Op-ed: The two sides of the Karabakh coin. Dennis Sammut reflects on two events that highlighted the opposite ends of the NK conflict.

Dennis Sammut reflects on two events that occurred last week that highlighted the opposite ends of the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Last week two events happened, thousands of miles apart from each other, but both related to the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In their own way they represented the extreme opposite ends of where the situation around the conflict and its settlement is going, or can go. They reflected the two sides of the same coin.

On 11 November, at the University of Oxford, dozens of diplomats, academics, NGO activists and others gathered to discuss the Karabakh conflict and its resolution. In itself there was nothing remarkable about this meeting. Many such meetings have taken place in the two decades since a precarious cease fire halted hostilities between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in what was then considered a remote part of the post-Soviet space. Yet the Oxford Conference was significant in many ways.

First it brought together people from all the elements within the various Armenian and Azerbaijani stakeholders - the governments, those that oppose them, people from the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and those who think that this Republic should not exist at all and believe instead a solution based on reconciliation of two communities amongst others. They were joined by NGO representatives both local and European. The presence throughout the whole proceedings of the European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus, Ambassader Herbet Salber, and diplomats from Turkey and Russia offered an important international dimension to the meeting.

The second characteristic of the meeting was the dignified way in which participants contributed to the vibrant discussion. The idyllic surroundings of Oxford University helped, as did the symbolism of the fact that the event was held on Remembrance Day - the day when in Britain those fallen in war are commemorated. A two minute silence in honour of those who died in conflict was observed at the start of the meeting. Three Oxford Professors, Dan Healey, Roy Allison and Neil Macfarlane helped to give the meeting academic substance. But what was most striking was the dignity and lucidity with which Ambassador Khazar Ibrahim (Azerbaijan's Head of Mission to NATO), Ara Margarian (from the Armenian Embassy in London), and others such as Richard Giragosian, Masis Mayilian, Avaz Hasanov and  Orkhan Akbarov argued their cases, enabling participants to get a very good understanding of the arguments of all the sides.

The third important feature of the Oxford meeting was the great number of practical suggestions that came out from the presentations of both local and international participants. The expertise of Walter Kemp, Amanda Paul, Sabine Freizer, Craig Oliphant, Lawrence Broers and others helped bring out many interesting ideas on what can be done in the future. Practical ideas that are doable and that can be game-changers even in the current climate.

Participants left the Oxford meeting optimistic and energised. Few however had been able to reach their homes before the news of the second event started coming through.

On Wednesday 12 November it was reported that Azerbaijan had shot down an Armenian military helicopter killing the three pilots. Azerbaijan says its troops were responding to an attack; Armenia says that the helicopter was only participating in military exercises. The incident happened on the line of contact that separates thousands of soldiers from the two sides who are dug-in, in trenches, in a manner not dissimilar to World War I. This incident is very serious because it represents an escalation in the low intensity fighting that has been occurring in the last two decades. This has never been a frozen conflict, despite the 1994 cease fire, yet this was the first time an aircraft was shot down. Mutual recrimination has followed since. Armenia has promised reprisals, and daily cease-fire violations continue.

The helicopter incident is the latest in the serious of military actions that constitute a serious threat to peace in the South Caucasus. Many argue that the status quo is unsustainable and it is only a question of when, not if, a new war will start. In the meantime, the efforts of the international community to unblock the impasse in the peace negotiations have so far failed. The sides blame each other. Some also blame the mechanism itself (the OSCE Minsk process); others the failure of the sides to muster enough political will to embark on a serious peace process; and others still the geo political situation. Fine arguments can be made for and against all these possibilities, as indeed was done at the Oxford meeting. For the three pilots killed the day after, as indeed for all the other Armenians and Azerbaijanis that have died or suffered in this conflict, this is not an academic discussion but a cruel reality.

Both the Oxford Conference and the helicopter incident are part of the Nagorno-Karabakh reality  -  the two sides of the same coin. One representing the rational and peaceful approach that seeks to find a solution through discussion and mutual understanding; the other that sees hope only in force and violence.

For many it feels as if the Karabakh coin has been tossed in the air. Everybody has been waiting for years to see which side the coin will fall on. Who will win the toss, peace through dialogue or war?

It need not be like this, for this is too important to be left to chance. A peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is possible and that is what everybody needs to remain focused on.

Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS and is currently based at Oxford University. He may be contacted at dennis@links-dar.org.

The Conference "The impact of international and regional developments on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement process" was organised by LINKS and the Russian and Eurasian Studies Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford on Tuesday 11 November 2014. The conference was held in the framework of the EPNK partnership with the support of the European Union. A full report of the proceedings at the conference will be available on commonspace.eu shortly.

Photo: Some of the participants on their way to the Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh held at Oxford University on 11 November.

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)