Masaryk university

Chapter 4:Armed Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh

Armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh started a series of bloody conflicts in the South Caucasus region, followed by armed conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia (addressed in the next two chapters of this dissertation). It has also determined further security arrangements and the process of political transformation both in Armenia and Azerbaijan. The “Karabakh issue” casts a dark shadow over modern development in these countries, and so far, there is no strategy for conflict resolution. The interest of conflict parties, their demands and decisions had a crucial impact on the process of escalation of the conflict, the complexity of the situation today, and the inability to find permanent solutions.

Systemic analysis of this armed conflict serves the principal aim of this chapter, which is the exploration of key issues at stake that have influenced one of the first armed conflicts in the post-Soviet space, launched in February 1988, triggering fierce confrontation between two nations. The complexity of this conflict will be examined through the actors involved in the conflict, including governments, political leaders, as well as military and external actors. Decisions and mutual interactions will be demonstrated in an attempt to portray the process of escalation.

Political claims of the “host republics” of Armenia and Azerbaijan were embedded in specific interpretations of history,¹¹⁷ national identity, and territory. As argued by distinctive scholar Adam Smith the role of the past to legitimize action in the present is a common phenomenon in ethnic struggles: “in order to create a convincing representation of the ‘nation,’ a worthy and distinctive past must be rediscovered and appropriated.”¹¹⁸ Indeed, such processes in new states created on the ruins of the Soviet empire can be translated into political mobilization. The armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is an ideal example in which historical narratives were interpreted in terms of historical injustice and played an influential role in the process of conflict escalation.

The scholarly studies on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have developed into a considerable amount of literature in an attempt to explain the causes of this bloody conflict and to offer potential approaches for its resolution. History remains the most silent aspect in the studies of the local authors. On the one hand, mismatch in the argument and ethnic belonging of regional authors makes the interpretation of these armed conflicts biased. On the other hand, many Western scholars overemphasize the role of the Soviet institutional structures or the Caspian oil politics and the role of the external powers. The analysis in this chapter points out the need for a more balanced approach to understand the complex picture of this conflict.

Like any other conflict, the armed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh involves multiple issues at stake. Basically, it is a struggle for independence of Armenian inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh against Azerbaijan. The predominant Armenian wisdom about the conflict is embedded in the notion of national survival, emphasizing a fear of genocide. Azerbaijan, however, points out the significance of territorial integrity in accordance with the standards of international law. Armenians and Azerbaijanis conceptualize the Karabakh issue in mutually exclusive terms.

The analyses provided in this chapter do not aim to contribute to the history of this region to provide an exhaustive account of the events and background of the conflict. Focusing on the significance of historical continuity, this chapter will explore how competing narratives of conflicting parties transformed and legitimized political mobilization. The role of actors involved in the conflict will be assessed in order to uncover how their claims and their interactions led to an escalation of the conflict. Thus, we can explore how issues at stake changed conflict dynamics and led to the transformation from one phase to another with sporadic violence emerging.

For these purposes, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is divided into three phases. The conflict processes is divided in accordance to the stages defined by escalation modes and level of violence. First, the latent conflict from 1988 to 1992, characterized by a low intensity of violence (phase A). Second phase, full-scale war from 1992 to 1994: after a high number of victims, the conflicted ended in stalemate (phase B). Third, the so-called “frozen” stage with high potential to re-escalate to violent confrontation in the future (phase C): from 1994 to the present. In order to address the question about the long duration of this conflict and the impossibility of building sustainable peace, the following sections proposes an analysis of issues at stake in the outlined phases.

4.1 Phase A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation

Nagorno-Karabakh is perceived as having deep historical roots for armed conflicts; therefore, it has become an epicenter for conflict in the South Caucasus region.¹¹⁹ The question of historical events and their role in the outbreak of the conflict is very delicate. Deeply rooted antagonism between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh took place during the “Armeno-Tatar Wars” in 1905-1907.¹²⁰ Later, from 1918 to 1920, the clashes between independent Armenia and Azerbaijan took place over three regions: Nakhichevan, Zangezur, and Nagorno-Karabakh.¹²¹ After the Sovietization of the South Caucasus region by the Red Army in 1920, the “Treaty of Brotherhood and Friendship” was signed between Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which gave the latter the status of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO),¹²² incorporating the region within Soviet Azerbaijan as an autonomous oblast.

It has to be pointed out that Armenians and Azerbaijanis contradicted each other three times in 100 years. First, at the beginning of the 20^th century, when Armenians controlled the oil industry in Baku gubernia, Azerbaijanis expressed their dissatisfaction over Armenian dominance in the economic sphere. The series of civil unrest between Armenians and Azerbaijanis during the Armenian-Tatar War in 1905 resulted in casualties.¹²³ Second, tensions in the mutual relationship was caused in the aftermath of the inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh as an autonomous oblast within the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan (over 90% of the population were ethnic Armenians). According to available data, the number of victims between 1918 and 1920 was over 12,000 people.¹²⁴ And third, at the end of the 1980s, the territory of this region was disputed again, which led to a full-scale war in from 1992 to 1994.

The armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh was the first political mobilization, which started in the second half of 1987. Armenian authors attribute the conflict to the legally incompetent decision of the Caucasian Bureau of Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party. According to the Azerbaijani government, Nagorno-Karabakh is occupied by Armenia, which makes this an interstate conflict between two states. Armenia as well as the de-facto government of Nagorno-Karabakh support the struggle for self-determination of the Armenian population in this region against Azerbaijan.¹²⁵

At first glance, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in the latent phase looks like a typical example of a secession. Historical arguments, emotional appeals were constructed in favor of this goal. The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status is a key aspect in this conflict. Even inside Nagorno-Karabakh can we find divergent positions: the majority of the population supports unification with Armenia, but one part of the population is for independence. The Armenian administration, together with the Armenian population, is skeptical of an independent Nagorno-Karabakh.¹²⁶

The “Nagorno-Karabakh factor” determines the political development both in Armenia and in Azerbaijan. As one of the leading Russian anthropologists, Victor Shnirelman, sums it up: at the end of 1980s, both republics had “diametrically opposed yet mirroring attitudes: in Armenia they were sure of the existence of a worldwide Turanic conspiracy, while Azerbaijan believed in a worldwide Armenian conspiracy.”¹²⁷ In order to understand the processes in the latent phase of the conflict, the goal of the following sections it to discuss the competing components of Armenian and Azerbaijani national identities.

4.1.1The Dynamics of Politicization of the Nagorno-Karabakh Issue for Armenian National Identity

Historical memories, a collective sense of identity, ethnic grievances, and fear of others have been perceived as a threat not only to physical extinction, but also to the Armenian national identity.¹²⁸ Armenian identity is complex: one of the oldest Christian nations in the world—they had adopted Christianity in AD330 - was divided between the Turkish and Persian Empires in the 16^th and 18^th century. The sense of vulnerability and perception of threats from ethnic others played a significant role in the formation of Armenian national identity. The ethnic card has been played in the process of escalation of tensions around Nagorno-Karabakh. The turbulent history and the Armenian Genocide led to the loss of territories in Western Armenia and to the victimization of the nation. Another explanation for the Armenian self-image is the fear of being caught between external powers.

From the Armenian perspective, the political system and the policies implemented by Azerbaijani president Heider Aliev had a significant influence on the development in Nagorno-Karabakh. His rule started a new process of implementing tighter control within Azerbaijan. First came the migration of the Azeri population to the Nagorno-Karabakh region. There are two factors that intensified the fear of extinction by the Armenian settlers of this region: first, the decrease in relative size in comparison to ethnic “others” in the aftermath of the migration; and second, the high birth rate of Azeri people.¹²⁹ The following table illustrates these features following the 1989 census:

Table The Population of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region.

	Armenians		Azerbaijanis
Years	Actual number	Population growth %	Actual number	Population growth %
1921	128,060		7,594
1939	132,800	3.7	14,100	77.2
1959	110,100	-17.1	18,100	27.6
1970	121,100	10	27,200	51.1
1979	123,100	1.6	37,200	36.7

Source: Y. Mahmudov and K. Shukurov: Garabagh - Real History, Facts, Documents (Tahsil Publishing House 2005), 71.
From this table, we can see that the number of the Azeri population increased from 7 594 in 1921 to 37200 in 1979, while there is a slight decrease in the Armenian population. However, the ethno-demographic shift from the 1970s was used by intellectuals to supported Armenian claims about fears of ethnic extinction.

In connection with these claims, the latent fear of being the subject of genocide was broadly projected onto Nagorno-Karabakh. The term “white genocide” or “white massacre” expressed the existential fear of the Armenian nation. Another term, which was also broadly used was “ecological genocide,” referring to the pollution problems that resulted in the first mass demonstrations on February 16, 1988. Sumgait pogroms emphasized the fear of physical extinction as well. This dramatic event in Sumgait informed the discourse of victimization and historical injustice, developing into the new nationalist paradigm. The physical survival of the Armenian nation and the fear of losing Nagorno-Karabakh (a region with a majority Armenian population) was perceived as a repetition of failure during the Armenian Genocide.

The Nagorno-Karabakh question represents a combination of all of these aspects: first, the essentialization of collective historical memories and the victimization of the Armenian national consciousness are the result of the 1915 Genocide by the Ottoman Empire, which resulted in the perception of a permanent threat stemming from Turkey and its “kin brother nation,” Azerbaijan. Second, a demographic shift and the forced migration of the Armenian population intensified the issue of physical survival and the identity crisis of the Armenian nation. In the words of the president of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, “The inclusion of NK within the borders of the Azeri SSSR put the Armenian people on the verge of extinction.”¹³⁰

From the Armenian perspective, the dynamics of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh could be framed in a struggle of the Armenian people to defend their co-ethnic and illegitimate rule of Azerbaijan over this territory. Armenian sources tend to emphasize the significance of Nagorno-Karabakh as the “political, cultural and, subsequently, the revolutionary center of Armenia.”¹³¹ While it is impossible to find out objective historical facts that are not influenced by nationalist narrative, these claims illuminate the political discourse and examine the roots of the conflict through an ethnic lens. Historical injustice, fear of ethnic extinction, depopulation, and oppression of the Armenian population contributed to the struggle against Azerbaijani rule over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

The interests of Kabarabakh Armenians were voiced by creating the Karabakh Committee, which was established in 1988. The major goal was to achieve a transference of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijani to Armenian jurisdiction. Intellectuals on both sides played a significant role by emphasizing the narratives about the rights over this territory.

4.1.2Politicization of the Nagorno-Karabakh Issue and Azerbaijani Statehood

The process of formation of an Azerbaijani nationhood is different from the Armenian one. Azerbaijani national identity was heavily influenced by the powers that ruled them for many centuries. Unlike Armenians, whose threat perception and vulnerability emphasized their uniqueness and isolation in the region, Azerbaijanis have emphasized their belonging to and affinity with bigger communities: Turkic and Muslim.¹³²

The Nagorno-Karabakh issue played a significant role in the process of unification and formation of Azeri national identity. Territorial integrity of Azerbaijan became the symbol of national cohesion. It was part of an attempt to create a strong sense on national identity in Azerbaijan. While the Karabakh issue mobilized masses in Armenia, it did not have the same significance in the process of creation of Azerbaijani national identity from the very beginning. Nagorno-Karabakh was perceived as an integral part of Azerbaijan; therefore, there was no need for mass mobilization. The dominant issue for Azerbaijani historians were the consequences of the Russo-Persian wars and the Treaty of Turkmamchai in 1828, which resulted in a division of Azerbaijani territory.

The cornerstone of Azerbaijani national identity until 1988 was not the Karabakh issue, but the significance to unify “north” and “south” Azerbaijan. This claim was raised in December 1989 during the demonstration of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan close to the Soviet-Iranian border in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic.¹³³ The Karabakh issue changed the political discourse in Azerbaijan, and after the events at Sumgait in February 1988, the events took an unpredictable path towards one of the bloodiest conflicts in the South Caucasus, which has not been resolved yet.

With the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, Azerbaijani national identity emphasized the significance of preservation of territorial integrity in order to strengthen national unity. There is no vivid evidence to suggest that the official policy of Azerbaijani authorities at that time was directed against Armenians. Rather, it was meant to emphasize the solidarity of the titular Azerbaijani nation, and the Nagorno-Karabakh issue played a catalyst role in the process of Azerbaijani self-determination. Academic literature points out that Azerbaijani mobilization took place in response to the Armenian nationalist movement. However, an in-depth analysis of conflict actors and their demands reveals that primary actors did not possess a clear strategy to alleviate the escalation of conflict.

4.1.3From Nonviolent Demonstrations to Violent Events

Summer 1987 is considered the starting point of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, when the Armenian nationalist movement voiced the significance of kinship between NK Armenians and supported the process of reunification of this enclave with Armenia. 75,000 Armenians signed a petition addressed to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to merge Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. Liberation from Azerbaijani rule was perceived as a significant step forward to rebuild a depressed nation.

While in most of armed conflicts ethno-histories compete with each other to legitimize the grievance of conflicting parties, this section uncovers the trajectories of mobilization in Armenia and Azerbaijan in order to explore the correlation between ethnicity and armed conflict in this case.

Unlike Georgia and Azerbaijan, in which political scene was more fragmented than in case of Armenia, advanced nationalism led to consensus among political elites and prevented the emergence of a civil war. Furthermore, as mentioned above, to achieve unity among its people, Armenians used the issue of genocide and victimization of nation as a paradigm for strengthening national identity. Consequently, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue in Azerbaijan was characterized by a lower level national activism. There could be little doubt that the political elite, along with intellectuals, played a significant role in the radicalization of tension and escalation of the conflict. Referring to the right for independence before Sovietization, as well as to the nation’s history as a propaganda tool, they legitimized their actions in the eyes of the masses.

It is significant to note that initial clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis were neither new nor about ethnic belonging. “In October 1987 the regional administration of the Azerbaijan town of Chardakhly in the vicinity of the Armenian border took the decision to transfer some land from one kolkhoz (collective farm) to a neighboring one; the former kolkhoz was administrated by Armenians, the latter by Azeris.”¹³⁴ Armenian workforce protested in a demonstration against such a decision, which led to a confrontation with Special Forces of Azerbaijani SSR. The first mass demonstration of Armenians took place in Stephanekert and Yerevan, demanding to transform Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan into an Armenian SSR.¹³⁵

In border regions, rumors about violence between Azeris and Armenians were spreading from one village to another. Initially, ecological issues came to the surface. As stated in the study by experts Jan Koehles and Christopher Zurcher, “a situation in which local incidents between individuals or collectives have been interpreted along ethnic lines – independent of the actual background of the concrete conflict – was not new to the kitchen gossip of Armenian and Azeri households. What, indeed, was new in Armenia was the galvanized atmosphere of mobility of a rapidly evolving public with the organizational know-how of the new masters of those masses. This situation in the Armenian capital was in stark contrast to the reality in Baku where no public was fermenting into a movement independent from the organizational potential of official Soviet institution” at this point in time.¹³⁶

There are no available economic indicators for Nagorno-Karabakh pointing to a worsening development in this region.¹³⁷ The issue at stake was not about economic underdevelopment, but about the function of illegal activities. At this point, the Azerbaijani “shadow” economy organized a broad offensive to expel Armenian economic activities. The politicized economic conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was concentrated in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Since Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) as the main channel of influence for the Armenian “shadow” capital in the Azerbaijani “shadow” businesses, it was the key point within the internal struggle.¹³⁸ In other words, the armed conflict was derived from a clash of interests between Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s “shadow” business.

4.1.4Conflicting Parties and Emerging Issues at Stake

In order to see the whole picture, we have to study the behavior of major conflict parties involved in the process of escalation. Both of the governments, Armenian and Azerbaijani, were integral to this process. We can claim that none of the governments had a clear strategy how to stop the worsening situation. A close study of the situation reveals that they changed political course in due to various developments in the process.

Three major issues determined the spiral of escalation. First came the demands to close a nuclear plant in Armenia, which led to the two demonstrations in 1987. Demands against environmental pollution were related to protection of the homeland and national heritage. “The environmental movement gave the Armenian a popular, broad-based issue that mobilized significant numbers of people but that did not yet appear to threaten political authority.”¹³⁹ It is important to note that at that time, environmental issues were voiced in many Soviet republics, such as Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine. In case of Armenia, the role of intellectuals in the process of mobilizing the masses has particular importance. 350 intellectuals sent a letter to the Kremlin about the devastating consequences of environmental issues in Armenia, which threatened the physical existence of this nation. This letter stated that “Armenia’s cancer rate had quadrupled between 1965 and 1985, while cases of abnormal births, leukemia, and mental retardation had likewise soared.”¹⁴⁰ Furthermore, a literary journal, Karoun published some statistics about dangerous air conditions in the city of Hraztan due to a cement factory, which generated almost 280,000 tons of dust and smoke.¹⁴¹

The Armenian environmental movement and nationalists raising the question of national survival often consisted of the same people. By raising the environmental issue, they were criticizing the government.¹⁴² Demonstrators in Yerevan and Kirovakan in September and October 1987 carried banners in this spirit, for example: “Shut down Nairit so the Armenian people will survive!”¹⁴³

In February 1988, this environmental group had established itself as the Karabakh Committee. Mass demonstrations at that time raised the second critical issue about the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan. Environmental issues were soon transformed into calls for unification of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia. The Karabakh Committee, composed of nationalist intellectuals, organized demonstrations in 1988 calling for “one nation one republic,” for “unification,” and for the “struggle to the end.”¹⁴⁴ Armenians demanded an official policy of Baku towards the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and continued to demonstrate in Stephanekert.¹⁴⁵

A resolution that would make Nagorno-Karabakh part of Armenia was a turning point in the evolution of the conflict. The only issue that was emphasized in order to achieve this political goal was unification. “Miatsoum” (unification) and “struggle to the end” became slogans of the popular movement.¹⁴⁶ The leader of the Karabakh Committee did not raise such issues as criticizing the Communist government for corruption or initiation of political reforms. It was more convenient to mobilize the masses for a struggle against pan-Turkism rather than proposing a strategy for initiation of political reforms. In reality, however, it meant that unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia was only a cover to achieve political goals. Apparently, the revival of national awareness showed that struggle for independence and conflict was prevalent in the mutual relationship between Armenians and Azerbaijani.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, the Krunk Committee was created in 1988, which coordinated its activities with the Karabkah Committee in Armenia. Both of these organizations supported mobilization of the masses throughout 1987 and 1988. A series of demonstrations about environmental issues paved the way for a nationalist movement. It is significant to point out that at this early age of activism two types of national elites were created. On the one hand, there were the nationalist leaders (mostly intellectuals), and on the other hand, the Communist elites. They competed against each other for power and control over particular territories. A separation of Nagorno-Karabakh would have meant dissolution of the country.

Not surprisingly, the first reaction of the Soviet Azerbaijani government towards the demonstration of Armenians in Stepanekert in 1988 was a complaint to Moscow, in which the government of Azerbaijan stated that this demonstration in the Nagorno-Karabakh region threatened the territorial integrity of the country. However, after Armenian delegates of the Soviet NKAO passed a resolution to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on transfer of the oblast to the Armenian SSR on 20 January 1988, the Government of Azerbaijan rejected the unilateral decision.¹⁴⁷ The Government of Azerbaijan emphasized that such a decision challenged the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan SSR and contradicted any stabilization of the situation in the region. However, the government was not able to stop the chain of events leading to a radicalization of the situation: “the vehement and controversial measures taken by the government radicalized both the Armenian masses, and directly contributed to the steady escalation of conflict.”¹⁴⁸

Pushing environmental concerns and issues of unification further led to the emergence of political goals. It is clear that conflict parties had always had bigger goals than issues of ecology and unification. The third issue was connected to corruption and stagnation under the leadership of Karen Demirchian.

The process of national consolidation was complex and involved renationalization of Armenia. The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh revealed a multilayered problem – mass mobilization in Yerevan and Stepanakert was not anti-Soviet from the beginning but was hostile towards Azerbaijan. Ethnic irredentism merged with political reforms and national survival. The Armenian political establishment questioned the legitimacy of Azerbaijani rule over Nagorno-Karabakh territory. This brings us to consider whether ethnicity served as a tool to mobilize the masses over resources, power, and territory.