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

Conclusion

Security
Clearly, the absence of security guarantees is a crucial sticking point in resolving this conflict. As Charles Fairbanks of the Central Asia Institute pointed out, the Armenians believe, justifiably or not, that the rest of the world is ganging up on them, a sentiment that is further fueled by the memory of the 1915 genocide and the Turkish refusal to acknowledge it. At the same time, it is hard for Azeris to be concerned about security guarantees for Armenia as long as more than six provinces of Azerbaijan are occupied by Armenian troops. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see how this impasse is going to be broken, at least in the immediate future. An easing of the blockade—even by Turkey—would do a significant amount to break the deadlock, possibly easing the feelings of insecurity on both sides. There are Turks who would like to see their border with Armenia opened for commercial reasons, but, as Aivazian pointed out, Turkey continues to proclaim that it will not open its border with Armenia until there is a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, throwing the idea back again to the quagmire.

Suny suggested, with an acknowledgment of its remote possibility, that perhaps some kind of collective security arrangement for the Caucasus could be organized. This could be within NATO, or a sideline of NATO, or something wholly separate, but it would be an arrangement in which the three countries of the Caucasus would be compelled to cooperate militarily for the purposes of their own security. It may require an initiative from the United States, though it need not obligate direct U.S. participation. An official from the U.S. Department of State added that the notion is not as remote as many people may think, since within the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council instruments are available to the newly independent states to establish collective security arrangements. Georgia is already involved, for example, in an ever-expanding network of Partnership for Peace and other related activities. Further progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks would offer new opportunities for Armenia and Azerbaijan to integrate themselves into broader European security structures.

Altstadt noted that it would be particularly helpful if some confidence-building measures could be established, not necessarily specifically relating to Nagorno-Karabakh but with the wider aim of building trust in the Caucasus. One example would be cooperation on environmental problems, which all parties to the conflict share.

Democracy Is Threatened but Remains Essential
It is perhaps ironic, Molla-zade said, that though both Armenia and Azerbaijan moved forward on democratic reforms because of the international attention paid to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it is this same conflict that is now causing steps back from democracy. Today, it appears that the antagonism is an obstacle to further democratic reforms in both countries. Oil wealth itself will not help Azerbaijan to develop as a nation, Molla-zade noted; only democracy can do that. Only the ability of both peoples to change their governments in free and fair elections will help in finding—and preserving—a long-term solution to this conflict.

Though there have been setbacks in democratic reforms in both Armenia and Azerbaijan since they gained independence in 1991, Suny said, the leaders in both countries managed to consolidate the state and its authority, bringing much-needed order and stability. It is only with a strong state that foundations such as democracy, rule of law, and market reforms can be built, as the state must have the necessary legitimacy to keep order, protect private property, enforce contracts, and so forth. Yet, at the same time that the state was being consolidated in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the governments in both countries were losing legitimacy. It may be that only after the two countries have held their next presidential elections will the necessary combination of state authority and government legitimacy will be in place to reach a settlement on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Ultimately, Suny contended, there is only one genuine and long-term solution to the Karabakh dispute: The three parties must agree that there should be a recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, coupled with actual self-government for Karabakh by local Armenians. This matter of territorial integrity must be brought together with national self-determination and self-government. Because there is no other solution that is short of inflammatory, it is hoped that the new government in Armenia will eventually come to this conclusion itself. Sooner or later, Suny said (though unfortunately it will likely be later), Armenians and Azerbaijanis will realize that neither side can have the whole “cake” in Karabakh. The Armenians are perhaps now learning that military victory does not necessarily bring peace; Israel’s victory in the Six Day War in 1967, for example, only led to a generation of war and resistance. Only a settlement guaranteeing Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over the region, with de facto Karabakh Armenian control, has a chance of lasting more than a few years. This could perhaps be the beginning of an understanding of new forms of state sovereignty and self-rule, forms that are more appropriate in a post–nation-state era.

Walker agreed, maintaining that the most that can be hoped for in finding a resolution to this dispute is some form of staged agreement. The Armenian position that only a packaged settlement, or an insistence that an agreement on status must come before an agreement on other issues, is simply unrealistic. Furthermore, success will come only with direct negotiations between Baku and Stepanakert.

In the end, for a lasting settlement to be reached between these two peoples, Altstadt said, both sides must look to the future instead of the past. Instead of trying to right historical wrongs, on which there is no agreement, or avenging the deaths of ancestors, Armenians and Azeris should look to their children’s generation and devote their energies to ensuring that their children do not continue to fight and die for the same causes, passing the conflict yet again on to the next generation.

Looking to the future and not the past, however, may be a more American way of viewing human experience and not one that is easily understood by peoples so resolutely defined by their history. It is clearly and unfortunately the case that Armenians and Azeris are currently not prepared to put the past behind them. As long as these conditions remain, it is difficult to see how the dispute between these two peoples will be resolved in such a way that it does not become ingrained in the individual and national identity of future generations. It is clear that the most plausible and realistic solution to the dispute is found in the most recent plan proffered by the OSCE’s Minsk Group; it is hoped that the continued high level of international attention to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh will bring the parties to a lasting settlement.

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