In late September, a longstanding conflict between the nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan was reignited. The dispute revolves around the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, a region with a majority ethnic Armenian population that is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan. According to the Associated Press (AP), the Armenian government has stated that the fighting began when Azerbaijan fired missiles into Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, and targeted civilians and non-military infrastructure. The AP has also reported on Azerbaijan’s denials of these accusations and its blaming of Armenia for attacking Azeri cities in the region, like Ganja. Each side claims that the other is indiscriminately attacking populated areas and putting innocent lives in danger. As of mid-October, the civilian casualties on the Armenian side stand at 31 deaths and 102 injured. On the Azeri side, 42 deaths and 206 injured. The violence has also resulted in the deaths of over 630 military personnel. If the conflict continues with this sustained level of aggression, it threatens to draw in regional powers such as Russia and Turkey.
These recent tensions stem from a six-year confrontation initiated in 1988 by ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, who desired to be unified under Armenian jurisdiction. Up until 1991, both Armenia and Azerbaijan were part of the Soviet Union. After its collapse, the conflict escalated to an all-out war that killed 30,000 and displaced hundreds of thousands of both Armenians and Azeris. The Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh declared its independence from Azerbaijan and intention to join Armenia in a 1991 referendum, and in 1994, the nations implemented a delicate cease-fire that did not lead to a peace accord.
With the recent testing of the cease-fire, this skirmish risks more than just the relationship between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Many see the fighting as having the potential to devolve into a proxy war between Russia and Turkey, who have clashed in other recent regional conflicts, including those in Syria and Libya. As is often the case with such entanglements, national financial interest is a driving factor. In particular, the sales and distribution of natural gas and oil influence Russian and Turkish involvement, with Azeri pipelines leading to Turkey and competing with Russia’s exports to Europe.
These regional powers have already shown their national interests through the sale of weapons. Russia is the primary source of arms for all countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. While Russia has a formal allegiance to Armenia as seen in their defense agreement, they still supply weapons to Azerbaijan in attempts to balance power and maintain overall control in the region. Turkey is more informally involved. The country has reportedly been selling arms to Azerbaijan and directing Syrian mercenaries to aid in the Azeri campaign. Further complicating the matter, Azerbaijan has also received sophisticated weaponry from Israel in the form of surveillance and attack drones.
There have been a number of attempts to calm the violence, including a Russian cease-fire effort on October 9 that was short lived, given that neither country adhered to their commitments to end clashes. Other countries have been seeking to exert their own influence by pushing for peace negotiations. Most notably, Iran has called on Russia and Turkey to build on previous efforts to reach an agreement in Syria and pursue peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Iranian involvement demonstrates that this conflict has far broader international implications. Another way in which this regional clash is being affected by larger foreign policy developments is seen in the diminishing role of the United States on the world stage. In the absence of strong and stable American leadership in the region, the vacuum is filled with a multitude of efforts by traditionally less involved countries. On the one hand, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo has commented on the need for peaceful negotiations between both the Armenian and Azeri governments. In an interview reported in Politico on October 19, 2020, Secretary Pompeo noted, “The resolution of that conflict ought to be done through negotiation and peaceful discussions, not through armed conflict…and certainly not with third party countries coming in to lend their firepower to what is already a powder keg of a situation.” On the other hand, it speaks volumes that aside from these comments, little US action has been taken almost one month into the conflict.
As the region is thrown into turmoil, the COVID-19 pandemic has infected nearly 100,000 people in both Armenia and Azerbaijan as of mid-October. The situation has made it difficult for the governments to confront the public health crisis, risking more death and illness. Hospitals near the fighting are becoming overwhelmed by the influx of both injured soldiers and civilians as well as the sick.
The conflict raises greater and enduring questions of self-determination and national borders. What role should the ethnic aspirations of Armenians play in the resolution of this conflict? What factors should determine disputed territorial boundaries in case of competing national and ethnic claims? The same conflict has arisen again and again throughout history in the aftermath of the deterioration of an established international balance of power. This regional dispute could easily escalate into a global crisis similar to the likes of those witnessed in the twentieth century. Hopefully, the international community will heed the warnings of past futile wars and push for durable peace that puts the interests of both Armenians and Azeris ahead of foreign interests.