Opinion: The closure of the Lachin Corridor is in no one's interest

Azerbaijan has closed the Lachin corridor since December 12, 2022. There are different interpretations of why Azerbaijan did it, and why Baku continues the blockade despite calls from the international community to change its course, writes Benyamin Poghosyan in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia, and the West, in one way or another, all suffer from the blockade. Ultimately, it is up to the Azerbaijani leadership to decide to re-open the road. "There can be other factors influencing Baku's decision however, one thing is clear – continuing the Nagorno Karabakh blockade harms everyone, and all interested parties should take steps to end it", he argues.

Azerbaijan has closed the Lachin corridor since December 12, 2022. Azerbaijani official rhetoric rejects the very existence of a blockade, sometimes claiming that the road is open for humanitarian cargo, and sometimes saying that it was the Russian troops that closed the corridor. The official line from Azerbaijan is the narrative that those blocking the corridor are "independent eco-activists exercising their civil rights to protest." However, the situation is apparent to anyone with a basic understanding of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict – Azerbaijan imposed a blockade on the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

There are different interpretations of why Azerbaijan did it, and why Baku continues the blockade despite calls from the international community to change its course. Some believe that Azerbaijan views the blockade as an effective tool to put pressure on Nagorno Karabakh Armenians and force as many of them out as possible. Others believe that the core target of the blockade is Armenia, and Azerbaijan wants to force Yerevan to sign a peace agreement recognizing the nonexistence of Nagorno Karabakh as an administrative-territorial unit, and granting the "Zangezur corridor" to Azerbaijan. Another explanation is related to Azerbaijani growing concerns about Russian activities. According to this argument, Baku believes Russia sent Ruben Vardanyan to Nagorno Karabakh to increase its influence there, and that the blockade signals to the Kremlin that Azerbaijan will not tolerate political control of Russia over Nagorno Karabakh.

The continuing blockade will not bring Armenia and Azerbaijan closer to the resumption of negotiations

One may agree or disagree with these explanations or put forward other versions. However, as the blockade reaches its two-month anniversary, experts in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the outside world seek to understand the implications of the blockade and how it may end. For sure, the current situation does not contribute to establishing a conducive environment for Armenia – Azerbaijan peace negotiations. The peace process, which gained momentum in late September and early October 2022, entered a stalemate before the blockade started. The reasons for this impasse are not clear. However, one thing is certain – the continuing blockade of Nagorno Karabakh and the growing humanitarian crisis will not bring Armenia and Azerbaijan closer to the resumption of negotiations. It is difficult to perceive the possibility of restarting negotiations whilst Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh lack basic food, electricity, and gas supply.

The blockade of Nagorno Karabakh and the growing humanitarian crisis spoils the primary pillar of Azerbaijani claims in the negotiation process, according to which Baku is ready to provide all necessary rights and security guarantees to Nagorno Karabakh Armenians without granting them any special status. If Azerbaijan hopes to gain the trust of Armenians, efforts to bring them to the brink of starvation are not the best option to reach that goal.

The blockade of Nagorno Karabakh puts additional pressure on the Armenian government in its efforts to push forward the so-called "peace agenda." The Armenian leadership has spoken about the necessity to pursue a peace agenda since the June 2021 early parliamentary elections in Armenia. Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia in November 2021 and September 2022, and attacks against Nagorno Karabakh in March and August 2022 have significantly shattered any belief in Armenian society that lasting peace is possible with Azerbaijan. The recent moves by the Azerbaijani leadership to support the concept of so-called 'Western Azerbaijan" and the adoption of a strategy for the return of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis to Armenia solidifies the belief in Armenia that Azerbaijan's strategic goal is not to end with Nagorno Karabakh, but to control, even if not to invade, the entire territory of Armenia.

Increased suspicions in Armenia about the viability of the peace process

All these perceptions create concerns among Armenian society that Armenia is being constantly threatened by large-scale invasion and that any peace negotiations with Azerbaijan are equal to the appeasement policy towards an aggressor, which will bring about tragic implications. Thus, especially after September 2022 Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia, the peace agenda and negotiations with Azerbaijan were unpopular in Armenian society. The Lachin blockade and Azerbaijan's efforts to reject even the existence of the blockade have added more suspicions in Armenia about the viability of the peace process. They have made the government's peace agenda less popular.

The Lachin blockade has put Russia, the EU, and the US in a complicated situation. Russia’s image in Armenia received a new blow, as many Armenians did not understand how Russia could not deal with a few hundred protestors blocking the Lachin Corridor. Many believe Russia did not want to end the blockade as it valued its relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey more than its alliance with Armenia. At the same time, some even argue that Russia is a co-organizer of the blockade with Azerbaijan to force Armenia to join the Russia - Belarus Union state or open the "Zangezur corridor."

Everyone, in one way or another, suffers from the blockade

It may seem that the current situation benefits the West, as they may stand-by and watch whilst Armenians are becoming increasingly anti-Russian. However, the blockade also damages the EU and the US image. Many in Armenia ask a simple question, if all talk about the primacy of democracy and human rights for the West is serious, then why have the individual western countries, or the EU as a whole, not imposed sanctions on Azerbaijan for bringing 120,000 civilians to the brink of starvation? For some people in Armenia, the answer is clear – the West appreciates Azerbaijani gas and oil much more than democracy and human rights, and this tarnishes the image of the West in Armenia.

Thus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia, and the West, in one way or another, all suffer from the blockade. Ultimately, it is up to the Azerbaijani leadership to decide to re-open the road. There can be other factors influencing Baku's decision however, one thing is clear – continuing the Nagorno Karabakh blockade harms everyone, and all interested parties should take steps to end it.        

Source: Benyamin Poghosyan is Senior research fellow, APRI – Armenia and the founder and Chairman of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan.
Photo: Azerbaijani activists have been blocking the Lachin corridor since 12 December 2022
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

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)