Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh
IREn5019 No War, No Peace: Frozen Conflicts in the Caucasus
Mgr. Zinaida Bechná, Ph.D.
6.10.2021
Structure
Introduction
Stages of conflict
Phase A: From Latent conflict to Escalation
Phase B: Trigger events – emergence of sporadic clashes.
Phase C: Frozen conflict
Peace negotiations
Nagorno-Karabakh
Karabakh - "black garden„,
"Nagorno-" is a Russian word
meaning "mountain„.
Status: de jure part of the Republic
of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared
itself an independent republic in
1991
Capital: Stepanakert.
Area: 4,400 sq km
Main religion: Christianity
Languages spoken: Armenian,
Russian
Currency in use: Dram.
Population (1979): 162,00 of whom
123,00 ethnically Armenian.
Ethnic map of N-K in 1989
Stages of conflict
The 19th
century: confrontations between Armenia and Azerbaijan
started.
Clashes in 1905 resulted unto indiscriminate mutual massacres in
1907.
Armenian genocide by Ottoman Empire 1915.
“The South Caucasus Confederation” 1918-1920 were turbulent,
marked with armed conflict and violence.
Soviet period no large scale violence.
Why did Stalin give Nagorno-Karabakh to
Azerbaijan?
Stalin wanted to pit the ethnic groups in the South Caucasus
regions against each other.
„Divide and rule“ principle
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous
Oblast was placed within Azerbaijan
SSR.
Stalin made concessions to Azerbaijan
SSR because of its economic importance,
specifically its oil resources.
Conflict phases
• Escalation modes and level of violence in N-K
• First, the latent conflict from 1988 to 1992, characterized by a low intensity of
violence (phase A).
• Second phase, full-scale war from 1992 to 1994: after a high number of victims,
the conflicted ended in stalemate (phase B).
• Third, the so-called “frozen” stage with high potential to re-escalate to violent
confrontation in the future (phase C): from 1994 to 2014.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to
Escalation
• With the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, Azerbaijani national identity emphasized the
significance of preservation of territorial integrity in order to strengthen national
unity.
• Armenians used the issue of genocide and victimization of nation as a paradigm
for strengthening national identity.
• Armed conflict was derived from a clash of interests between Armenia’s and
Azerbaijan’s “shadow” business.
• Three major issues determined the spiral of escalation.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to
Escalation
• At the first glance, the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict in the latent phase looks like a
typical example of a secessionist conflict. Historical arguments, emotional appeals were
constructed in favor of this goal.
• The cornerstone of Azerbaijan national identity until 1988 was not the Karabakh issue,
but the significance to unify “north” and “south” Azerbaijan. This claim was raised in
December 1989 during the demonstration of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan close
to Soviet-Iranian border in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic .
• The Karabakh issue changed the political discourse in Azerbaijan and after Sumgait
events in February 1988 the events took unpredictable path of one of the bloodiest
conflict in the South Caucasus, which has not been resolved yet.
1. First demands against
environmental pollution
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to
Escalation
• First, demands to close nuclear plant in Armenia, which led to the two demonstrations in
1987. Demands against environmental pollution were related to the protection of
homeland and national heritage.
• 350 intellectuals send a letter to Kremlin about devastating consequences of environmental
issue in Armenia, which threated the physical existence of this nation.
• This letter stated that “Armenia’s cancer rate had quadrupled between 1965 and 1985, while
cases of abnormal births, leukemia, and mental retardation had likewise soared. ”
Furthermore, a literary journal “Karoun” publishes some statistics about poisoned air
condition in the city Hraztan due to the cement factory, which generated almost 280
thousand tons of dust and smoke.
• „shut down Nairit so the Armenia people will survive!“
2. Karabakh Committee: status of N-K
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to
Escalation
• Karabakh Committee composed by nationalist intellectuals organized
demonstration in 1998 calling for “one nation one republic,” “unification” and
“struggle to the end”.
• The leader of Karabakh Committee did not raise such issues as criticizing
Communist government for corruption or initiation of political reforms. It was
more convenient to mobilized masses for struggle against pan-Turkism
rather than proposing a strategy for initiation political reforms.
• In reality however it meant that unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia
was the cover to achieve political goals.
3. “Miatsoum” (unification) and “struggle
to the end”
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to
Escalation
• Series demonstrations about environmental issues paved a way to nationalist
movement.
• At this early age of activism two types of national elites were created.
• 1) nationalist leaders (mostly intellectuals) and 2) the Communist elites. They compete
each other for power and control over particular territories. Separation of NagornoKarabakh
meant dissolution of the country.
• Mass mobilization in Yerevan and Stepanakert was not anti-Soviet, but was
hostile towards Azerbaijan. Ethnic irredentism merged with the political reforms and
national survival.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to
Escalation
Table 1 The Population of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region.
Armenians Azerbaijanis
Years Actual number
Population
growth %
Actual number
Population
growth %
1921 128,060 7,594
1939 132,800 3.7 14,100 77.2
1959 110,100 -17.1 18,100 27.6
1970 121,100 10 27,200 51.1
1979 123,100 1.6 37,200 36.7
Source: Y. Mahmudov and K. Shukurov: Garabagh - Real History, Facts, Documents (Tahsil
Publishing House 2005), 71.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to
Escalation
• The Nagorno-Karabakh question represents a combination of:
• First, the essentialization of collective historical memories and the victimization of the
Armenian national consciousness are the result of the 1915 Genocide by the Ottoman
Empire, which resulted in the perception of a permanent threat stemming from Turkey and
its “kin brother nation,” Azerbaijan.
• Second, a demographic shift and the forced migration of the Armenian population
intensified the issue of physical survival and the identity crisis of the Armenian nation. In the
words of the president of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, “The inclusion of NK within
the borders of the Azeri SSSR put the Armenian people on the verge of extinction“
• Historical injustice, fear of ethnic extinction, depopulation, and oppression of the
Armenian population contributed to the struggle against Azerbaijani rule over the
Nagorno-Karabakh region.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to
Escalation
• Azerbaijani national identity was heavily influenced by the powers that ruled
them for many centuries. Unlike Armenians, whose threat perception and
vulnerability emphasized their uniqueness and isolation in the region, Azerbaijanis
have emphasized their belonging to and affinity with bigger communities: Turkic
and Muslim.
• The cornerstone of Azerbaijani national identity until 1988 was not the Karabakh
issue, but the significance to unify “north” and “south” Azerbaijan. This claim
was raised in December 1989 during the demonstration of the Popular Front of
Azerbaijan close to the Soviet-Iranian border in the Nakhichevan Autonomous
Republic.
Phase B: Trigger Events – Emergence of Sporadic Clashes
• Nationalist demonstrations – transfer Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia.
• 1988- Nagorno-Karabakh - referendum to unify with Armenia.
• The first cases of mass violence were recorded in Sumgait, February 1988 - 32 dead (26
Armenians and 6 Azeri) during three days 27-29 February.
• The month of November was one of the great refugees flows. According to unofficial
sources, around 180’000 Armenians had left Azerbaijan, and 160’000 Azeri had left Armenia
by the end of the month.
• Levon Ter-Petrosian, the head of the Karabakh Committee and the president of Armenia,
believed that the Sumgait events “turned the constitutional process to physical clashes...
Until then, we believed that if the Soviet Union was going towards democratization those
questions had to be opened.” According to this view, the Sumgait was not planned by the
Kremlin, as it took three days for Moscow to intervene.
Phaze B: Trigger Events – Emergence of
Sporadic Clashes
• Other influential leaders of the Karabakh Movement, Vazgen Manukyan and Ashot Manucharyan,
believe that external parties organized the events in Sumgait.
• The idea that the KGB got involved in the escalation of the conflict between Armenians and Azeris is
maintained by some Azerbaijani political leaders, as, for example, by Isa Gambar, the leader of the
Azerbaijani Musavat Party.
• According to this view, the Sumgait pogrom was supported by Moscow in order to overcome the
democratization of Armenia: “The government is genuinely scared of our unity… They just wanted to
intimidate us to stop the demonstrations from happening. They thought it was all being directed from
somewhere… they just could not imagine that half a million people would interrupt the day-to-day
business of their lives to express their bitterness at how they had been treated.“
• Sumgait converted past trauma into immediate threat.
• The genocide provided the most suitable framework through which the events could be portrayed. For
Armenians, the Sumgait pogrom was a continuation of genocide by Turks.
Phaze B: Trigger Events – Emergence of
Sporadic Clashes
• The violence in Sumgait was followed by other events leading to the gradual transformation
of conflict to its armed phase.
• The next tragic event took place in Ganja, the second largest city in Azerbaijan. It resulted in
the next wave of refugee flows of Armenians.
• The situation escalated further in January, when the opposition in Baku organized a
demonstration against the government calling for more radical measures in the Karabakh
issue. This resulted in the intervention by the Soviets in Baku.
• “Black January” caused a victimization of Azerbaijani consciousness, as did the Sumgait
events to Armenians. In the aftermath, more than 100 people died and over 1,000 were
wounded.
Phase B: Trigger Events – Emergence
of Sporadic Clashes
• On 12 January 1989 - ‘special government administration’ in Karabakh - direct control from
Moscow. Moscow approved 400 million rubles to improve industrial, housing, and
educational capacities in Nagorno-Karabakh.
• Azerbaijan Popular Front (APF) reacted with rail blockades in order to block any special
assistance from Moscow. This had a huge impact on the evolution of Armenian attitudes
towards Azerbaijan.
• Sporadic clashes became frequent by the first months of 1991.
• On 2 September 1991 - independent republic of Nagorno Karabakh.
• During Autumn, Azerbaijani forces moved to counter Nagorno Karabakh’s declaration of
Independence.
• Operation “Ring” to deter Armenians from their major demand: unification with Armenia
• 1992-1994 full - scale war.
Violent Stage
• Starting with 1991, we can trace the offensive strategies by the Armenian side.
• Radicalization of guerrilla activities between the two nations were also intensified. Over
10 000 people were deported to Armenia on the pretext of self-defense.
• “Bandits blocked roads between Azerbaijani villages, established military posts on the
highway leading from Khanlar to Kelbajar, and blew up water pipes supplying Ganja with
drinking water. Their unpunished activity was a direct threat for the activity of Western
Azerbaijan with more than one million inhabitants.
Violent Stage: Khojaly massacres
• Full-scale war broke out in February 1992.
The city of Khodjaly saw one the
bloodiest massacres during which 636
people died.
• The Khodjaly massacre had sincere
consequences for the Azerbaijani
population. President Ayaz Mutallibov
was forced to leave office, which
contributed to the instability in Baku.
Violent Stage
• After the victory in Khodjaly, which ensured an air corridor between Nagorno-Karabakh and
Armenia, the next step was to secure Shusha, which would ensure a land connection and
end the blockade imposed by Azerbaijan.
• After two days of violence, there were 57 victims on the Armenian side and almost 200 on
the Azerbaijani side.
• The next step in this struggle was to resolve logistical problems in order to supply the
Armenian troops. In this regard, the occupation of the Lachin Corridor had particular
significance. Without much confrontation, it was soon abandoned by Azerbaijani forces.
Images of War
Over 1 million
displaced
Consequences of Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict
The human sufferings included 25 000-30 000 people dead,
250 000-350 000 refugees from Azerbaijan in Armenia, and
750 000-1 000 000 refugees and Internally Displaced People (IDPs) from Armenia, Karabakh
and occupied Azerbaijani territories in Azerbaijan.
UN passed 4 resolutions on the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, immediate withdrawal of all
occipation forces from the occupied regions and immediate cessation of military activities.
Armenia denyed to comply with the demands.
Phaze C: Frozen conflict
• Skirmishes, low intensity violence, and shooting across front lines have increased, leading to
a growing arms race, accompanied by political propaganda, threats, and plans of war.
• Conflict involves: regular clashes and confrontation supported by international actors.
• The Bishkek protocol signed in May 1994:
1. to grand a wide range of autonomy to N-K, while maintaining sovereignty of Azerbaijan.
2. measures to guarantee the security of N-K,
3. Armenian withdrawal from the occupied territories in Azerbaijan,
4. special measures for the Lachin corridor to ling N-K with Armenia
5. to make arrangements between Azerbaijan and Armenia so that at least the major portion of
the refugees on both sides may return to their homes,
6. the international community to support economic reconstruction of both nations.
Peace negotiations
The OSCE Minsk group: two-step approach
1. all Armenian forces to withdraw from Azerbaijan land except N-K
2. start negotiations on the final status of N-K.
Armenian, Azerbaijani Presidents Agree On Preamble To
'Madrid Principles‚ Sochi 2010.
Sochi 2011
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
The possibility of war remains on the
agenda
Azerbaijan military budget from 2004 - 463
million USD to 3, 427 billion USD in 2014 and
1, 854 billion in 2019.
Armenia 673 million USD in 2019.
Azerbaijan and Armenian military expenditures
No end to conflict in sight
Both sides unwilling to make concessions
“Primordial” claims over territory by both
sides.
The unsolved problem of what to do with
refugees.
Continued fighting despite cease-fire
Russia claiming to uphold cease-fire
while arming Armenia; U.S. making oil
deals with Azerbaijan.
Building of oil pipelines likely to upset
Armenia.
Recommended reading