The year 2020 has been marked by various international and regional challenges towards the establishment of a strong-standing global peace. From an unprecedented pandemic that engulfed the world in a flare-up of regional flashpoints; to, inter alia, the conflicts on Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean. However, 2020 also saw the reignited war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh disputed grounds (an unfinished business from the end of World War I, still fought by the zero-sum rules of the last century ) which demonstrated the prevalence of regional power-politics and the ineffectiveness of the international community (OSCE Minsk Group format, the European Union and the United Nations) to address the conflict escalation.
This post does not aim to conduct an ex-post analysis over the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, but to bring two contradicting, young voices from Armenia and Azerbaijan that will share their insights on the current situation and the role of the next generations in conflict prevention between the two sides. The author would like to warmly thank both Ismayil Ahmadov (Azerbaijan) and Vahe Aydinyan (Armenia) for setting an example and putting national differences aside to make this discussion a reality.
1. Which do you believe are the biggest challenges ahead for the implementation of the ceasefire agreement between the two sides?
Ismayil Ahmadov: The inability of Armenia to admit defeat can potentially cause an impasse for the implementation of the trilateral statement. Despite the deployment of the Russian peacekeepers, since the signing of the Statement there have been two ceasefire violations, which have led to losses on both sides. If in the first case the ethnic Armenian groups refused to leave the territory, which according to the agreement remained under the control of Azerbaijan, the second violation took place deep in the rear of Azerbaijan, more than 20 km from the separation line. The ‘Weimar Syndrome’ and attempts to start a guerilla warfare may lead to an even greater escalation of the conflict and its regionalisation due to the participation of Russian and Turkish armed forces.
Vahe Aydinyan: Many say that the war is finally over, but is it? Azerbaijan has now occupied the seven regions that Armenians owned and with which they protected Nagorno Karabakh’s Armenian populations. After any war, the losing side can either move forward or work to take revenge. Azerbaijan chose the second option after the first war and just achieved their goal. For the ceasefire agreement to hold, Azerbaijan should demonstrate gratitude for its earnings and stop further hardline policies over the region. Armenia on the other hand, should put aside the negative effects of the post-war stalemate, and learn from its mistakes. Only through this way both countries can move towards a better and peaceful future. All in all, both countries must stop thinking of Nagorno Karabakh as an apple of discord and find a diplomatic solution, because war is not the answer.
2. To what extent do you believe that third parties influenced the latest war between the two countries? What were the motives behind Russia’s ambiguous stance?
Ismayil Ahmadov: The root causes of this war cannot be found on third countries, but on the dual impact of Prime Minister Pashinyan’s unconstructive rhetoric and the ‘New War for New Territories’ policy, announced by Armenian Defense Minister David Tonoyan earlier this year at a meeting with the diaspora. This was also stressed by Matthew Bryza, former U.S Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. Furthermore, the reason for such open support from Turkey stems from the August 20th statement of the Armenian Prime Minister that no one revoked the terms of the Sevres Treaty, which was perceived by Turkey as a territorial claim. As such, Turkey actively sold its weapons to Azerbaijan, but it should be clarified that there was no Turkish military on the battlefield. Respectively, Russia was only able to help Armenia by sending free weapons, because its hands were tied under international law. The explanation of the Russian stance should be attributed to the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is an internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan. Neither Russia nor the CSTO could provide Armenia with the assistance it demanded, since the war was not taking place on Armenian territory, something that was also stressed by President Putin in his post-war interview.
Vahe Aydinyan: The fact is that third parties won the war. Azerbaijan had the full moral and armament support of Turkey. It should be mentioned that the military and human resources that Turkey provided to Azerbaijan played a critical role in the outcome of the war. Even though Azerbaijan was spending tremendously huge amounts of money on military equipment these past years, they were lacking other elements which were provided by Turkey. Another third party was the Syrian mercenaries that Turkey sent to Nagorno Karabakh. Georgia also showed its support to Azerbaijan by refusing Russian weapons and military hardware to be transported to Armenia through its inland routes. Russia was not obliged to participate in the war of Nagorno Karabakh because its military agreement was signed with Armenia and not Nagorno Karabakh. Using that fact as an excuse, Russia did not get involved in the war but in the end actually benefited for two reasons: 1. they appeared as official peacekeepers of the Nagorno Karabakh region and 2. Armenians demonstrated against their anti-Russian government. In conclusion, all parties won except one, Armenia.
3. Despite your different standpoints, I think it is now time to discuss the uniting factors between the two countries. What is the role of the future generations in the reconstruction of bilateral relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
Ismayil Ahmadov: I can say with confidence that Azerbaijanis are ready to live with Armenians in peace again. If the Armenian people agree to bury the hatchet, then many opportunities will open before us. It is possible to restore bilateral relations, but it will be a long and difficult path that future generations will most likely have to walk upon. Firstly, it is necessary to establish diplomatic relations between the countries, as Nikol Pashinyan recently stated in an interview. However, the Armenian opposition, which accuses him of treason, reacted extremely negatively to this and this could pose as an undermining factor in the process. Also, joint social, economic and cultural projects will certainly play a crucial role in normalising relations. We should not forget that Azerbaijan has already offered several infrastructural generations for the restoration of Karabakh, including the part where ethnic Armenians live. In the future, similar projects are possible in Armenia itself. Moreover, the improvement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations could also affect the historically stranded relations of Armenia with Turkey, further ensuring the prosperity and well-being of the Armenian population. On this note, it is worth emphasising the cultural ties between the two nations. We had lived in peace and harmony for a very long time in the past. We have a lot in common in traditions, culture, national cuisine, music. Therefore, joint-cultural projects should be the starting point in restoring a soft and gradual trust-building between nations.
Vahe Aydinyan: It is needless to say that the future generations could and should learn from the mistakes of their ancestors and look towards a bright and peaceful future. They should be the ones that will bring the change that every society is looking for. Starting from the basis of our society which is education, children of all ages should be taught historically proven facts, so that they can develop critical thinking and not blindly follow the political order. Thus, true democratic principles and values should be the way for the future generations, in order to ensure a fair and equal present and future. More importantly, democracy provides each individual with the opportunity to choose his/her representatives, a choice that both countries have not truly given to their people. Now is the time for future generations to claim this right and shape the future, correcting all past mistakes. This will, in fact, reflect their choices and form their decisions for their own future course and any bilateral relations between countries.
Conclusion
The aftermath of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war left behind 2,783 dead soldiers from the Azerbaijani side and respectively 2,317 from the Armenian one, while 70.000 people of the local population were displaced in the process, according to the local human rights commissioner. The enforcement of the agreement has been overshadowed by the mutual distrust between the two sides, whilst the deployment of 2000 Russian peacekeeping forces can be characterized as a huge win for Moscow. Meanwhile, Turkey’s energy interests guarantee that its involvement will remain strong in the region. It remains to be seen whether Azerbaijan decides to give some autonomies to the Nagorno-Karabakh region or to launch salami-slicing wars to regain all districts. However, one thing is certain: The frozen conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh is being replaced by a frozen and stunted peace. This discussion should function as the ‘locomotive’ to propel more constructive dialogue between people from Armenia and Azerbaijan, providing both peoples with the opportunity to seek once again a rapprochement in the future.
Comments