Opinion

Opinion: landmines remain a major problem for Azerbaijan

4 April 2023

"On the occasion of the 4 April, marked across the globe as the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action, Azerbaijan seeks to raise awareness about the challenges it faces with landmines in its territory," writes Vasif Huseynov in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "Azerbaijan needs the engagement of the international community to encourage Armenia to hand over any relevant information they possess that would be helpful in the demining process. Additionally, the assistance of the international community to demine the region and provide suitable conditions for the return of the IDPs would be welcomed. The world needs to show solidarity in the fight against the challenges of this magnitude."

The liberation of the Armenia-occupied territories of Azerbaijan in 2020 was a momentous occasion for Azerbaijanis, in particular for more than 700,000 internally-displaced people who had been expelled from their homelands in the early 1990s. After decades of displacement, the Azerbaijani people had the chance to return to their homes and rebuild their communities. However, this joyous occasion has been overshadowed and marred by the widespread presence of landmines and explosive remnants of war left behind by Armenia.

The formerly-occupied territories make Azerbaijan one of the most contaminated countries with landmines and explosive remnants of war in the world. Throughout the conflict and its occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories, Armenia indiscriminately planted hundreds of thousands of mines and other explosive devices, including in civilian areas.

Unfortunately, Armenia continued to transfer landmines to the part of the Karabakh region that is under temporary control of Russia’s peacekeeping mission in violation of the trilateral statement of November 10, 2020 and planted them in the region. Since August 2022, nearly 2,700 landmines manufactured in Armenia in 2021 (i.e. after the end of the Second Karabakh War) have been discovered in Azerbaijan. Over 1,600 of these illegal landmines, as well as booby traps, have been planted in civilian areas.

Landmines kill people and complicate the rehabilitation process

Over the past two years of the post-conflict period, more than 288 Azerbaijanis were killed or injured by mine explosions, the vast majority of which were civilians, including 3 journalists. The latest victim was an Azerbaijani serviceman who was killed in a mine explosion on 2 April in the Tartar district. According to official assessments, Azerbaijan requires approximately $25 billion to solve issues related to demining, a process that would take up to 30 years.

The Azerbaijan National Agency for Mine Action (ANAMA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have been working to clear the liberated territories of mines and other explosive weapons. As of early February 2023, a total of 64,000 hectares (158,000 acres) of the liberated territories of Azerbaijan have been cleared of mines since November 2020.

Last year, ANAMA defused 8,780 anti-personnel and 4,133 anti-tank landmines, as well as 14,950 unexploded ordnances in Azerbaijan's liberated territories. Despite the efforts of ANAMA and the UNDP, the scale of the problem remains daunting. The presence of landmines in the region continues to pose a serious threat to the safety and security of the population.

Armenia released only a “tiny portion” of mine maps

Despite attempts at formally requesting information about the location of those mines, Armenia repeatedly denied that it possessed the relevant information and refused to engage on the issue. In April 2021, a spokesperson for the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called Azerbaijan’s demand for the maps a “fake agenda”. Around two months later, the Armenian government officially confessed that they in fact possessed maps of the landmines planted in the Azerbaijani territories.

On 12 June 2021, Armenia released what then Acting Prime Minister Pashinyan confessed a day later to be a “small fraction of the maps”, with Azerbaijan releasing 15 Armenian prisoners detained after the 44-day War. These maps indicated the location of 97,000 anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines planted by Armenian and local forces in only one formerly-occupied district (Aghdam). In the following months, the Armenian government released some other pre-2020 minefield records that contained information about 390,709 anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, as well as other explosive devices.

While these minefield maps released by Armenia cover 5% of all liberated areas, only 25% of these maps proved to be reliable. Prime Minister Pashinyan, after Armenia provided maps for 200,000 mines, admitted that these maps were only a “tiny portion” of those Armenia possessed. Nevertheless, they continue to refuse to hand over the remaining maps which seriously complicated Azerbaijan’s reconstruction efforts.

International assistance is necessary in demining

Azerbaijan has instituted legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights against Armenia for violations of international law, including through the deployment of landmines to block the return of Azerbaijanis to the liberated territories. On 23 February 2023, the International Court of Justice issued its decisions on measures requested by Azerbaijan with respect to planting mines and other explosives by Armenia in the territory of Azerbaijan.

The Court decided not to revisit its prior conclusion that Armenia's placement of landmines does not meet the requirements for the issuance of provisional measures. Azerbaijan considers that this was not a decision based on the merits of the case, and continues to seek to hold Armenia accountable and raise the issue of landmines and booby traps.

On the occasion of the 4 April, marked across the globe as the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action, Azerbaijan seeks to raise awareness about the challenges it faces with landmines in its territory. Azerbaijan needs the engagement of the international community to encourage Armenia to hand over any relevant information they possess that would be helpful in the demining process. Additionally, the assistance of the international community to demine the region and provide suitable conditions for the return of the IDPs would be welcomed. The world needs to show solidarity in the fight against the challenges of this magnitude.

source: This op-ed was prepared for commonspace.eu by Dr Vasif Huseynov, Head of Department at the Centre of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Centre) and Adjunct Lecturer at Khazar University in Baku, Azerbaijan.
photo: AzerTag
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?

19 October 2026

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).

Dennis Sammut

Editor's choice

News

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

5 November 2026

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI. The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

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)

Dennis Sammut

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

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

21 September 2026

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)

Dennis Sammut

Opinion: landmines remain a major problem for Azerbaijan

Latest

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

Popular

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

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