Day: September 22, 2023

Armenia’s prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, has expressed hopes that ethnic Armenians can stay in Nagorno-Karabakh amid fears that Azerbaijan, which says it controls the region after a military offensive this week, is seeking to push out tens of thousands of people.

Speaking during a government meeting in Yerevan, Pashinyan said Armenia would welcome ethnic Armenians who lived in the breakaway region but mass resettlement would only happen if it became impossible for Karabakh Armenians to remain there.

About 120,000 ethnic Armenians live in the South Caucasus enclave, which is recognised internationally as part of Azerbaijan but had largely been under ethnic Armenian control since 1994.

A ceasefire agreement was reached on Wednesday between Azerbaijan and the local government in Nagorno-Karabakh, a day after Azerbaijan launched its new military offensive. The two sides held the first round of talks on Thursday to discuss the future of the region and its residents.

A senior Azerbaijani official said on Friday that Baku would ensure that civilians could travel safely in their own vehicles along the road leading from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia through the Lachin corridor.

Nagorno-Karabakh map

Hikmet Hajiyev, a foreign policy adviser to Azerbaijan’s president, also said Azerbaijan would guarantee an amnesty for Karabakh Armenian fighters who gave up their arms, though he claimed some Karabakh military units had said they would continue their resistance.

Meanwhile, a Karabakh representative told the AFP news agency that Azerbaijani troops were on the edge of the region’s capital, Stepanakert, which is known in Azerbaijan as Khankendi, prompting residents to hide in basements in fear.

“The situation in Stepanakert is horrible, Azerbaijani troops are all around the city, they are on the outskirts and people fear Azerbaijani soldiers could enter the city at any moment and start killings,” said Armine Hayrapetyan, a separatist spokesperson.

Pashinyan stressed on Thursday evening that the ceasefire in the breakaway region had largely been held. But other Armenian officials said Azerbaijan was preparing for an “ethnic cleansing” in the region.

Speaking at a meeting of the UN security council, Armenia’s foreign minister, Ararat Mirzoyan, said: “The intensity and cruelty of the offensive makes it clear that the intention is to finalise ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh.

There have also been warnings over a deteriorating humanitarian situation in Karabakh. Karabakh’s human rights ombudsman, Gegham Stepanyan, said on social media that the streets of Stepanakert were “filled with displaced people, hungry, scared, and in uncertainty”.

“People are desperately looking for each other,” Stepanyan said.

Observers have said many in Karabakh were already weakened after Azerbaijan established a blockage of the Lachin corridor last spring, cutting off the flow of people and goods between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

On Friday, the ethnic Armenian leadership of Nagorno-Karabakh said an agreement had been reached for a humanitarian convoy to come from Armenia.

There have been unconfirmed reports of civilians being targeted by Azerbaijani forces. One separatist official in Nagorno-Karabakh said at least 200 people had been killed and more than 400 wounded after Azerbaijan launched its offensive, including at least 10 civilians and five children.

Siranush Sargsyan, a freelance journalist in Nagorno-Karabakh, shared videos online showing destroyed civilian vehicles and damage to apartment buildings on Azatamartikneri Avenue in Stepanakert.

Nagorno-Karabakh and sizeable surrounding territories had been under ethnic Armenian control since the end of a separatist war in 1994, but Azerbaijan regained the territories and parts of Nagorno-Karabakh during the 2020 fighting. That ended with an armistice placing Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh.

On Thursday, Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, apologised in a phone call with Vladimir Putin for the death of six Russian peacekeeping troops who came under Azerbaijani fire while returning from a patrol in Nagorno-Karabakh.

For years, the European Union was treading a thin line, keeping things even-handed when dealing with Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The two neighbors are locked into a decades-old dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh, the mountainous breakaway region located in Azerbaijani territory but populated largely by ethnic Armenians.

Long-standing hostilities erupted 30 years ago when the Soviet Union, to which both countries previously belonged, was dissolved and they’ve flared up periodically ever since. In 2020, Baku emerged victorious from a six-week war and reasserted control over swaths of the region.

Ever since Baku launched what it described as “anti-terrorist” military activities to restore its sovereignty in the enclave earlier this week, a number of voices in the European Parliament have been calling for the EU to get tougher on Azerbaijan.

In a written statement, four leading EU representatives with senior positions called on member states “to fundamentally reconsider the EU’s relations with Azerbaijan in this light, and consider imposing sanctions against responsible Azerbaijani authorities.” On Thursday, more than 60 parliamentarians asked for sanctions in a separate statement.

Despite the strong feelings, these elected officials don’t have much foreign policy clout. The question is whether those calling the shots, the national EU governments, would really take the plunge, especially since the EU clinched a gas supply deal with Baku last year to help replace direct supplies from Russia.

What role does the EU play in the conflict?

Traditionally, the EU has been a relatively small player compared to Russia, which brokered a peace deal — deemed unfavorable to Armenians — in the 2020 war as well as a cease-fire this week, and Turkey, which is a close ally and economic partner of Azerbaijan, not to mention a major arms supplier.

Earlier this week, protesters in Yerevan accused Pashinyan of abandoning Karabakh ArmeniansImage: SNA/IMAGO

At present, both Russia and the EU are coordinating separate peace talks between Yerevan and Baku. With Moscow tied up with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Baku appears emboldened, analyst Marcel Röthig told DW from Tbilisi, the Georgian capital.

“Turkey sees its role as the new big player in the Caucasus, as the one who’s shaping the Caucasus,” said Röthig, an analyst from Germany’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation. “Azerbaijan feels the backing. And that’s why they became much more adventurous than they have been in the years before.”

Armenia, along with other post-Soviet states, is in a military alliance with Russia but Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has increasingly appealed to the West, including the EU.

What’s at stake for the EU?

Earlier this year, the EU set up a civilian mission in Armenia in response to a request from Yerevan, including operations at several points along the border with Azerbaijan.

Its stated goal, according to the website of the EU Mission in Armenia, is “observing and reporting on the situation on the ground; contributing to human security in conflict-affected areas and based on the above, contributing to build confidence between populations of both Armenia and Azerbaijan and, where possible, their authorities.”

The EU is engaged in negotiations with Baku and Yerevan, but that didn’t stop the latest round of hostilitiesImage: Dursun Aydemir/AA/picture alliance

However, the EU also signed a gas supply deal with Baku last year. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen even praised authoritarian Azerbaijan as a “crucial partner” in mitigating the energy crisis, despite serious concerns among Western observers about the state of democracy and human rights violation there.

With war already raging in Ukraine and a number of powerful geopolitical players — US, China, Iran and Israel — involved in the Caucasus region, the situation is delicate. “The EU’s aim is to have a stable vicinity unthreatened by wars,” Czech EU parliamentarian Marketa Gregorova, who sits in the Green group, told DW in a written statement.

“The EU’s strategic interest is for Armenia and Azerbaijan to prosper, to minimize Russian influence in Armenia and the region, help Azerbaijan achieve democracy and to resolve the ongoing decades-long conflict,” she added.

Nagorno-Karabakh lies in tatters after fresh fighting earlier this weekImage: TAR-TASS/IMAGO

Gregorova said she had long called for the EU to play a greater role in mediating long-term peace, but there are risks attached — especially due to the gas deal. “If we get deeply involved in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan will have less interest in supplying the EU with energy, at least at current price and conditions,” she said.

The solution, she said, is “to concentrate on further diversification of our resources, and a swift one.” Sanctions could be an option, but the EU should also look at attaching conditions to the gas agreement, Gregorova said.

What comes next?

With Azerbaijan now claiming control over Nagorno-Karabakh and ethnic Armenian separatist fighters laying down arms, the next concern is the humanitarian situation as well as keeping both sides talking.

Baku is blockading the only road between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, choking supplies to civilians. In the fresh fighting, many ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have fled, leading to accusations of ethnic cleansing.

In a written statement on Tuesday, EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell condemned the military escalation and called for “the immediate cessation of hostilities and for Azerbaijan to stop the current military activities.”

“There is an urgent need to return to dialogue between Baku and Karabakh Armenians,” Borrell said. “This military escalation should not be used as a pretext to force the exodus of the local population.”

In Brussels, ambassadors from the EU member states discussed the situation on Wednesday, but only one country showed interest in resorting to sanctions immediately, an EU diplomatic source told DW on condition of anonymity. The focus was on stopping military actions, moving forward through diplomacy and dealing with the humanitarian situation, the source added.

All eyes will be on the Spanish city of Granada in two weeks, where close to 50 European countries are expected for talks in the European Political Community format — including Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Edited by: Martin Kuebler

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev appears to relish embarrassing the State Department.

Just weeks after the now-voided ceasefire, Aliyev castigated on live television Andrew Schofer, at the time the chief US representative on the Karabakh issue, during a Baku meeting.

Noting that Aliyev did not invite the American and French representatives, he said he would nevertheless listen on the off chance they had something worthwhile to say.

Aliyev, though, had no desire to listen to diplomats. “Azerbaijan resolved the conflict, which lasted for almost 30 years, resolved by force and political means,” he said. “And I can only agree with what [Russian] president [Vladimir] Putin said, the president of the one of the co-chair countries, that Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is already in the history… Azerbaijan resolved it itself. And by defeating Armenia on the battlefield, we forced aggressor to admit its defeat, to sign declaration which we consider as an act of capitulation of Armenia.”

In the three years since, he has only redoubled his contempt for American diplomacy. Testifying last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, acting Assistant Secretary of State Yuri Kim declared, “We will not tolerate any attack on the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.” Aliyev called her bluff and Kim, who hopes to be the next US ambassador to Turkey, showed her declaration both empty and insincere.

It is not a good look for American diplomacy. Nor is Kim alone. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repeated there could be “no military solution” or that “the use of force to resolve disputes is unacceptable” in recent days. To sit idle as Aliyev imposes through military force a solution that leads to the mass flight or expulsion of one of the region’s oldest Christian communities not only reinforces the notion that Blinken is the weakest secretary of State since Frank Kellogg a century ago. The danger is that not only Aliyev but also other dictators will see inaction or empty rhetoric as a greenlight. The Armenia fight might not be over, after all, especially as Aliyev occupies portions of Armenia and claims even capital Yerevan as an Azeri city.

So how should the United States react?

First, Azerbaijan’s military conquest should not push aside the ongoing investigations of severe human rights abuses and torture and executions of prisoners of war stemming from the 2020 war. The best resource on these cases rests in a repository at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University assembled by now-Georgetown University Scholar David Phillips and his able team.  

Second, will Congress assess how recent waivers of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act contributed and enabled the Azerbaijani military action? Will any diplomats from the Trump or Biden administrations be held accountable by Congress for flagrant violations of U.S. law?

Third, what will the United States do to ensure preservation of cultural heritage? While the Hudson Institute’s Luke Coffey says, “There is no religious dimension to this conflict,” such a statement is patently false. Put aside the rhetoric of Al Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries from 2020. There is a long history of the Aliyev regime destroying Christian sites or seeking to erase Armenian heritage. Consider, for example, the destruction of the Julfa Cemetery. Every scholar or analyst apologetic to Azerbaijan’s position should explain what motivates such destruction and if they can voice any plausible excuse. The same holds true for the sandblasting of Armenian inscriptions in other churches and monasteries.  The simple facts are these: Few believe the Azerbaijani narrative because Aliyev has not allowed foreign media or foreign observers in for years. Pinocchio’s nose is too big to ignore the ongoing eradication of a community. There is a reason why so many living under Azerbaijani guns fear for their lives.

Fourth, the State Department should immediately dispatch multiple diplomats from the US Embassy in Baku to Stepanakert to monitor the situation. Atrocities occur in the dark. If Azerbaijan has nothing to hide, then it will not impede diplomats visiting beleaguered, Christian populations on land Azerbaijan controls.

Fifth and finally, Azerbaijani officials say that they will allow Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh to remain as equal citizens under Azerbaijani law. Put aside the fact that they already accuse many generations-old Armenians of the region of having no proof of residency. Congress should demand the State Department release a report assessing the Azerbaijani constitution and the independence of the Azerbaijani judiciary. Does the State Department believe that the Aliyev family is subordinate to Azerbaijani law or above it? Does Blinken believe that Azerbaijani will, for example, bring to justice those seen beheading or mutilating prisoners on video?

Freedom and faith suffer today, but Azerbaijani triumphalism need not be the final chapter. The downside of imposing a military solution, rather than the “consensual” solution for which Secretary of State James Baker called when he crafted the American position to the region more than three decades ago, is that the pendulum of unilateralism swings both ways. Aliyev will not live forever, and even the most ambitious family dynasties unravel. In the interim, it is essential that the State Department cease its business-as-usual with Azerbaijan and work overtime to help one of the world’s oldest Christian communities that, unfortunately, Washington’s own distraction and indifference now imperils.

About the Author

Now a 19FortyFive Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).