Though the worst of the fighting ended in 1993, the conflict over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh remains stalemated. Both Azeris and Armenians claim absolute historic ownership of the region, located within the boundaries of Azerbaijan but populated largely by Armenians. The latest flare-up of this long-standing conflict occurred toward the end of the Soviet period, when the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh petitioned to become part of Armenia. Serious fighting erupted in 1991, and in the following two years Armenian forces not only gained control of Nagorno-Karabakh but also occupied almost 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory. The leaders of the Nagorno-Karabakh region have declared independence, though this status has not been recognized by any state. The fighting between Azeris and Armenians left more than 15,000 dead.
Since 1992, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has been the primary forum for mediation efforts, led by a subset of OSCE members called the Minsk Group. Unfortunately, little progress has been made by the OSCE, as each side has insisted on incompatible conditions that the other will not accept. The Armenians will not discuss the withdrawal of their troops from Azeri territories until Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized as independent; Azerbaijan insists on its complete territorial integrity and demands the withdrawal of Armenian troops before it will discuss any other matters, including the eventual status of Nagorno-Karabakh.
In September 1997, the Minsk Group proposed a “phased” approach plan, entailing an Armenian withdrawal from seven Azeri provinces followed by a discussion of the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The plan was accepted by Azerbaijan, accepted with reservations by Armenia, and rejected out of hand by Nagorno-Karabakh. In February 1998, the president of Armenia, who had conditionally accepted the plan, was forced to resign.
The sources of the conflict are the subject of much debate. Many observers view it as an ethnic conflict fueled by nationalist intransigence. Others assert that the primary issue is geopolitical rivalries that involve not just Armenians and Azeris but Turks and Russians also, among others, and that this dispute is only a continuation of earlier ones between Armenians and Turks. Armenians believe their security to be severely threatened by Azerbaijan and Turkey and feel fully justified in taking measures that are viewed as aggressive by Azeris. Some observers maintain that Russia has played a far from benign role in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute and that, in fact, Moscow has an interest in keeping the conflict alive in order to maintain its influence in the southern Caucasus region. Some observers contend that the Minsk Group process has been flawed from the start, not least by the group’s refusal to address these very considerations.
There are a number of obstacles to reaching a settlement of the dispute. The mutual and historical mistrust between the Armenians and the Azeris and the character of the violence during the fighting have convinced both sides that it is the other side’s people—not its government—that is the problem. Security issues and refugees on both sides are obstacles. Azerbaijan is not secure while Armenians occupy seven of its provinces, and Armenians feel extremely vulnerable surrounded by Azeris and Turks. The governments in both of the capitals remain highly suspicious of each other. Finally, the negotiating process itself is an obstacle, as one of the parties to the conflict most affected by the outcome, Nagorno-Karabakh, was not allowed a place at the negotiating table because of Azeri objections.
There are also factors that provide a strong incentive to finding a solution. Nagorno-Karabakh is not central to the national or historical identity of either Armenians or Azeris. The topography of the region does much to prevent either side from launching another military offensive, and there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to reach a settlement. In addition to these incentives, the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh has received considerable attention from the international community.
There has been a tendency to overestimate the influence of oil and oil pipeline routes on that international attention. The existence of oil in Azerbaijan cannot be said to be driving the international community’s interest in the conflict, for the involvement of the Minsk Group well predates the world’s awareness of the oil reserves’ significance. At the same time, Caspian Sea oil is not going to provide the primary incentive to reach a settlement over Nagorno-Karabakh; on the contrary, it may be a negative factor. Azerbaijan’s oil wealth has sometimes made that country feel it has less impe tus to compromise, while pipelines running through the Caucasus may offer the Armenians a kind of “hostage issue” they can manipulate for their own purposes.
Though Armenia enjoyed a positive and democratic image in its first years of independence, the country was in fact suffering considerably. Economic ruin and corruption led to political demoralization among the populace. The weakening of the political leaders and their increasing illegitimacy among the Armenian people led also to a hardening of the official position toward the Karabakh dispute. As a result, Armenia has suffered an erosion of its once very positive image in the eyes of the West. Nevertheless, the Armenian position on the dispute remains unchanged, not least because for many if not most Armenians, Karabakh is now viewed as the “front line” against the Turks; if Armenia gives even an inch on its position, it believes it will be just as vulnerable as it was during the Armenian massacres in 1915.
Azerbaijan must contend with its position as “loser” in the Karabakh conflict; in addi tion to the thousands of casualties, about 20 percent of the country’s territory remains occupied. The knowledge that they essentially lost that war has led the Azeris to be fearful of the possibility that their nation could disintegrate, beginning with the loss of Karabakh. They thus believe the future of their integrity as a people lies in the favorable resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. This feeling is intensified by the Azeris’ relatively underdeveloped sense of nationhood. Armenians very likely do not appreciate the extent to which Azeris believe their very existence to be threatened by the notion of independence for Nagorno-Karabakh. Unfortunately, given the presence of Soviet-era leaders and pervasive corruption in Azerbaijan’s political system, future oil revenues will do little to change the situation.
Clearly, the absence of security guarantees is a crucial obstacle to resolving this conflict. The Armenians may be justified in feeling surrounded, but as long as Armenian troops occupy 20 percent of Azeri territory, it is difficult for Azeris to be concerned about security guarantees for Armenia. Some kind of collective security arrangement would be beneficial; in fact, within the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, instruments are available to the former Soviet republics to establish security arrangements. It is unfortunate, however, that setbacks in democratic reforms in both countries have weakened the ability of either government to have the courage to forge a compromise.
In the end, it is doubtful that there is any resolution possible other than the most recent plan proffered by the OSCE’s Minsk Group. The three parties will have to agree that there should be a recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, coupled with actual self-government for Karabakh by local Armenians. Only a settlement guaranteeing local Armenian sovereignty over Karabakh with de jure Azerbaijani control has a chance of lasting more than a few short years into the future, thus preventing the current dispute from being passed on to future generations. It is hoped that the continued high level of international attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will result in a final settlement.
