Suchergebnisse

In 2020, a war took place between Armenia and Azerbaijan, resulting in several thousand casualties. The 44-day war ended with an Azeri military victory over Armenia and the capture of an important part of Nagorno-Karabagh. Following a ceasefire and the …

In the post-Soviet era, the Nagorno Karabagh conflict has been a major source of tension in the South Caucasus. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia, the United States, and France have all been involved in the mediation process between Nagorno Karabagh, Armenia, and Azerbaijan over the resolution of the conflict. Russia, given its historical ties, economic interests, political clout, and military relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan, appears to be the most influential and vital moderator in this conflict. This dates back to the outbreak of violence in early 1990s. Russia has tried to help the participants in the Nagorno Karabagh conflict to maintain the status quo, and has provided a framework of dialogue for Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia has been the main supplier of arms to both sides, which calls into question Russia's motive and goals in its role as a mediator, and its role is subject of much controversy in the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. This paper argues that Russia's role as a mediator is primarily focused on maintaining the status quo, and ensuring the equilibrium of military capabilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in order to discourage any military escalations between the two states. We assert that despite the fact that this strategy has been successful for Russia in maintaining the status quo, a different approach, which moves beyond military balancing, is required in order to reach a long-term solution for the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno Karabagh.

Acknowledgment -- Contents -- Chapter 1: Foreword: The Struggle to Change the Logic of Armenia´s History -- Notes -- Chapter 2: The Early Challenges to the Traditional Narrative, 1989- 1991 -- 1 The Dangerous Scarecrow -- 2 How Should We Think About Our Relations with Our Neighbors? -- 3 The Most Important Guarantee of Armenia´s Independent Existence -- 4 Rejecting Fantasies and Normalizing Relations with Turkey -- 5 The Main Guarantee of Our Security Is Normalization of Relations with Neighbors -- Notes -- Chapter 3: Armenian-Turkish Relations After Independence and the Continued Struggle with the Traditional Narrative -- 1 The Obstacles on the Path of Normalization of Relations Between Armenia and Turkey -- 2 The High Point of Cooperation Between Armenia and Turkey -- 3 Responding to Accusations of Russophobia and Turkophilia -- 4 Inaugural Address to the ``Problems of Genocide´´ Conference -- 5 Why It Was a Mistake for Turkey Not to Normalize Relations with Armenia and Why ``National Ideology´´ Is a Bad Idea -- Notes -- Chapter 4: The Karabagh Conflict and the Future of Armenian Statehood -- 1 War or Peace? Time to Get Serious -- 1.1 The Object of the Debate -- 1.2 Some Misconceptions -- 1.3 Myths and Riddles -- 1.4 A Package or a Step-by-Step Solution? -- 1.5 Conspiracy Is Ruled Out -- 2 Debate with the Opponents Inside the Government Regarding the Need to Resolve the Karabagh Conflict -- Notes -- Chapter 5: Views on the Karabagh Conflict and the Armenian Turkish Relations Following the Return to Politics -- 1 The Current State of the Process to Resolve the Nagorno Karabagh Conflict -- 2 Reassessing the Legacy of the Genocide -- 3 ``Why Are Turks and Azeris Happy About the Prospect of Your Return to Politics?´´ -- 4 The Changed Geopolitical Reality Following the Russo-Georgian War of August 2008 -- Notes

The article explores the securitization/de-securitization processes and attitudes towards the conflict in Azerbaijan in the periods before, during, and after the 2020 conflict in Karabagh. An earlier study (Alieva and Aslanov, 2018) revealed that even under conditions of strict autocratic rule, there has been a diversification of societal attitudes depending on sets of views and ideologies - from conservative and (pre)modern to liberal and post-modern - during the "status quo" period, demonstrating de-securitization potential from civil society actors (NGOs, political opposition, independent intellectuals). The recent flare-up in Karabagh shows, however, that neither favorable attitudes towards peace among the Azerbaijani elite, nor democratic changes in Armenia automatically immunize society against military/political mobilization and securitization if they are not indicators of deeper human and political emancipation and if the grievances, such as human rights violations, ethnic cleansing, violation of international borders, and/or war crimes, are not legally redressed internationally and/or domestically. In turn, the unsustainable nature of the attempts at "top-down" de-securitization, or that from formal authority, is affected by the fact that it does not "unmake securitization's nondemocratic, exceptional and exclusionary logic" (Aradau, 2004), but rather replicates it. The official "speech acts" reflect the utilization of the external threat against domestic opponents for purposes of blame avoidance and, while calling for peaceful reconstruction, hint at the possibility of future war. Yet, even under conditions of strict autocracy, the internet and social networks provide for the silenced voices and for the multiplicity of agents challenging the monopoly on (de-)securitization of the formal authority, reinforced by the infelicities (amounting to flaws) of the post-war governance.

Nagorno-Karabagh is a long-drawn-out conflict crafted around two competing positions identified as self-determination and state sovereignty. The political tactics of Stalin based on divide and rule and pan-Turkism in 1870 coupled with the Armenian genocide in 1914 fuelled the deep hatred and antagonism crammed between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the mountainous terrain of Nagorno-Karabagh. This paper attempts to comprehend the dynamic nature of this protracted conflict (in 2020) with the perspective of newly emerging regional alliances in the south Caucuses. It recognizes the convoluted regional interests that shaped a recipe of convergence between Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey that led to controlled chaos and one-sided settlement in Nagorno-Karabagh at the dispense of Karabagh Armenians. It addresses how this decisive war between Azerbaijan and Armenia transformed the landscape of future warfare.

Bibliography Entry
Rashid, Asma. 2021. "Nagorno-Karabagh Conflict and Role of Major Powers: An International Law Perspective." Margalla Papers 25 (2): 61-70.