Without Russian Aid to Armenia, Azerbaijan Has the Upper Hand in Nagorno-Karabakh

The renewal of fighting in the Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenian forces could have been foretold. A four-day outbreak of hostilities in mid-July occurred in northwest Azerbaijan, 60 miles away from Nagorno-Karabakh, but that is not even the proximate cause of today’s fighting.

The current conflict broke out in the late 1980s, when Armenians in Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) began organizing to take the territory out of Azerbaijan. When the NKAO Regional Council voted to unite with the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic in February 1988, central Soviet authorities abolished the local government and instituted direct rule from Moscow.

In 1992, a year after the two countries became independent, Armenian forces seized control of the “Lachin corridor,” a winding mountain road since improved with funds from the Armenian diaspora, connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. Turning northward, they then seized and held the Kelbajar district of Azerbaijan. They continued, until early last month, to hold not only the former NKAO but seven additional Azerbaijani districts outside the former NKAO, forming a bloc having a long common border with Armenia.

For a quarter century, Azerbaijan has had to support a large number of refugees and internally displaced persons representing 10 percent of its total population.

That was the situation when the war ended in 1994. Despite periodic skirmishes, the worst of which were in 2016, the status quo remained—until last month. The whole area under occupation represents 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory. No fewer than four U.N. Security Council Resolutions (822, 853, 874, and 884) adopted in 1993 called for Armenian troops to leave all these occupied territories without delay.

Approximately 800,000 Azerbaijanis were ethnically cleansed from those areas. Another 200,000 were driven out of Armenia proper, finding shelter as refugees in Azerbaijan. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) set up its “Minsk Group”—co-chaired by the United States, France, and Russia—to promote negotiations for settlement of the conflict. For a quarter century, Azerbaijan has had to support a large number of refugees and internally displaced persons representing 10 percent of its total population.

Azerbaijan was patient for over a generation. With Armenia, it subscribed to the Madrid Principles for a settlement, proposed by the Minsk Group more than a decade ago. These called for returning the seven districts around Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control; giving Nagorno-Karabakh an interim status that would provide “guarantees for security and self-governance”; linking it with Armenia by a corridor; determining its final legal status “through a legally binding expression of will”; returning all refugees and displaced people to their former places of residence; and putting in place a peacekeeping operation.

These negotiations languished. Azerbaijan warned over the years that the use of force would be a last resort if the peace process were exhausted. This resort to force finally occurred after Armenia overtly and unilaterally rejected the Madrid Principles.

That rejection of the agreed basis for talks brought negotiations to an impasse. Baku still attempted to revive the defunct peace talks. By doing so, it probably sent Yerevan the wrong signal.

Instead, Armenia completely discarded the Madrid Principles. The country’s current prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, who came to power in what resembled a “color revolution” in May 2018, was initially conciliatory toward Azerbaijan. Early on, he gave the impression that he was an open interlocutor ready to discuss thorny issues. Unfortunately, he was unable to make good on the many promises he made to the Armenian public—promises that, if realized, would have improved Armenia’s isolated socioeconomic situation and heavy dependence on Russia. After failing to deliver on these preelection promises, Pashinyan became a victim of the irredentist nationalism seemingly required to survive in Armenian domestic politics.

Trapped there, he seems then to have fallen hostage to his own nationalist rhetoric, which has in turn strengthened domestic Armenian populism and militarism. This irredentist nationalism finally touched not just the Nagorno-Karabakh issue—which Pashinyan, like his predecessors, politically manipulated—but extended to other neighbors beyond Azerbaijan.