russian initiative. Armenia is also the member of CSTO. Notwithstanding, alliance relationship makes them come together which can be used to resolve the issue.
Turkish Plan
Turkey closed its borders with Armenia in the 1990s to protest Yerevan’s occupation of Azerbaijani territory. Armenia and Azerbaijan reached a partial agreement on a solution plan for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The agreement came after the Turkish foreign minister’s contacts with officials from both countries. Both sides agree on the four points of the draft plan aimed at resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
It is a frozen conflict which is the legacy of the former USSR. It has been standing at the center of Azerbaijan-Armenia and Turkey-Armenia relations with both countries continuing with fruitless peace negotiations. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan supported the position of Azerbaijan on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and underlined the resolute stand of Turkey by not opening their borders with Armenian unless the problem is solved in accordance with the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
Turkey is an influential regional player in the Caucasus and Central Asia due to several reasons but it has also some important power deficits which are given below as:
| Different Attributions | Details |
| Geographical | It makes Turkey be an Asian and a European state at the same time. It does not only control important seaways and straits but also has a capacity of influencing economic and military affairs. |
| Powerful member in NATO | Being a powerful member in NATO and its possible EU membership further strengthens its position. |
| Successful Facilitator | In recent times, Turkey takes an active participation in international and regional organizations and considers itself as responsible of the protection of the peace and security in the region. |
| State-of-the-art Technology | It played an important role in the establishment of national structures of the Caucasus and Central Asian states, and encouraged their inclusion to modern integration processes. |
| Turkey’s Shortcomings | |
| Relations with Russia | It does not want to spoil relations with Russia. |
| Armenian lobby | The powerful Armenian lobby in France and the US put pressure on Turkey |
| Turkey’s allies in NATO | It does not have any interest to interfere in this conflict. |
| Turkish Domestic Politics | Recently, it is passing through specific political and socio-economic transitions |
| Specific Economic Incentives | Details |
| Israel & Middle East Countries | Specific economic incentives mentioned in those accords were granting the right of free passage to Israeli ships through the Suez Canal, and the construction of a highway between the Sinai and Jordan. |
| France & Germany | The establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s as a means to ensure long term peace between France and Germany following the Second World War lessened regional rivalry. |
| Indonesia’s Aceh region | Benefitted from economic incentives granted by Jakarta as part of the region’s agreement to remain within political jurisdiction. |
| Philippines’s Island of Mindanao | Manila offered specific economic incentives to keep people under its country-flag |
After the collapse of the former USSR, Georgia fought two separatist wars. Russia battled Chechen rebels and the tiny disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh exploded into conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Economic incentives and Conflict Resolutions
Ours is the age of knowledge based economy where decisions of national pride, sovereignty and socio-economic growth have also economic orientation. Dreams of qualitative life are now achieved through sustainable economic development and not with the help of mortars and missiles. Our modern political history is also full of these kinds of economic incentives for achieving peace in specific regions.
Conflict Resolution and Importance of Economic Drivers
Economic drivers need to enter the equation, as both Azerbaijan and Armenia continue to build their nations. It has been proven that conflict does not necessarily stop economic co-operation, and economic pragmatism is essential. The total economic development of the region benefiting both countries should be supported, and economic incentives should be provided. However, such incentives cannot achieve movement alone they must be combined with a political settlement although they can serve to ‘tone down’ the heat.
Multiplier Effects of Economic Gains
Economic gain would reshape mindsets. An Armenian–Azerbaijani organisation for reconciliatory affairs should be established and a new-found economic pragmatism must be pursued. A free economic zone in Nagorno-Karabakh should be established, with the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities working together on internationally-supported projects. Both parties need to demonstrate political will to achieve this. Working together would help overcome stereotypes, and set an example to the youth of both countries. A format for interregional youth programmes could be created to alter concepts and perceptions. If these attitudes change, the nature of the political process will also change. Both parties need to see conflict resolution, achieving physical security and ensuring the return of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).
Trans-Anatolian Pipeline (TANAP)
According to many regional research studies and international credit and economic agencies it would be a first giant step towards the unification of South Caucasus region to Europe. It will assume great importance for transportation of energy resources of Central Asia and Caspian basin to Europe. In this way, it is possible to decrease energy dependence of Europe. The TANAP intends to enable the transportation of gas from the Shah Deniz 2 field and other fields of Azerbaijan through Turkey to Europe. In addition, the Trans-Adriatic-Pipeline (TAP) is slated to carry Azeri gas to Europe across Greece, Albania and Turkey.
But the main source of threat in the region is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is also a bitter economic reality that the TANAP project might weaken the gas monopoly of Russia. In order to prevent it, Russia could make some provocations under the Armenian flag around Mountainous Karabakh, from where TANAP passes. In order to discourage Russia from such kind of provocations, solution of Mountainous Karabakh must be the agenda of European countries.
Moreover, if Armenia withdraws from the Azeri territories that it occupies, it would contribute to the regional success of the Southern Gas Corridor, another mega project. The Southern Gas Corridor has strategic importance that would ensure stability, sustainable development, security and peace in the region.
The Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the Southern Gas Corridor projects linked the continents by creating a peace and energy basin from the Caucasus to the Balkans and from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. The Southern Gas Corridor would not only be an energy corridor, but also a peace corridor.
| Different Principal Models | Details |
| A Return to the Status Quo Ante | The simplest conflict resolution model may be attempting to bring back the status quo ante as it is “rightly” advocated by Azerbaijan. The territorial integrity of independent states shall be respected, and the logic follows the principle that national minorities have the right to autonomy and to exercise their culture and religion, but not to secession and armed uprising. |
| Main Obstacle | Categorical Armenian refusal of this argument. The Armenians argue that they cannot live together with the Azerbaijani after the events in the wars. |
| A Re-Negotiated Autonomy | Generally autonomy solutions are advantageous as the nature and degree of self-rule can be tailor-made to fit the needs and wishes of a particular ethnic minority, and the particularities of their territory. Hence different profiles of political power distribution can be articulated. |
| Main Obstacle | Pre-conceived arrogant stance of the Armenia is one of the main obstacles. |
| A Territorial Swap | It could be first step in right direction due to which both sides would be in win-win situation. |
| Main Obstacle | Uncompromised attitude of Armenia has been one of the main reasons of achieving this kind of arrangement. |
| Joint Sovereignty | A variant which seeks to further the same goal communication between Armenia and Karabakh, and between Azerbaijan and Nakhjivan without resorting to substantial border alterations, has been put forward by the former US special negotiator on Karabakh, John J. Maresca. |
| Main Obstacle | Lack of political will and courage on the part of Armenia remained one of the main problems to set-up this type of settlement between the two sides. |
| Probable Suggestions | One Cyprus-based Solution (1960-63): Karabakh Armenians would be guaranteed an influence in the decision-making of Azerbaijan. |
| Main Obstacle | The territorial character of the conflict is one of the main obstacles and may not be applied on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. |
| Chechen type: The final status of Nagorno-Karabakh would be deferred for a number of years pending a normalization of the relations between the peoples and the return of refugees. | |
| Main Obstacle | Phased approach to resolution was rejected along with no guarantee for the sovereignty of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia. |
| A status of neutrality | Nagorno-Karabakh Neutral Territory (NKNT), which would be guaranteed by the UN security council, Armenia and Azerbaijan. |
| Main Obstacle | Disbelief and distrust in the past performance of the UN security council along with distrust between the two sides is the main actors of unsuccessful efforts. |
Probable Conflict Resolution Steps
1. Expected Economic Bounties
According to the World Bank research study that opening the closed borders between the Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan would increase Armenian exports to $US269-342 million, increase GDP by 30-38 percent and result in trade volumes exceeding $US300 million. So there would be socio-economic revolution in the Armenia afterwards. Substantial investment and economic activity in Nagorno-Karabakh has been very low, while in the occupied districts it is practically frozen. Drastic reduction would be surfaced in the respective defence budgets of both the sides after the said conflict resolution. It is hoped that economic incentive approach would offer a fresh dimension to peace building in relation to the current stalemate over Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
2. Pragmatic Approach
On its part, Armenia would return some land to Azerbaijan in return for the latter providing access to regional energy and infrastructure projects could contribute towards breaking the current stalemate. The “return of land” compromises to the seven districts of Azerbaijan which Armenia has occupied as an outcome of the Karabakh war of the 1990s and which remains under Armenian control till day.
3. Empowering and Engaging Civil Society
Previously, the human dimension has been badly ignored to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The people of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, whose future is at stake have become alienated from the actual process of conflict resolution and need to be engaged in the political bargaining. In this regard, according to conflict resolution management Multi-issue Bargaining Model is a modified version of the traditional bargaining model which offers micro-level and phase-by-phase analysis of the negotiation and mediation efforts and proposed mechanisms for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. People-to-people contacts, exchange of students, intelligentsia, researchers, politicians and journalists would be first right step in right direction which would bring desired results of peace and settlement of the conflict in the days to come.
4. Moving from Power-Brokerage to Relationship Restructuring
Till to-day the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict upholds the failure of mediation efforts in the context of a prolonged and successful ceasefire that has created disincentives for compromise. Role of media, FM radios and above all propaganda activities must be redefined in order to build Capacity Building Measures (CBMs) between the two countries. Rationale political wisdom is the need of the hour rather than rotary or manipulation to overcome the obstacle in the line of fire. Spirits of accommodation may achieve wonders and heal the wounds in the said conflict. Outright euphoria of victory would not alter destiny.
5. Paradigm Shift in Prevailing Political Mythologies
Gone are the days of political maneuvering which has been used for prolonging the conflicts. Ours is the age of conflict resolution, commercial diplomacy, dialogue, development and diplomacy. Now politics stands of reconciliation and not for destruction as commonly practiced in the age of Roman Empire. Politics is an effective mean to achieve lost paradises or any integral parts in the world.
Concluding Remarks
Khojaly genocide was an ethnic cleansing of Armenia forces against helpless Azerbaijanis. It was an act of barbarism and naked use of military power but it could not produce any dint to the spirits of Azerbaijanis who are still trying to liberate its occupied areas from Armenia.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has carried a geopolitical significance and a risk of degenerating into a regional conflagration that is arguably larger than any other conflict in post-Soviet Eurasia. Indeed, it is the single conflict that has led to threats actually being voiced of a ‘Third World War. Power politics and its chessboard have already produced havocs for the Azeri people live in the occupied areas. It has also marginalized its just conflict resolution due to vested interests of the power brokers in the region and beyond.
Karabakh is located midway between the Azerbaijani, Armenian and Iranian borders. In terms of geography, Karabakh is the door to Turkey, Iran and Azerbaijan. Moreover, Karabakh has a special importance for Azerbaijan. Karabakh is very important for Azerbaijan, because, they claim that this region is a historical Azerbaijani land. In addition to this, Karabakh forms approximately 30 percent of the Azerbaijan territory. So, Karabakh is very big loss for Azerbaijan.
The Caucasus has strategic importance to surrounding powers like Russia, Turkey and Iran. There must be comprehensive solution for Nagorno-Karabakh. It is also conceivable that the clashes of 2016 had negative effects on the peace talks. In a place where the interests of countries in the region continue, the solution is hard. For this reason, the interests of the regional countries should be considered in the peace talks, if it is possible. But their interests clash, so peace cannot be achieved. Therefore, no solution is seen as a solution. Ceasefire continues, but the recent conflict on 2 April 2016 showed that the ceasefire can easily be broken.
Europe holds the “wild card” and ultimately America. Transactional diplomacy by the Trump Administration may see challenges to Karabakh that could tip the issue a number of ways. Keeping Karabakh simmering is a major factor. Finally, how Arab states see Karabakh is ultimately important too given the strengthening of the Armenian diaspora in MENA vs those Arab states that actually support Baku on Karabakh”.
The United Nations (UN) supports peaceful settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan has numerously stated its readiness to discuss the status of Nagorno-Karabakh while talking to Sputnik news agency, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said “There can be a compromise on the issues of local self-government of the Nagorno-Karabakh, and in the future, if we agree, it can be an autonomous republic”. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev he firmly stated that there can be no compromise on the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu expressed its support on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. “Withdrawal of the Armenian troops from at least five regions of the occupied Azerbaijani territories continues to be debated”. He added that if such steps are taken, Turkey will be ready to support any solution that is supported by Azerbaijan.
However, staying committed to its unconstructive policy, Armenia continues occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory. Since the beginning of the conflict, more than 20,000 Azerbaijanis were killed and nearly 1 million out of then 7.3-million population of Azerbaijan were evicted from their houses in Nagorno-Karabakh. Now they have to live a refugee life, dreaming of their return to native lands. Moreover, the Armenian government is strongly against a meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagorno-Karabakh. Last meeting between the communities was held eight years ago, in 2009. Since then, such initiatives have stalled because of the reluctance of Armenian side.
The occupation of Azerbaijani lands harms Armenia itself due to its policy, the country cannot benefit from the international projects. If that continues, Armenia will be even more ignored by its neighbors. Moreover, this also hinders a deeper economic cooperation between the countries of the region. If Armenia is interested in the prosperity of Karabakh, it must stop the occupation, withdraw the troops, and then Baku will do everything possible to develop the region in the interests of all nations living there.
Most recently, the US co-chair of the OSCE MG James Warlick says “There will be no agreement without return of territories, or Nagorno-Karabakh status negotiations”. “Status quo is not sustainable, we need to work effectively further to find a peaceful solution”.
With so many conflicts in the world, Nagorno-Karabakh gets little attention. The bloody fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces in the mountainous enclave in April 2016 was a reminder that it should. Tanks and artillery traded fire; at least 50 people were killed in four days. The spectre loomed of a wider war, one that could draw in Russia, Turkey and Iran.
Conflicting parties and peacemaking require a push from powers such as Russia. Moscow has closer ties with Armenia: it has a military base there and a treaty obligation to defend the country against attacks on its territory (excluding Nagorno-Karabakh). But Russia also sells large quantities of arms to Baku. Any peace plan depends on external pressure overcoming local resistance. The stakes of diplomatic failure have never been clearer: little is left to prevent a repeat, or worse, of last year’s clashes.
Numerous UN Security Council resolutions have demanded the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the occupied Azerbaijani lands, however, Azerbaijani officials have complained that many governments have taken no action in support of implementing UN Security Council resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Nagorno-Karabakh issue is frozen conflict which should be resolved because it can erupt into a full-scale confrontation at any time and remains the most dangerous unresolved conflict in wider Europe, Last year, the conflict did erupt. Nevertheless, the international community still neglects to pay sufficient attention to this conflict.” The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of the ensuing war, in 1992 Armenian armed forces occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts. The 1994 ceasefire agreement was followed by peace negotiations. Armenia has not yet implemented four UN Security Council resolutions on withdrawal of its armed forces from the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding districts.
Bitter reality is that since 2010, the OSCE Minsk Group has found itself in a deadlock. The U.S. has even tried to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem without involving other participants of the peacekeeping process – Russia and France. Washington started negotiations in two different formats, involving both Armenia and Turkey and Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh republic.
However, there’s growing concern that the institution tasked with regulating the conflict the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is no longer effective. This negotiating format was created in 1992 as an attempt to look for a compromise on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. In 1997, the Minsk Group brought together Russia, France and the U.S., which collectively attempted to come up with a roadmap of how to resolve the conflict.
Russia tried to come up with the concept of “a balanced partnership” maintaining collaborative relations with Armenia, a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan and political and economic cooperation with Turkey. Russia must also do something meaningful to resolve this issue.
Hypothetically, three scenarios for resolving the thorny issue of Nagorno-Karabakh are possible here, all of them building on previous attempts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The first scenario is the resumption of the work of the OSCE Minsk Group which will not be easy. To resume the negotiations of the Minsk Group, leaders will have to accept that the Madrid principles have failed and offer to start the negotiating process with a clean slate.
Neither Washington nor Paris is ready for such a scenario. They refer to the decisions made at the 2009 G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy where they most recently discussed a potential peace settlement using the Madrid principles.
The second scenario is changing the membership of the Minsk Group to include other actors. Five years ago, Moscow and Washington gave consideration to including Turkey in the negotiations. Yerevan made hints about the potential inclusion of Iran at the negotiating table. But, given the conflict between Russia and Turkey, such a scenario is highly unlikely. The time for extending the Minsk Group has passed.
The third scenario is Russia’s direct mediation. Something similar happened in autumn 2008 when, thanks to the mediation of Russia, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan signed the Mayendorf Declaration agreeing to continue the negotiations.
The Republic of Azerbaijan will have to form a group of experts of media not journalists, international law, marketing, diplomacy, and of course diaspora in order to cope successfully with the ill designs of Armenia. An annual international media conference, visit of holy figures like pop, regional and international road show/grand awareness campaign regarding Khojaly genocide and Nagorno-Karabakh must be order of the day.
Policy makers of Azerbaijan must also explore or exploit conflict of interest among the power brokers in the region to achieve some strategic cushion or space for political maneuvering on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. In this regard, experts of international relations, political science, human psychology and philosophy must also be formed as soon as possible.
Gross human right violations, violations of ceasefire, poverty, unemployment, discrimination and widening insecurity among the factions of the Armenia ought to be highlighted regionally and globally. Severe economic meltdown, bankruptcy, corruption, lack of transparency and even denial of basic necessities of life must be showcased in the international media.
Armenian nuclear program and plants are the real threats to humanity at large in region and beyond especially European Union which should be projected through publication of news items, reports and articles to be published in the region and outer world.
Azerbaijan is blessed with natural resources of oil and gas. Its economy is smart which future prospects is also bright. It may consider using this to make alliances against Armenian aggression and liberalization of occupied areas.
