The Nagorno Karabakh Conflict and the Possible Scenarios of its Resolution

Filed under: My analytical writings — Orkhan Gafarli @ 11:34 pm

Part I

The Madrid Principles served as a basis for the negotiations dedicated to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict for the last three

years. Proposals included making some changes to the Principles in order to renew the peace process between Azerbaijan

and Armenia. But the dynamic of the current negotiating process over of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict itself appears to

reflect more positions of regional superpowers rather than the countries involved in this conflict. The key players in this

region are Turkey, United States, European Union, and Russia. Iran is not likely to intervene in the conflict. As a result,

Iran’s active partcipation in the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict not to be expected. It is unrealistic to advance the

peace progress without regard for interests of the regional powers in this context.

If we assume that the interests of these actors clash in this geography, attainment of a consensus in the near future

seems utopian. The outside pressure on the parties to the conflict might turn the Southern Caucasus region into a center

of a hot conflict zone again. Even, if some tentative agreement will be reached between the regional powers, while their

interests do not coincidence, the conflict is likely to reignite. A long-term solution can be established only, when the

societies of the states involved in the conflict have internalized democratic values. The absence of dialogue between the

government and the people demonstrates the great democracy deficit, as flagrant violations of human rights continue in

the both countries. One of the main obstacles to a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is a historic failure

to establish link between the unsuccessful democratization process in the both countries and the unresolved conflict. Even

in the best case scenario, international efforts to produce a lasting solution to the confilict will be futile. At the same time,

it is vital to convince both societies that only peaceful solution is the preferred solution.

Sometimes experts expressing their opinions on the negotiation process focus their attention exclusively on the position of

the one of the key actors, disregarding the fact that each of them ( Turkey, US, EU, Russia) is in possesion of powerful

instruments of influence in the region. What is evident is that it is unrealistic to expecta a peace settlement without prior

achievement of a consensus, whereas due a consideration is given to the interests of the regional powers. Another may be

far-fetched, but not unrealistic scenario is a new war in the South Caucasus – the war precipitated by the main powers in

order to force the hand of the party which is disinclined to a true reconciliation and peace. This kind of war might be

enticing as conflict resolution mechanism in this international conflict. It might be offered more likely by US or Russia as a

final solution model. That kind of settlement is likely, if the above mentioned countries are not able to reach aa consensus

in the peace process.

At the first phase of implementation of the Madrid principles the representation role of the powers ( Turkey, U.S., EU and

Russia) is very important. But the actor with the main represantative role or the mediator should be appointed only with

concurrence of the participants of the conflict, i.e. Azerbaijan and Armenia. And it seems, that there are pressures are

being applied on them for that reason. It is also important, at the first phase, to get consensus between the powers of

interests in the region before encourage Azerbaijan and Armenia to sign a peace agreement . In order to get success in the

process of determining of Nagorno-Karabach’s status, the diplomatic maneuvers undertaken by the Azerbaijani authorities

are very important. Armenia countered Azerbijani maneuvers by its diplomatic initiatives. For example, Azerbaijan’s

approachement with Russia as well as the improving relations of Armenia with the West can be seen as indication of

shifting positions of the two South caucasian nations. It is a new evidence of the complexity of the South Caucasian

dynamic. Despite the offers by the parties, factors such as shared participication by the regional powers (Turkey, U.S., EU

and Russia) in the peace process complicates the settlement of the conflict.

There is common thinking that short-term tactical moves and the importance of the unresolved issues of the past

overshadow both the most regional and the international predictions about the Nagorno Karabakh problem. This

document puts both of the parties into a desperate situation and makes them prefer the status quo rather than movement

towards the compromise of peace which is more risky but promising.

Before reaaching the peace agreement outlined in the packet of Madrid principles, it is important to mention that, any

agreement should be signed only after carefully examining all the alternative peace scenarios. Also it should be

determined whether the current situation, or the situation that is expected to ensue after signing a peace agreement

based on the Madrid principles is preferable.

Orkhan Gafarli

Azerbaijan Research Center is an expert “Kafkassam”

www.kafkassam.com

Leave a Comment