Opinion: time has never been on the side of an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal

"Time is not on the side of peace between [Armenia and Azerbaijan] and never has been," writes Onnik James Krikorian for commonspace.eu. "The wounds of the past are still raw and will continue to fester unless there is concrete progress, whether through the efforts of the European Union, United States, or Russia." He adds that "in such an environment, it is imperative for local and international actors to become proactive again, with absolutely no space for complacency or hope for a new but unsustainable status quo to emerge."

Next month will mark the 29th anniversary of the 1994 ceasefire agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan that ostensibly brought an end to the first Karabakh war. Almost to the day, it will also be 2.5 years since the November 2020 trilateral ceasefire statement halted what most refer to as the second Karabakh war. Despite initial hopes, the current peace process appears to have stalled.

This current failure to end another sorry chapter in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan does not bode well for the future, to put it mildly.

Time is not on the side of peace between the two warring nations and never has been. The wounds of the past are still raw and will continue to fester unless there is concrete progress, whether through the efforts of the European Union, United States, or Russia. Furthermore, last year’s full scale invasion of Ukraine by Moscow further complicates the situation.

Though this could never have been foreseen as the ink dried on the 2020 trilateral statement, 2021 was arguably a lost opportunity to work on a peace treaty given clarity over a new balance of power in the region. Instead, much of civil society, with some exceptions, remained silent while others picked fault with the ceasefire statement rather than work to make it function or use it as a foundation to build upon. 

And despite some promising signs and statements from the governments themselves throughout 2021 and in 2022 – even following September fighting that left around 300 dead – rhetoric is becoming alarmingly reminiscent of the past. Meanwhile, regardless of the reasons, Armenia has still not started construction on its section of a railway line to Nakhichevan, and Karabakh still remains under siege. 

Fears of current process resembling "forum shopping"

Though claiming they are ready for peace, both Armenia and Azerbaijan understandably view each other with suspicion. Yerevan claims Baku is gearing up for a new war along with the expulsion of the Karabakh Armenians while Azerbaijan accuses Armenia of delaying the signing of a treaty. Last week, regional analyst Benyamin Poghosyan also concluded that a peace deal is unlikely in 2023. 

Indeed, despite hopes for a framework peace agreement last year, there are also now some fears emerging that the current peace process resembles “forum shopping” at best or imitation at worst.

But if the ‘status quo’ was untenable before 2020 it is even more so now. Any window of opportunity that did open is now beginning to close – if it has not done so already. The stakes are higher too, highlighting the urgency of a concrete breakthrough in the coming months. 

Karabakh, for example, is now almost totally geographically isolated and finds itself in a situation totally different from before September 2020. Lacking a viable land border with a powerful security patron, it cannot ever become another South Ossetia or Abkhazia. The protests on the Lachin Corridor and the recent installation of an Azerbaijani checkpoint on the road highlights that clearly.

Several key dates on the horizon also raise further concerns.

Yerevan municipal elections, the fate of Russian peacekeepers past 2025, and elections in Karabakh

This autumn, for example, Yerevan will hold municipal elections. With 38.5% of the population located in the capital, no government has ever been willing to lose control of the city which is why it took until 2009 before residents were allowed to elect a city council and indirectly a mayor. Before then, both Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharyan appointed loyalists.

With the incumbent, Pashinyan-loyalist Hrachya Sargsyan, resigning last month and no replacement chosen by the city council, it would appear that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has no intention of relinquishing control over the social, political, and economic hub of the country either. Sargsyan’s predecessor, Hayk Marutyan, was dismissed after falling out with Pashinyan following the 2020 war.

But this is not the only date on the horizon – 2025 is too, when uncertainty still surrounds the future of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Karabakh after its first term expires. Baku says it may not agree to another and given the implied wording of the 2020 ceasefire statement, this would presumably mean handing full control of the Lachin Corridor to Azerbaijan unless otherwise agreed.

As mentioned earlier, this could already be happening. And aside from existing fears of potentially mass depopulation unless Stepanakert and Baku enter meaningful talks, there will also be elections in Karabakh earlier the same year, something likely to irk Azerbaijan enough to react harshly to.

Decreasing water resources in Karabakh and national Armenian elections in 2026 

In addition to the issue of the Russian peacekeeping contingent, two other events risk making the already unstable situation worse. With Azerbaijan rebuilding and repopulating the regions surrounding the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), security will become a major concern as the physical distance between the two populations inevitably narrows. 

This is likely to see increased competition over land and water resources. Water levels are already dropping in Karabakh’s Sarsang reservoir, a resource important not only for Stepanakert but also Azerbaijani farmers. Though dialogue on this did occur last year, these levels are now perilously low as local electricity demand outstrips supply given disruption of energy supplies passing through Lachin.

And what happens in 2025 will definitely impact the following year when Armenia goes to the polls to elect a new parliament. If Pashinyan’s peace agenda fails to bear fruit then he potentially faces a serious challenge by the opposition, especially if it can find a figurehead untainted by the previous regimes in order to capitalise on the current government’s diminishing popularity. 

In advance of the 2025 deadline and the 2026 elections, therefore, this perhaps leaves the end of 2023 or an unpredictable 2024 to sign a peace treaty. Meanwhile, in Azerbaijan, failure to truly end the conflict, as claimed over two years ago, could see even more ‘coercive diplomacy’ exerted by Baku.

In such an environment, it is imperative for local and international actors to become proactive again, with absolutely no space for complacency or hope for a new but unsustainable status quo to emerge. Even if the international community once again shifts its focus from conflict resolution to conflict prevention as it did a decade ago, the 2020 Karabakh war demonstrated how ineffective that was as strategy.

source: Onnik James Krikorian is a journalist, photojournalist, and consultant from the U.K. who has covered the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict since 1994.
photo: United World International
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)