What You Need to Know about Azerbaijan and Armenia: Profiling the 2020 Conflict and the Role of International Organizations
By Kayleigh Thompson, UNA-NCA Advocacy Fellow
One of the many “frozen conflicts” of the post-Cold War era, the latest eruption of conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region has revamped interest in the Caucasus region as a target for peacekeeping intervention from the UN Security Council (UNSC), North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO), and the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OCSE). Despite a tentative peace agreement brokered by Turkey and Russia, the consequences of civilian endangerment, human rights violations, and the rise of international tensions remain to be seen and have raised several concerns regarding not only the preservation of human rights, but also the effectiveness of international organizations in mediating conflicts and achieving strong international institutions.
Outlined in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, it is the goal of the United Nations to “significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere” and “promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” Therefore, it is critical for the UN to promote access to information, protect fundamental freedoms, and strengthen international institutions — specifically for conflicts in which mediation efforts are exhausted. In Nagorno-Karabakh, the lack of action beyond basic calls for ceasefire from the UNSC, NATO, and other international organizations demonstrates the everlasting difficulty of achieving effective intervention to protect citizens from violence and displacement.
The outbreak of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh on September 27th is the latest installment of a decades-long territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia. While the region, situated directly between the Azeri and Armenian border, is occupied majorly by Armenian Christians, both countries have claimed the region as their sovereign territory since they declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Armenia was granted predominant control and influence of both the Nagorno-Karabakh region and several bordering Azer regions by the UNSC in the 1990s, consequently displacing over 600,000 Azeris and leaving a deep resentment and determination to retake the land for Azerbaijan’s control. Skirmishes along an established ‘line of contact’ buffering the two countries have continued into the 21st Century, with the latest flare up beginning in September of this year.
This latest outbreak of violence marked the first major fighting along the Armenian-Azerbaijan border since a four-day flare up in 2016, and made it the longest-running territorial dispute in the post-Soviet Union era. While the summer of 2020 was highlighted by increased tensions over the long disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, the months of September and October saw heavy shelling from both countries on military and civilian settlements as Azerbaijan moved to regain the control of Nagorno-Karabakh region. The tensions have resulted in an outpouring of reports of civilian casualties. As reports of use of cluster bombs and munitions arose, human rights organizations raised concerns of civilian endangerment and the necessity of international intervention increased. However, aside from soft attempts at mediation, no direct action has been taken by the UN, NATO, or the OSCE-MINSK for crisis and post-crisis stabilization and peacekeeping.
Since November 2nd, the conflict has gained international attention as a result of possible war crimes committed against civilians, potentially involving cluster munitions, which have been widely banned in the frameworks of international law. As more allegations of human rights violations arise — despite the agreement by Azerbaijan and Armenia to a peace deal — there has yet to be a decision of whether the NATO, the UNSC, or the OCSE will opt for direct involvement in the peacekeeping effort to ensure a commitment to protecting civilians. This possibility of international involvement also brings in the larger questions of Post-Soviet conflicts in general. The inability of international institutions to ensure peace and security demonstrates how behind leading international organizations are in the responsibility to uphold our commitment to promoting peace and security for all civilians globally, especially in the context of the 2030 SDG deadline.
Profiling The Post-Soviet Frozen Conflict
The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict was one of the direct results of the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. A territorial dispute beginning in the 1980s was only further exacerbated by the newfound independence Armenia and Azerbaijan both obtained once the U.S.S.R. disbanded. This dispute was, and remains, over who has the correct claim to the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
After a bloody conflict throughout the late 1980s between ethnic Armenians and Azeris, the conflict escalated further in 1991 when both Armenia and Azerbaijan declared independence from the U.S.S.R.. The fighting ultimately resulted in 30,000 casualties and millions displaced, with reports of ethnic cleansing and human rights violations. The Bishkek Protocol, brokered by Russia, resulted in the creation of a ‘line of contact’ along the Nagorno-Karabakh border between Azerbaijan and Armenia, leading to an intense militarization of the region. This protocol was not a peace agreement, and between 1994 and 2015 there have been more than 3,000 people killed due to border skirmishes and conflict flare ups. After the four-day conflict in 2016, which killed 17, a number of minor skirmishes continued until the most recent outbreak of fighting in 2020.
Nagorno-Karabakh is one of the many ethnic territorial disputes seen throughout the Caucasus. It takes place within a continent facing similar post-Soviet ethnic, territorial conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Kosovo. And like many of these post-Soviet ethnic tensions, attempts at peace have largely resulted in unsteady ceasefires and “frozen conflicts,” rather than positive peacemaking that resolves historic land disputes between groups and ensures the right to democratic government, human rights, and self-confidence in these smaller countries to govern without a strong influence from other world powers.
In Nagorno-Karabakh, the signing of the Bishkek Protocol was followed by attempts of the OSCE-Minsk Group, a mediation organization created by the OSCE and chaired by Russia, the US, and France, to create a long-lasting peace deal. However, they have failed to facilitate a sustainable peace between the two countries. In addition, geopolitics have also played a role in hindering peace. Turkey’s support of Azerbaijan has restricted any involvement of NATO due to the Article 5 requirement of collective self-defense and Russia’s continued support of Armenia through the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), an intergovernmental military alliance between Post-Soviet states, has increased international tensions along the historic Cold War lines.
As of October 2020, the heaviest fighting since 2016 has been recorded with more than 1,000 deaths — both civilian and military. Several cease-fire attempts brokered by Russia, the United States, and France either directly or in coordination failed, as any agreements were immediately broken by both Azerbaijan and Armenia as fighting continued. Although Russia and Turkey successfully brokered a peace deal in November, it has since resulted in Armenian protest and internal tensions, and there is no guarantee that fighting will not break out again in the near future.
Prior to this agreement, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, warned that human rights violations, specifically war crimes, may have already occured, in addition to imposed restrictions on personal freedom and increased civilian endangerment and displacement. These concerns paired with relative inaction from the UN raise a critical question: what does this reluctance to get involved say about the legitimacy of international organizations, like the UN, and their goals of ensuring human rights and civilian security both in Nagorno-Karabakh and around the world?
The Role of International Organizations
The UN and other international organizations (IO) have long struggled to establish legitimacy in their work of ensuring global security either through the facilitation of mediation or through peacekeeping. As bodies like the UN, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the OSCE depend on recognition and cooperation from their member states, their ability to act relies heavily on the interests of global powers. As observed from Russia and Turkey’s role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, all too often international organizations are cut off from the peacemaking process unless it fits within a specific power’s national interest. If the UN, ICC, OSCE, or any other international organizations want to achieve the goals of sustainable peacemaking and ensure a right to life and safety for all civilians as shown in SDG 16, there must be a greater effort by these IOs, either through structural reform or new policy, for peacekeeping intervention and civilian protection both on the ground within these conflicts and in the broader international legal structures of the ICC and International Court of Justice (ICJ).
There must be an effort on the domestic front by both Armenia and Azerbaijan to address the human rights violations that have been reported by international observers like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This could take some time, but should domestic courts be unable to adequately investigate and potentially charge groups for violations, it would be well within the rights of international institutions to act, as both Armenia and Azerbaijan are members of the UN and Council of Europe, placing them under the jurisdiction of both the International Court of Justice and the European Court on Human Rights.
However, while Armenia has already submitted evidence of Turkish mercenaries and the transport of Syrian fighters to Azerbaijan to the European Court of Human Rights, there has yet to be any action taken to actually protect the civilians trapped in conflict aside from basic mediation efforts. Even though there is technically a peace deal at the moment, should fighting break out again — potentially on a larger scale involving Turkey and Russia — the prevailing question would be whether international organizations should have acted from the start rather than having waited in the wings. It is important to question whether this inaction is at least in part due to fear of another failure similar to the catastrophic outcome of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Balkans in the 1990s, in which UN peacekeeping forces were completely overrun by combatants in Srebrenica, resulting in the massacre of 8,000 Bosniak males and consequently significant international backlash.
The current peace deal brokered by Turkey and Russia would return Azerbaijan the seven districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, allowing for displaced Azerbaijanis to return to their homes and includes provisions for a legal status for Nagorno-Karabakh following a popular vote. This decision comes only after a series of failed ceasefire attempts by the OSCE and an essential military victory by Azerbaijan in capturing three of these regions. This agreement also violates four existing UN Security Council resolutions that granted Armenia major influence in the Nagorno-Karabakh region in the 1990s, in a direct blow to the UN’s legitimacy, showing once again the weaknesses in UN peacemaking efforts and a general disregard for its authority.
International organizations’ inaction within this conflict’s resolution process should be a wake up call for the UN as the 2030 SDG deadline inches closer. UNSC calls for a ceasefire and the lament of the UN Human Rights Council over human casualties ultimately did nothing to assist in crisis mediation and post-crisis peacebuilding. Nagorno-Karabakh would have been a prime target to prove that SDG 16 is indeed attainable and that the UN, and international organizations in general, are truly capable of providing peacekeeping and mediation assistance in crisis zones. Regardless, there has yet to be any significant motion for intervention to protect the civilians displaced, wounded, or discriminated against as a result of the long-running territorial dispute.
