As Armenia and Azerbaijan’s hands remain on the trigger, it could well be the region that stands to get caught in the cross-fire.
Sitting at the heart of the Caucasus region – a relatively small region of the world sandwiched in between Eastern Europe and Western Asia – Azerbaijan has been the unfortunate subject of much foreign attention over the decades due to its coveted geostrategic position and vast natural resources.
A state of the Soviet Union until 18 October 1991, Azerbaijan was once one of Moscow’s most prized possessions in terms of the Kremlin’s energy strategy policy. It was actually Baku’s vast oil reserves which prompted Soviet Russia to invade this small state in the first place. Back in 1920, at a time when Moscow sought to assert communism as the new political regional paradigm, Vladimir Lenin understood what crucial role Azerbaijan would play in securing Soviet Russia economic and energy independence.
Although much has changed in terms of political dynamics since Azerbaijan gained its independence – the Baku government has increasingly looked west towards Europe, distancing itself from Russia and beyond the Asian block – the country has nevertheless remained a crucial cog within the regional power map; to such an extent that many analysts, including Fariz Ismailzade, have argued that Baku’s foreign policy would ultimately carry broad regional repercussions.
At this particular juncture in time, when Azerbaijan’s frictions with Armenia have increased in both intensity and frequency over the ever-thorny issue of territorial sovereignty and border demarcation, the Caucasus could soon become a regional cesspit.
As noted by Ismailzade in relation to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, “This is a conflict which has the danger of pulling in major regional powers.”
He added, “The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a hostage to geopolitical rivalry. Although international organizations put much of the blame on the political leaderships of Armenia and Azerbaijan for their inability to make concessions and persuade their nations that peace requires painful compromises, it is clear that the conflict has more players than just Yerevan and Baku.”
And indeed with powers such as Russia, Iran, Turkey, the United States and the EU having geo-strategic interests invested in Azerbaijan, one can easily understand what pull Baku’s decisions will have on the region and to some extent world dynamics.
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.
Armenia breaks ceasefire agreement
On November 28, the Azerbaijan Defense Ministry issued an official statement in which it condemned Armenia’s belligerent actions against Baku, emphasizing that Armenian troops targeted Azerbaijan’s territories on 51 separate instances in less than 24 hours, in clear violation of a long-standing ceasefire.
While Azerbaijan has so far refused to engage Armenia militarily, Baku has warned that further encroachment on its territory would be met with utmost speed and resolution.
This aggression came only five days after Armenia held state funeral for three soldiers it claimed were killed earlier in November when Azerbaijan allegedly downed a military helicopter as it flew over the disputed territories. Baku has categorically denied any wrongdoing, stressing that since the helicopter “made attack maneuvers” it exercised its right to self-defense.
With tensions and resentment in between Azerbaijan and Armenia building back up again, experts have already warned that timing could prove disastrous for the region as another war would force world powers to engage at a time of great unrest and over-lapping foreign agendas.
Mohsen Kia, an Iranian political analyst based in Tehran stressed that just as Syria became center-staged to foreign rivalries, “pitting Iran and Russia against the United States, the EU and somewhere in between powers such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia playing piggy-in-the-middle, a new Caucasus war could unravel the status quo and force regional powers to dig in their political and military heels.”
With Ankara being such a staunch ally of Baku – Turkey was first in the world to recognize Azerbaijan’s independence in 1991 and it has since worked to bolster state independence through active military and economic support – and in the light of long-standing fictions with Armenia, it is likely Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will stand behind Azerbaijan come hell or high water.
Kia further noted, “With Armenia on a slippery economic slope, it could well be a conflict is imminent. Yerevan understands that Baku has gained the upper-hand both economically and militarily. Armenia might look to strike now, while it still can, to create a psychological deterrent. But again, this could prompt Azerbaijan to launch an all-out military intervention against its neighbor … with all the implications it entails.”
With thousands of Azerbaijanis standing in Armenia’s line of fire – media reports have confirmed that Armenia armed forces targeted Azerbaijani positions across four districts: Tovuz, Agstafa, Qazakh and Jabrayil on November 28 – many fear war has become inevitable.
Regional powder keg
As noted by Fariz Ismailzade almost a decade ago – in 2005 – in a report for the Centre for World Dialogue, “As Caucasian countries, Azerbaijan and Armenia are part of a region that serves as a bridge between East and West, and between the territories of the former Soviet Union and the Islamic world. This causes many regional powers to be interested in the area, creating an unhealthy competition, often turning into a bitter rivalry, between them. As a result, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains frozen and unresolved.”
To which he added, “As if this strategic geographic location were not enough, Azerbaijan also possesses vast oil and gas reserves. This has caused external powers such as the United States, China and the European Union, hungry for energy resources, to become involved in the region as well. There are at least seven major players in the geopolitical game over Nagorno-Karabakh: Russia, the United States, the European Union, Iran, Turkey, the Islamic world, and China. A closer look at the interests and actions of each of these players illustrates their role in the conflict and reveals the difficulties associated with finding a solution to it.”
Acutely aware of the dynamics which have moved the Caucasus region, Ismailzade’s assessment is as valid today as it was in 2005, notwithstanding the ever dangerous and ever-present risk regional ethnic and sectarian tensions represent.
In the light of developments in Syria, Iraq and renewed Taliban-related tensions in Afghanistan, Islamic radicals could attempt to play Armenia’s aggression toward Azerbaijan as a new platform for their Jihadist movement, adding a terror dimension to an already delicate situation.
As noted by Eldar Mamedov – political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) – “The unravelling of Iraq may have some interesting, even alarming implications for the Caspian Basin state of Azerbaijan.”
He added, “There are two significant ways in which the disintegration of Iraq might pose security challenges to Azerbaijan. The first and most obvious is connected with the rise in Iraq of a Sunni jihadist movement, known as ISIS. This development, over time, could stoke sectarian tension in Azerbaijan, a country where, even though secularism remains a powerful force in society, religion is making a strong comeback.”
As Armenia and Azerbaijan’s hands remain on the trigger, it could well be the region that stands to get caught in the cross-fire.
The “aggression” in the end of November started when Azerbaijan, going against its commitments to the peace process, downed a Armenian military helicopter that was taking part in a training exercise within the Armenian-controlled territory.
Also, Baku is not looking increasingly Westward. It is in fact strengthening relations with Russia and Iran, as its relations with the West have been increasingly strained over the past months. The West has constantly criticized Azerbaijan for its abysmal human rights. In a recent interview, President Aliyev criticized the West for its policies in the Middle East. In Azerbaijan, Western NGOs have been either outright banned or severely restricted. So Azerbaijan is in no way “looking increasingly westward”. In fact, it is doing the opposite.
Who takes responsibility of the fact that UN Security Council’s resolutions which demand withdrawal of the Armenian military forces from Azerbaijan have not been followed already for 20 years? And who is responsible for the fact that thousands of kilometers of land where there is no single Azerbaijanis living any more is now damaged and destroyed? Here are some sources referring to international non-governmental organizations. What was said before originates also from international sources and not from Azerbaijani sources.
1. The resolution of the UN Security Council: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1993.shtml
2. Information about refugees: http://www.unhcr.org/414ad56a0.html
3. About the report of Minsk Group OSCE: http://www.osce.org/mg/76209
It is really hard to swallow these silly propaganda pieces masquerading as academic assessments. This region was a 94% Armenian enclave attached to the newly formed Azerbaijan at the last minute by a clever Stalin in the 1920s. At the sunset of the Soviet regime, this region voted for autonomy through the self-determination doctrine, and then carried out a referendum which corroborated that desire. These attempts at independence were illegally rejected by the Azeris for obvious reasons, backed by a Russian government fearing a cascade of independence in the crumbling empire. Further, it was met with the Russian-led Operation Ring that brutally removed Armenians from the village of Shahumyan, and pogroms against Armenians (with no police intervention for 72 hours) by Azeris in Sumgait. Armenians smelled the fact pattern of another genocide, and began wildly successful offensives. As Russia dissolved, war was inevitable, a war which Azerbaijan decisively lost despite massive monetary, weaponry, and headcount advantages. A Russian-brokered ceasefire was hastily signed to prevent Armenians marching unimpeded to Baku. At the time, the 3 parties to the ceasefire were Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Nagorno-Karabakh republic.
The Autonomous Region of Mountainous Karabagh (Artsakh) declared independence from Azerbaijan because of continued persecution, oppression, and human and civil rights violations by the Azeri Turks. It was attached to Azerbaijan as an Autonomous Region by Joseph Stalin in 1921 and has suffered under Azeri rule from that time onward. In Soviet Period, at first the Soviets returned Nagorno-Karabagh to Armenia, but after a brief period, Joseph Stalin gave it to Azerbaijan as an “autonomous region,” and altered the boundaries so that Karabagh was cut off from Armenia.
In 1991 when Azeris began an outright military assault on the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh itself, Karabakh Armenians took up arms to defend their homes, their land, and their ancient culture. The Armenians are fighting for self-preservation and for the right of self- determination, while the Azeris are fighting to expel an ancient people from their historic homeland and to preserve power over a foreign province. In result of six year war Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh win the war against of Azeris.
It is good that you are an expert on Yemen. Clearly you are not an expert on the Caucasus or Nagorno-Karabakh. Please, do not write such biased articles in the future. You say the helicopter that was allegedly downed by Azerbaijan then, the next line you say Azerbaijan declared that it shot the helicopter down in self-defense.
The conflict started way before 1988 and there were already clashes in 1905. Stalin gave NK to Azerbaijan and the conflict was frozen during Soviet rule (apart from Armenian demands to Soviet authorities to give NK back).
Azerbaijan violates ceasefire agreement on daily bases and refuses to withdraw snipers. Any renewed war will be triggered by Azerbaijan just as it was at the end of 1990 beginning of 1991. If propaganda cannot stoop to this level!
“On November 28, the Azerbaijan Defense Ministry issued an official statement in which it condemned Armenia’s belligerent actions against Baku, emphasizing that Armenian troops targeted Azerbaijan’s territories on 51 separate instances in less than 24 hours, in clear violation of a long-standing ceasefire.”
The embarrassing Azeri propaganda machine publishes this “bullet count” daily, except it goes in both directions. What you painstakingly did not mention in your silly advertisement is that the Azeris also fire (obviously!). According to reports from aysor.am, over 12000 shots were fired in this same week by the Azeri side. Why would you neglect to mention that? Oh yes, your section heading is, inexplicably, “Armenians violate ceasefire” instead of “both sides violate ceasefire,” and it wouldn’t be convenient to actually tell the truth in your propaganda.
“…foreign attention over the decades due to its coveted geostrategic position and vast natural resources.”
Azerbaijan have neither geostrategic position nor vast natural resources. Silly, one sided, propaganda filled article. I wonder how much the writer gets paid for this piece of academic junk.
“…in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan.”
Armenia did not made territorial claims from Azerbaijan, cite the sources of your inflammatory claims. Nagorno-Karabakh proclaimed its independence from the Soviet Union. While Azerbaijan tried to take military action, Armenia assisted Nagorno-Karabakh to defeat Azerbaijani forces.
“…Armenia’s aggression toward Azerbaijan…”
Please use the word “aggression” more wisely, especially when you have no clue what is happening in that part of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHJWQKDhIGs
here is a video of this jihadi ho in action.
This report is poorly balanced. There are half-truths, parroting of entirely fabricated information put out by the Azeri government and biased language and choice of words. This type of reporting will not help resolve the conflict. Armenians have lived on their lands for many millennia; unfortunately the region has been going downhill for hundreds of years. The oil wealth of Azerbaijan can be put to use to not only advance the livelihood of Azeris but also the people of the region – this is what is needed. Spending billions of dollars on weapons won’t bring Gharabagh back into Azerbaijan.
It is always extremely interesting how people set their perceived professional image and reputation at stake by publishing such articles which are not only shallow in argumentation but also apparently biased by omitting a lot of significant information.
E.g., one doesn’t have to be a military expert in order to ask why the Armenians, who are in the fortified defensive position and in possession of the controlled territories, i.e. de facto winners of the conflict, would go to attack? This common sense is observed by many, among others Thomas de Waal who have stated this clearly in at least two different occasions: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142113/thomas-de-waal/azerbaijan-doesnt-want-to-be-western and http://www.carnegie.ru/eurasiaoutlook/?fa=56322
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, once you write such an article completely devoid of any mentioning what so ever in regard to the political atmosphere in Azerbaijan, you have forfeited the credibility of the article. The ever so deteriorating situation in Azerbaijan regarding democracy, human rights and freedom of speech as well as political plurality, is not only a matter of concern for the Azerbaijani population and society at large, but quite significant for Baku’s posture towards Karabakh Armenians and a central factor for the resolution of the conflict. It would be utterly naive as well as a blunder to disregard the tenor of Baku’s rhetoric towards Armenia and Karabakh while considering a viable peaceful solution to the conflict. You can not be considered as a sincere guarantor of the security of Karabakh Armenians, demanding their return to Azerbaijani suzerainty, while you continuously call Armenia and Armenians the “Enemy” or even “the Enemy Nr 1,” constantly warmongering (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/azerbaijan-president-threatens-war-armenia-twitter) or openly declare that you are deliberately driving Armenia and Karabakh towards economic misery in order to force them to obedience by giving them two choices “prosperity without Karabakh or poverty with Karabakh” or the deliberate policy of trying to push Armenia to the degree of poverty that “people will even stop thinking about Karabakh” (http://www.mountainous-karabakh.org/book_15.html)
Thus, Shakdam should have not omitted mentioning that, while the West has up till recently turned a blind eye to the authoritarian rule in Azerbaijan for the sake of securing the energy resources, treating Armenia and Azerbaijan in an unjust strict parity when both criticizing shortcomings and praising reforms, the crackdown of the democratic values in Azerbaijan has reached such levels which have in turn triggered calls for sanctions on the Baku regime. That is why the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the Council to “consider the possibility of targeted sanctions” (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2014-0091&format=XML&language=EN) while two prominent US diplomats, the former US Ambassador to Baku and the former US Assistant Secretary of State do the same (http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/10/02/time-for-sanctions-on-baku) and Obama singles out Azerbaijan as a country “difficult for NGOs even to operate” (http://www.meydan.tv/en/site/news/3191/Obama-mentions-Azerbaijan-in-his-speech.htm).
These are of course just a small selection and anyone with access to Google could easily find many many more like-minded reports and statements on the subject. Shakdam should have done this, broadening her analysis and expounding who is the “aggressor,” why the conflict hasn’t been resolved, how the oil boom in Baku has affected the whole issue and possibly hinting on the peaceful viable solution.
Congratulations Catherine, great job! An insightful analysis of the situation in the South Caucasus. Thanks for shedding light on the injustice endured by Azerbaijan.
Barely any doubt that previous comments are exclusively products of Armenian minds and/or of their acolytes. These guys are used so much to read on the Western media their dull mantra about sufferings of this “ancient Aryan nation” in the hands of “bloody Turks” that they get upset to read something deviating from their dogmatic views and start to denigrate others’ intellect. Yet another indication of how uneasy to neighbor Armenia! Can’t leave in the peace!
How different than AGGRESSION should the author dub the actions of Armenia, when it has been keeping under the occupation one fifth of Azerbaijan for last 20 years, after having committed cruel ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijanis, or Turks, as you like to refer to them in your pervert minds, full of vengeance and hatred?
Can’t dodge the Truth and the Justice!
Fascinating commentary, I do enjoy you painting an entire population of people “perverts” as it makes your entire rant even more ludicrous.
Answer a simple question: did the Azeris conduct ethnic cleansing against the Armenians? What happened in Sumgait? What happened in Shahumyan? Who fired GRAD rockets day and night at civilians in Stepanakert for years? Yes, I know you’re going to say, “but Khojaly!” but that’s rather irrelevant. The point is that this was a war, triggered by a long history of placing one ethnic minority under the abusive rule of another. Both sides did awful things. One side lost, decisively. One side continues to celebrate the treatment of Armenians as subhumans, whose cowardly murders under any circumstance are to be celebrated instead of condemned (see: Safarov, Ramil). And then somehow expects that these people will happily accept dictatorship.
Also, unless you don’t understand basic math or you don’t consider Nakhichevan part of Azeri land, 20% of land being occupied is factually incorrect. It’s 14%. I bring this up because you are merely copying and pasting Azeri propaganda that is found in every ridiculous article published by the North Korean, I mean Azeri, press.