Nagorno-Karabakh Searching for a Solution: Peaceworks: Publications: U.S. Institute of Peace

Complete List of Institute Reports

Release Date:
December 1998

Nagorno-Karabakh Searching for a Solution

Introduction

Although it has long since fallen out of the headlines, the conflict over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh appears no closer to resolution than when the worst of the fighting ended six years ago. Hotly disputed between Armenians and Azeris, this tiny, barren area in the southern Caucasus region of the former Soviet Union has been the scene of some bitter fighting; though the military clashes have largely ceased, the political battles are as high-pitched as ever. Yet, in a way not dreamed of only a few years ago, the current fever over oil pipeline routes from Central Asia and the Caucasus regions has elevated the importance of this protracted dispute from obscure regional strife to a significant source of frustration for international political and business leaders.

Background
Both Azeris and Armenians claim absolute historic right to Nagorno-Karabakh and have battled over it periodically for generations. In this century, the dispute was pointedly and cleverly exacerbated by Soviet leader Josef Stalin. Stalin knew that by including the disputed and by then majority Armenian-populated region wholly within the boundaries of the new Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, it would forever remain a sore spot between the two republics that would ensure Moscow’s position as power broker (a divide-and-rule policy behind many border decisions in that region in the 1920s). The most recent flare-up of the conflict dates back to 1988, when, during the loosening of restraints under the rule of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Armenian majority in the Nagorno-Karabakh Supreme Soviet (the region’s legislature) appealed to have the region join Armenia. Azerbaijan rejected the appeal out of hand. Violence was unleashed, with each side claiming that the other initiated the hostilities. Hundreds of thousands of refugees were created as both Armenians and Azeris fled to avoid the fighting or were expelled or forced out. In 1989, the Supreme Soviet of Armenia passed a resolution proclaiming the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia which, to date, has not been rescinded.

In the spring of 1991, even more serious fighting broke out that involved Soviet troops, in addition to Armenian and Azeri forces. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the auto nomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh rejected unification with Armenia and declared complete independence in early 1992. The disintegration of the Soviet Union also resulted in a steep upgrade in the level of armaments and munitions available for use by both sides, sharply intensifying the lethality of the fighting. By mid-1992, the Armenians largely controlled Nagorno-Karabakh; the 20 to 25 percent of the enclave’s population that was Azeri had fled; and the Lachin corridor, a land bridge from the region to Armenia, was established. The Armenians managed to go still further in 1993, when their forces occupied almost 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory outside of Nagorno-Karabakh. They have since refused to retreat from this land until the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized and its security guaranteed. There the situation has been stalemated since 1994, when the bulk of the fighting ceased in the wake of a signing of a cease-fire in May of that year. The fighting between Azeris and Armenians over Nagorno-Karabakh left more than fifteen thousand dead.

Mediation Attempts
Early mediation initiatives between the two warring parties were attempted by Russia, Kazakstan, Iran, Turkey, and France. However, cease-fire agreements were routinely broken literally within minutes of their signing. When both Armenia and Azerbaijan joined the then Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, now the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE) in 1992, the mediation baton was passed to that group, which continues to play the leading role in negotiation efforts. A subset of CSCE members, dubbed the “Minsk Group” of countries, so-called after the location of its first convening, was formed to participate in the negotiation talks. (The members of the Minsk Group are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.) The Minsk Group is chaired jointly by Russia, the United States, and France.

Unfortunately, little progress has been made through the Minsk Group process. For nearly six years, the stalemate has remained in place and the situation appears immovable. Within the context of OSCE, each side is able to point to a principle enshrined in the Hel sinki Final Act to underscore its position: Azerbaijan points to Principle IV, guaranteeing each member’s territorial integrity, and the Armenians of Karabakh point to Principle VIII, proclaiming the right to self-determination (which is not specifically defined). Even the framework for negotiating, much less the substance, proved highly problematic, as Azerbaijan for the most part refused to deal with Nagorno-Karabakh as a full party to any talks, demanding instead to negotiate only with Armenia directly. Armenia has insisted it had nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh’s struggle for independence and that the latter should have a place at the negotiating table. They settled, after considerable deliberation, for a “two plus one” strategy of negotiations, with the Karabakh Armenians present but not an official party to the talks. By 1997, however, Stepanakert (the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh) essentially had become a full party to the negotiations, and it is now understood that any agreement must be signed by all three players.

Nagorno-Karabakh continues to insist that it is an independent state entity, though it has not been recognized by any other country, including Armenia. The Armenians will not discuss the issue of troop withdrawals from the seven occupied Azeri provinces outside of Nagorno-Karabakh until that region’s status is determined in a way acceptable to its residents. Azerbaijan will not accept any change to its territorial integrity and, in any case, demands the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the other regions before serious negotiations on other issues can begin. At the OSCE’s summit in Lisbon in December 1996, all members save Armenia accepted the principle that Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity must be honored, though with a guarantee of maximum autonomy for Nagorno-Karabakh. Because of the organization’s consensus rule, the resolution was not formally adopted. Nevertheless, this vote prompted the Armenians in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh to suggest that the Minsk Group is not a neutral, objective mediator.

Though one of the three chairs of the Minsk Group, Russia has continued to proffer its own initiatives from time to time in ways that seemed pointedly to compete with OSCE efforts. Whatever its overall aims, Russia clearly has shown itself determined to retain the in fluence over the former republics of the southern Caucasus that it enjoyed while the Soviet Union was a single entity. This relationship has been easiest to maintain with Armenia, traditionally Russia’s strongest ally in the region and clearly interested in maintaining that connection. Russia operates two military bases in Armenia, and the military alliance continues to expand. In fact, that relationship proved something of an embarrassment to the two countries when, in February 1997, it was revealed that the Russian Defense Ministry had supplied a considerable amount of military hardware to Armenia between 1994 and 1996, apparently in violation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, has steadfastly refused to allow Russia to operate any military bases on its territory, despite considerable Russian pressure. This combination of relationships has led some to question Russia’s role as an objective player in this dispute.

The Latest Initiative
As is often the case in protracted disputes, one of the key obstacles in the search for a solution to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh is the issue of timing or sequencing. Each side has demanded that the other meet its primary requirement before discussion of any other issues. (Azerbaijan is demanding the withdrawal of Armenian troops from occupied Azeri lands before any discussion of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status; Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh are calling for a resolution on the region’s status before any consideration of troop with drawals from Azeri lands.) In an attempt to tackle this impasse, the most recent plan offered by the Minsk Group, in September 1997, proposed a “phased” approach as a political solution. This entailed an Armenian withdrawal from the seven provinces, followed by discussions on the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh. This proposal was, perhaps not surprisingly, accepted by Azerbaijan. Somewhat unexpectedly and signaling a slight shift in position, the proposal was accepted by Armenia as a basis for further talks, though with reservations. It was, however, rejected out of hand by Nagorno-Karabakh, which demanded that its independence be recognized and security guaranteed before any discussion of a withdrawal from other areas of Azerbaijan. Rather than accepting the phased approach to a settlement, the Karabakh Armenians demand that all issues be solved simultaneously.

Though the governments of Azerbaijan and Armenia agreed to continue talks (or, in the case of Armenia, at least in part) on the basis of this OSCE plan, the domestic political opposition in both countries strongly objected. In Azerbaijan, President Heydar Aliev main tains firm enough control of government reins, but in Armenia, where President Levon Ter-Petrossian was already considerably weakened after a much-criticized presidential election, the government became even more vulnerable to all-out public and political hostility to even the slightest hint of a concession over Nagorno-Karabakh. Opposition to the phased approach and solidarity with Nagorno-Karabakh became so manifest that in February 1998, Ter-Petrossian was forced to resign from office. After a presidential election that was again deemed deeply flawed by international observers, including those from the OSCE, he was replaced as president by Robert Kocharian, the former “president” of Nagorno-Karabakh who in March 1997 had been appointed prime minister by Ter-Petrossian in an attempt to shore up his enfeebled presidency. After the events of February and March 1998, the possibility of achieving a solution for the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute seemed as remote as ever.

This conflict is without a doubt one of the more intractable disputes in the world today and something of a conundrum for observers of and experts on this region. In view of this frustrating stalemate, coupled with domestic developments in Armenia that have a direct impact on the conflict, the United States Institute of Peace decided to re-examine the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, looking for any possible roads out. On March 24, 1998, the Institute convened a one-day roundtable called “Nagorno-Karabakh: Situation Hopeless? A Search for Solutions to the Impasse.” The primary purpose of the meeting was to pro vide an opportunity for scholars on and from the region to offer their ideas to American policy makers and negotiators on possible ways to move the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh “off the dime” on which it has been stuck since at least 1993. In addition to pos sible solutions to the present predicament, the roundtable sought to examine the ways in which domestic politics in Armenia and Azerbaijan influence (usually negatively) the ability to reach a settlement. Finally, there was an analysis of more complicated but equally crucial ingredients—such as national identities, self-perceptions, national myths, and nation-building—and how they have directly affected the motivation to battle over Nagorno-Karabakh and con tinue to have a profound influence on the attitudes of the parties to the dispute.

United States Institute of Peace -- 1200 17th Street NW -- Washington, DC 20036
(202) 457-1700 (phone) -- (202) 429-6063 (fax)
Send Feedback