Opinion: incidents along Armenia-Azerbaijan border, Nagorno Karabakh LoC show urgent need for an incident prevention mechanism

"As the sides are coming closer to the signature of a peace agreement, steps should be taken to solve the issues along the Armenia – Azerbaijan state border and the line of contact," writes Benyamin Poghosyan for commonspace.eu. "The population of the self–proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Armenians and Azerbaijanis living along the state border have the inalienable right to live in a secure environment while external actors are moving forward with their geopolitical ambitions. In this context, a concrete measure to ease tensions can be the establishment of an incident prevention and response mechanism."

The restart of intensive Armenia – Azerbaijan negotiations in May 2023 gave hope that an Armenia – Azerbaijan peace agreement is within reach. Meetings in Washington, Brussels, Moscow, and Chisinau seem to have paved the way for a deal by the end of 2023. Officials from both countries started to sound more optimistic regarding the prospects of peace and stability in the South Caucasus. The Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers will have another round of talks in Washington in the next days, and the President of the European Council Michel will host Prime Minister Pashinyan and President Aliyev in Brussels on 21 July.

However, despite all these positive developments, in the last ten days, Armenia and Azerbaijan made daily statements about ceasefire violations along the Armenia – Azerbaijan state border, while Azerbaijan and the authorities of the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic accused each other of ceasefire violations along the line of contact. Things almost went out of control when, as a result of   Azerbaijani fire, two Indian nationals were wounded in the village of Yeraskh near the border with Nakhijevan. They were involved in constructing a metallurgy plant, a joint Armenia – US investment project. 

It is a worrying pattern, as in the past two years, that Azerbaijan usually issued statements of ceasefire violations before launching large-scale military attacks against Armenia or the self–proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic. It was the case during the August and September 2022 escalations.

After an incident near the recently established Azerbaijani checkpoint at the entrance of the Lachin corridor, Azerbaijan closed the checkpoint, entirely cutting off Nagorno Karabakh from the outside world. Azerbaijan accused Armenia of firing towards the checkpoint, while Armenia argued that Azerbaijani troops sought to advance into Armenian territory and raise an Azerbaijani flag there.

The growing number of shootings and incidents do not contribute to a positive environment for negotiations

It is challenging to assess the primary reasons behind the recent escalations. Some experts believe that Azerbaijan was putting additional pressure on Armenia before crucial negotiations, a tactic used often by Azerbaijan since the end of the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war. Others argue that talk of significant progress in the negotiation process has been exaggerated, and Azerbaijan is preparing to launch a large-scale military operation against the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic. President Aliyev's 28 May speech, where he practically issued an ultimatum to the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic, either to dissolve all state institutions and hope for amnesty, or brace themselves for harsh consequences, adding additional tensions to the situation.  

The growing number of shootings and incidents in the last ten days do not contribute to establishing a positive environment for the negotiations. The conflicting messages from Azerbaijan and Armenia also confuse the international community. The European Union deployed a two-year-long civilian mission in Armenia in February 2023. However, around 100 civilian observers cannot monitor the 1000 km long Armenia – Azerbaijan border. Besides this, the mission informs the Azerbaijani side about upcoming patrols along the Armenia – Azerbaijan border, which reduces the possibility of the mission registering ceasefire violations. 

It should be noted that the 10 November 2020 Russia-Armenia-Azerbaijan trilateral statement did not create any mechanism to discuss possible incidents along the new line of contact and prevent future ones. There is a lack of clarity regarding the peacekeeping forces' mandate and their rules of engagement. Azerbaijan has yet to approve the peacekeeping forces mandate. Regardless of the reasons behind Baku's decision, the ambiguity on peacekeeping forces' mandate and rules of engagement create the possibility of additional flashpoints along the line of contact.

A concrete measure to ease tensions can be the establishment of an incident prevention and response mechanism

As the sides are coming closer to the signature of a peace agreement, steps should be taken to solve the issues along the Armenia – Azerbaijan state border and the line of contact. The population of the self–proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Armenians and Azerbaijanis living along the state border have the inalienable right to live in a secure environment while external actors are moving forward with their geopolitical ambitions. 

In this context, a concrete measure to ease tensions can be the establishment of an incident prevention and response mechanism. The IPRM can provide an opportunity to discuss such issues as identifying potential risks, following up on incidents, exchanging information, and problems affecting the communities daily.  A hotline between relevant sides at an operational level can operate within the framework of this mechanism. The main goal of the hotline can be the rapid response to concrete and specific incidents. Ideally, the representatives of the self–proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russian peacekeeping forces, and the EU monitoring mission may participate in the discussions within this mechanism.

Of course, since the start of the Ukraine war in February 2022, it has been challenging to envisage Russians and Europeans' joint participation in any endeavor, although the EU has tried to keep communication with Moscow on its peace efforts in the region open.  Also, despite the war in Ukraine, Russia and the West remain engaged in the framework of the Geneva International Discussions focused on the conflicts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. 

The history of conflicts tells us that as sides come closer to the signature of an agreement, the chances for last-minute disruptions increase. Establishing an incident prevention and response mechanism can play a vital role in building confidence and trust and may shape a more conducive environment for negotiations.

source: Benyamin Poghosyan is the founder and Chairman of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan. 
photo: POLITICO/Getty Images

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
 Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States resumed in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, November 11. The second day of meetings follows an initial round of discussions that received positive assessments from Kyiv and Washington but exposed continuing divisions over the terms of a potential peace agreement. The talks, brokered by the United States, address prisoner exchanges, security guarantees and possible de-escalation, while territorial disputes remain the central obstacle to an agreement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described Tuesday's discussions as “constructive and quite substantive”, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “very productive”. US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff reportedly told participants that Washington had narrowed the differences between the two sides. Kushner also raised the possibility of developing a new European security framework. However, the US administration has provided few details about concrete progress. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the prospect of a ceasefire, accusing European countries of seeking a temporary truce to facilitate the deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine. He also dismissed the presence of European representatives in Abu Dhabi, saying: “Well, they flew to Abu Dhabi. Let them sit there.” European officials have held separate consultations with Ukrainian and American representatives but remain excluded from the trilateral negotiations, despite Washington signalling that their participation could eventually be considered. Territorial control seems to be an issue that the parties are unable to resolve. Russia continues to demand the entire Donbas region, including territories it has not captured, while Ukraine refuses to relinquish its land. A senior US official indicated that both sides had demonstrated some flexibility privately, but stressed that territorial arrangements could not be resolved before Ukraine's post-war security guarantees were established. Simultaneously, military escalation continues. On November 11, Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergii Koretskyi reported Russian strikes against six major electricity substations across four central regions, as well as railway infrastructure. Russia also reported targeting Ukrainian military-related facilities and a cargo vessel near Odesa. Meanwhile, NATO fighter jets were activated following overnight drone alerts in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. European divisions over continued assistance to Kyiv further complicate the diplomatic environment. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz faced opposition from Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary and Bulgaria after proposing to link the EU's next long-term budget to additional financial support for Ukraine. Conversely, Denmark announced a €643 million military assistance package and €20 million for Ukraine's energy sector on Tuesday. As negotiations continue, the contrasting positions of Moscow, Kyiv and their Western partners highlight the considerable obstacles to reaching a settlement. The discussions have opened diplomatic channels, but fundamental disagreements over territory, security arrangements and Europe's future security architecture remain unresolved.

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)