Geopolitics and Foreign Policy

Kennan Cable No. 81: What's at Stake in Nagorno-Karabakh:

Kennan Cable No. 81: What’s at Stake in Nagorno-Karabakh: U.S. Interests and the Risk of Ethnic Cleansing

In a corner of the former Soviet Union, overshadowed by the catastrophe in Ukraine, a blockade backed by the government of Azerbaijan has cut off an estimated 120,000 Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh from the rest of the world. Since December 12, a group of activists, with support from Azerbaijani government officials and military forces, have blocked the free movement of traffic along the only road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, known as the Lachin Corridor.[1] The Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh have endured a relentless winter, with just a trickle of humanitarian supplies allowed in, along with intermittent gas and electricity cuts.[2] The United States and its partners have warned of a humanitarian catastrophe,[3] with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repeatedly calling on Azerbaijan to open the Lachin Corridor.[4] Last month, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered the Azerbaijani government to do the same.[5] But the blockade continues into its fourth month, threatening to derail Western-led peace efforts and to spark a new round of conflict, with the risk of ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh. With or without violent confrontation, the Azerbaijani government can coerce the Armenian population to leave the land by making their lives and livelihoods increasingly difficult to sustain. The issue is more than a regional territorial squabble; it has become part of a larger contest, with notable U.S. interests at stake. For the past three decades, Russia’s hard power presence in the South Caucasus and its influence over former Soviet republics provided Moscow with enough leverage to maintain peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Now Russia’s influence is receding, and its weakened capacity has been laid bare. The U.S. has its first opportunity since the fall of the Soviet Union to gain significant standing in the South Caucasus, by rewriting the security architecture of the region. At the 2023 Munich Security Conference in February, Blinken addressed the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Sitting at a table with Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders on each side, he stated America’s commitment to the peace process, along with European partners. The surge of Western diplomatic engagement began after the Ukraine conflict and saw a major uptick after Azerbaijani attacks on Armenia proper in September 2022.      Azerbaijan’s blockade of the Lachin Corridor is a pivotal moment in the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over the future of Nagorno-Karabakh. The two have been in tension since the late years of the Soviet Union, though the seeds of the conflict were planted long before that. In the 1920s, Josef Stalin, then the Commissar of Nationalities for the USSR, placed the Armenian-majority region of Nagorno-Karabakh within the boundaries of Soviet Azerbaijan,[6] but granted Armenians of the region a high degree of cultural autonomy and self-rule. The resulting creation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast in 1923 was a move designed to create conflict, keeping Armenians and Azerbaijanis in a state of perceived vulnerability that would require Moscow to regularly intervene.[7] That strategy succeeded. Beginning in the 1960s, after complaints of cultural repression and demographic policies designed to dilute their presence, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh began to petition Soviet authorities for reassignment to the Armenian SSR. Emboldened by the reforms of glasnost and perestroika, Armenians held a referendum in 1991, with a vast majority of the population voting for Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence.[8] But the poll was rejected by Baku as illegal and the disagreement sparked pogroms against the Armenians of Azerbaijan and interethnic violence, culminating in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. The conflict killed roughly 30,000 people between 1991–94 and pushed hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. Azerbaijanis were forced to leave lands captured by Armenians and Armenians fled from Baku and other parts of Azerbaijan.[9] In Nagorno-Karabakh, local Armenians prevailed over Azerbaijani forces. For nearly 30 years, they built a self-proclaimed independent republic with democratic elections, a free press, and a range of public institutions. Officially, it remained within the territorial boundaries of Azerbaijan, unrecognized by any foreign country, though international mediators made reference to the right of self-determination for local Armenians as part of ongoing peace talks.  The government of Azerbaijan has long wanted to bring Nagorno-Karabakh under the federal control of Baku; the land controlled by Armenians before the 2020 war constituted 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s officially recognized territory. In September 2020, leveraging its superior military resources and direct support from Turkey, Azerbaijan launched an offensive to retake Nagorno-Karabakh and made significant territorial gains. After 44 days of war, a cease-fire brokered by Moscow, known as the trilateral agreement, was signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia in November 2020.[10] The agreement guaranteed free passage of people and goods through the Lachin Corridor. Baku’s stated goal is the full reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan, by force if necessary. Under its proposal, Armenian residents would be treated as Azerbaijani citizens, with no special cultural or administrative status and rights. Armenians want to continue the internationally led negotiations that have long included notions of special status and civilian protection. The history of violence against Armenians in Azerbaijan, including the recent execution of Armenian prisoners of war and the sexual mutilation of female soldiers, give Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh little confidence in their safety. Internationally led confidence-building measures would need significant time to generate the conditions for interethnic peace. Also at issue is Baku’s treatment of ethnic and religious minorities already living under its control; while Azerbaijan runs showpiece initiatives on interfaith relations for an international audience, it has received the lowest possible rating from Freedom House for the treatment of women and ethnic minorities at home.[11] According to Freedom House, Azerbaijan’s government “has worked to stifle public expressions of Talysh and Lezgin identity, among other targeted groups.”[12] The Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh are not interested in following the same fate. For most of the past 30 years the U.S., France, and Russia worked as partners to help solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, serving as co-chairs of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group.[13] It was a project that captured the geopolitical zeitgeist of the 1990s: the new Russia working with leading countries of the West to solve problems in the former

Kennan Cable No. 81: What’s at Stake in Nagorno-Karabakh: U.S. Interests and the Risk of Ethnic Cleansing Read More »

Geopolitics and Foreign Policy

Middle Eastern Linkages Are Shaping the South Caucasus

In an interview with Carnegie Middle East Center, Sergei Melkonian discusses Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey’s and Israel’s efforts to expand their reach north of Iran. Sergei Melkonian is a research fellow at the Applied Policy Research Institute of Armenia and at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow. He earned his Ph.D. on the subject of Israel-Syria relations from the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in 2021. He teaches and heads the Middle East and North Africa program at the Armenian Research and Development Institute in Yerevan. Diwan interviewed Melkonian in mid-May to get his perspective on the situation in the South Caucasus and the relations there among Türkiye, Israel, and Iran, and on Russia’s position in the Middle East in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine. Armenak Tokmajyan: You have argued that the South Caucasus, especially Armenia, can be considered a part of the Middle East. Please elaborate on this. Sergei Melkonian: There are different approaches to answering this question. We can start with the most obvious one: geography. The ethnogenesis and statehood of the Armenians was formed in the Armenian highlands. It is part of Western Asia, a geographical region that includes the Middle East as a political region. To understand that this geographical space is part of the Middle East, it is enough to note that the two rivers around which the civilizations of the region were formed, the Tigris and the Euphrates, flow out of the Armenian highlands. Today, Armenia borders Türkiye and Iran, two key actors in the Middle East, while Erbil, Tehran, and Baghdad are closer to Yerevan than Moscow or Brussels. In a historical sense, Armenia’s borders went deep into the Middle East, which was its natural environment. Later, Armenia was part of both the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid and Qajar Empires in Persia, which covered the entire region. To find Armenia on a world map in any historical period, we must refer to the cartographers who illustrated and described the borders of the modern Middle East. Armenia is also part of the region culturally. Considering the area where Armenians have lived throughout history, one can find parallels with the Arab East in terms of traditions, cuisine, linguistic borrowings, and so on. For example, the Armenians were part of Syrian society several centuries before the emergence of the Armenia Diaspora that resulted from the genocide during World War I. And the Armenian Apostolic Church is one of the oldest Eastern Christian churches. On the political level, Armenian states have been part of Middle Eastern regional processes throughout history. Today the situation has not changed. Armenia feels the consequences of conflicts in the region. This includes the resettlement of Armenian refugees from Iraq and Syria, or the participation of mercenaries from Libya and Syria on Azerbaijan’s side in its 2020 war with Armenia. AT: We have observed growing cooperation between Israel and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus. What are Israel’s primary objectives in this regard, and how does Russia perceive Israel’s expanding role in its “backyard”? SM: In the past, relations between Israel and Azerbaijan primarily took place in the economic and energy spheres, while today much attention is paid to military-technical cooperation and security issues. Therefore, Azerbaijan has taken on an important role in Israel’s foreign policy strategy, which is often referred to as the “new peripheral strategy.” This is based on forming close relationships with states in close proximity to the main source of threat to Israel’s security. Therefore, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, which have a land and sea border with Iran, as well as the Gulf countries, are priority areas for Israeli diplomacy. After Azerbaijan established control over a part of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020, the border between Iran and Azerbaijan increased by around 100 kilometers, and Israel gained the possibility of having access to monitoring facilities only 7 kilometers from Iran. Today, unofficially, Israel supports the opening of the “Zangezur corridor,” a project of Türkiye and Azerbaijan to create a corridor between both countries through Armenian sovereign territory. Implementation of this project will lead, through Azerbaijan, to a significant increase in Türkiye’s influence in areas just north of the Iran border. As for Russia, it does not pay much attention to Israeli activity in the South Caucasus. First, the desire to alter the status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh through the 2020 war came from Azerbaijan. Israel was one of the beneficiaries, as it played a very important role in both preparing Azerbaijan and providing support during the conflict. Second, Moscow does not see Israel as a channel for Western influence in the South Caucasus. Third, Israel does not affect Russian interests in the region; Moscow’s key opponent in the South Caucasus is Ankara. AT: Can you describe the interplay between Israel’s and Türkiye’s interests in the South Caucasus, and what you see as the ultimate outcome of this situation? SM: Türkiye and Israel have different interests in the region. For Ankara, it has historically been a place in which it has pursued its national interests. To this day Türkiye seeks to spread its influence using economic, energy, logistical, and military tools. Therefore, it is a competitor of Russia and Iran in the struggle over spheres of influence. For Israel, the South Caucasus has no such strategic importance. It is significant in the context of energy imports, the arms market, and, especially, creating an area of tension with Iran. The main intersection point of Türkiye’s and Israel’s interests in the South Caucasus is the weakening of Iran. Despite the political crisis between Türkiye and Israel, both supported Azerbaijan in the war against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020. Both also benefited from the war. Türkiye increased its influence over Azerbaijan, built up a military presence there, and made it more possible that it would be able to open the “Zangezur corridor.” Israel, in turn, gained access to the Iranian border and to a strong ally on that border, which it can use to put pressure on Tehran. Competition between Türkiye and Israel

Middle Eastern Linkages Are Shaping the South Caucasus Read More »

Sign up for updates from APRI Armenia