Contents | Key Points | Foreword | One: Introduction | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six: Conclusion | Author | Map

Nagorno-Karabakh Searching for a Solution

Politics and Identity in Armenia and Azerbaijan

Armenia
Armenia is in a deep political crisis, said Ronald Suny of the University of Chicago. In its first five years of independence, Armenia enjoyed an enviable image, particularly in the Western media and among Western diplomats, of a struggling yet vital democratic state. This image, together with the influence of the Armenian diaspora, especially in the United States, was able to elicit a considerable amount of sympathy and support for the new state, demonstrated most obviously in the highest amount of per capita U.S. aid among the Soviet republics and the clear pro-Armenian stance of the U.S. Congress in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. The Armenian government was seen as committed to democracy, a pro-Western foreign policy, and market reforms.

     Yet, below the surface, the picture was considerably different, Suny said. Armenia was in fact suffering enormously during those years. As privatization was implemented and production waned and in some cases ceased, a growing, profound demoralization set in among the population. People came to believe that the government was not keeping its promises, that they had been deceived, and that they were getting poorer while cronies of the president were enriching themselves. There were two political consequences of this demoralization: a general political apathy and, at the same time, a number of attempts by opponents to exploit the growing discontent and incite people against those in power.

     Though the highly educated urban population and intelligentsia were committed to Western-style political and economic development (with a nationalist agenda for the unification of Karabakh with Armenia), progress toward democracy suffered a series of sharp turns beginning at the end of 1994. First, Suny noted, the government outlawed one of the most prominent opposition parties, the Dashnaksun, accusing its members of participating in terrorist activities. This was followed by suspicious results in both a referendum on the constitution and parliamentary elections. Even more damaging was the September 1996 presidential election, about which the OSCE expressed serious concern. Thus, Armenia, which had enjoyed a positive image as a democratic state, now projected the image of a “typical” former Soviet republic, with dubious political practices organized by a Soviet-style government.

     The failure to gain a clear, convincing majority in the September 1996 election, Suny continued, seriously weakened the Ter-Petrossian government and called his legitimacy into question. The perception that he was aloof and distant from the people was exacerbated immediately following the elections, when troops were called in to deal with thousands of protesters outside the parliament building. From this point, Ter-Petrossian had little legitimacy with the people and relied almost entirely on the support of the “power” ministries—interior, defense, and national security. When the prime minister, Armen Sarkisian, became ill and resigned, Ter-Petrossian made the somewhat surprising move of appointing Nagorno-Karabakh president Robert Kocharian prime minister, a choice he made for a number of reasons. First, Kocharian was relatively removed from the political infighting in Armenian politics. Second, Ter-Petrossian, in an attempt to counter the criticism that he was soft on Karabakh, strengthened his own government by linking it more closely with the Karabakh cause. And finally, in Kocharian, Ter-Petrossian found a powerful ally and an effective leader to help run the country and, he hoped, enforce an agreement on Karabakh.

     Unfortunately for Ter-Petrossian, Kocharian proved even less compromising on the Karabakh issue, Suny contended. When Ter-Petrossian held a press conference in the fall of 1997—in which he essentially argued in favor of a step-by-step solution on Karabakh, accepting OSCE guidelines that Karabakh unequivocally rejected—domestic politics in Armenia began a steady slide into crisis. Already weakened by chronic economic problems and lingering suspicions about the 1996 presidential election, Ter-Petrossian became very isolated, his tenure in office depending almost entirely on the support of his few allies. In February 1998, he resigned.

The Political Scene Today
Currently in Armenia, Suny maintained, a gulf is growing between the “ordinary people,” who are concerned about being out of work and other day-to-day problems, and those who could be called political players, who continue to push Armenia toward positions of intransigent nationalism. The result is that the political discussion about the Karabakh crisis and other aspects of Armenia’s foreign policy has become distressingly narrow. Yet, almost from the moment of victory in the war with Azerbaijan, a steady erosion began of Armenia’s once impeccable moral position. At the same time, Baku has improved its standing in the eyes of the West, not least because it is blessed with abundant reserves of oil. Unfortunately, oil frequently lives comfortably with despotism, and it is extremely likely that an oil-rich Azerbaijan will remain under the fists of President (and former Communist Party boss) Aliev and his family and friends, who would see little reason to move toward a genuine democratic system. Nevertheless, it is perhaps ironic, Suny said, that Armenia has lost its democratic patina just as Azerbaijan is no longer required to acquire one.

     Ter-Petrossian made a realistic assessment of this situation. Given that Armenia would soon be facing a wealthy and powerful Azerbaijan, the Armenian military victory presented Yerevan with the opportunity to cut a deal that would guarantee Karabakh’s security and Armenia’s political and economic well-being. With this reasoning, Suny suggested, Ter-Petrossian’s views grew closer to those of the Minsk Group chairs, accepting the notion of a phased settlement package. However, political tensions in Armenia intensified, resulting in a “constitutional coup d’état.” Ter-Petrossian was forced from office by the power ministries, the prime minister, the opposition bloc in parliament, and the leadership of Karabakh. He left office, Suny contended, rather than risk an outbreak of violence. The prime minister, Robert Kocharian, became acting president, as it states in the constitution, until he was elected president in the subsequent elections.

     The government now in place in Yerevan is made up of people who are more unyielding on the Karabakh issue than was Ter-Petrossian. They are far less willing to compromise and much more suspicious of Western meddling in Caucasian affairs. In fact, Suny said, one of Kocharian’s first acts was to end the three-year ban on the Dashnaksun, a party with militant loyalty to Karabakh. At present, given the hard-line stance of the Armenian government on Karabakh, the only point of hope is the chance for a kind of “Nixon in China” scenario, in which only a Yerevan government with strength at home and a well-known militant stance on Karabakh could come to the table and agree to even the slightest concession. This is a scenario that Ter-Petrossian was simply unable to carry out. But an essentially democratically elected government with a hard-line platform represents the last alternative to a president with a moderate stance.

     Looking at the recent presidential elections, Suny continued, the surprising fact is that the Communist candidate, Karen Demirchian, did remarkably well. This was not simply a vote for nostalgia or for the old order, though. Demirchian is seen by many Armenians as a competent man and a known quantity. However, it is impossible to know for certain whether people based their votes primarily on the Karabakh issue or on economic factors. Nevertheless, the most important factor is that power in Yerevan still lies with the so-called power ministries, Suny maintained. The majority faction in parliament (called Yerkrapah) is loyal to Vazgen Sarkisian, the defense minister, making him the power behind the throne.

     Unfortunately, there is a real possibility of a renewed war in Karabakh, as many people in Armenia are even more militant than the current leadership, Suny said. It is particularly worrying that the defense minister in Karabakh has made various inflammatory statements about settling the issue through a preemptive attack of some kind, arguing that this is the only way to force Azerbaijan to make the necessary concessions. One can imagine a scenario in which, just short of a declaration of war, there might be a dramatic gesture made, an ultimatum, such as the announced merger of Armenia with Karabakh or Arme nian recognition of Karabakh’s independence, which will render a negotiated settlement on Nagorno-Karabakh virtually impossible.

Armenian Self-Identity
It may be true that, in one sense, Karabakh is peripheral to the Armenian nation and its history. In fact, Suny pointed out, Nakhichevan was always more important to Armenians historically than Karabakh ever was. Nevertheless, Nagorno-Karabakh has attained a place of great importance in today’s Armenia. Karabakh is now associated, Suny said, with the central theme in Armenian self-identity, the 1915 genocide. As a result, a sense has developed that Karabakh is the “front line” against the Turks, and if they lose this battle for Karabakh, Yerevan—and the Armenian nation itself—is in danger. Whatever Karabakh was historically, it is no longer peripheral in the Armenian psyche. For many Armenians, the victory over Azeri troops in Nagorno-Karabakh represents a kind of redemption after a very long period of defeat at the hands of the Turks, and this image has been extremely important in reaffirming their national identity and nationhood, particularly in the early period of independence.

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan has the image before the world of both winner and loser, said Audrey Altstadt of the University of Massachusetts. When one looks at the oil issue, Azerbaijan is a winner. It has large reserves of oil, suggesting that it is a soon-to-be-prosperous state. However, with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, Azerbaijan is quite emphatically the loser in a number of ways. First, a great many lives have been lost. Second, about 20 percent of the country’s territory is occupied, resulting in almost a million refugees living in squalid conditions in other parts of the country. Third, Altstadt contended, Azerbaijan has been the loser with respect to the public relations war on the Karabakh issue, both in Europe and the United States. Even with regard to domestic politics, Azerbaijan is the loser, be cause the country’s presidents and governments do not die on the job or lose elections but become victims at the “graveyard of Nagorno-Karabakh” when they are perceived by the population to be losing military battles or compromising during negotiations.

     This matter of image—as either winner or loser—is extremely important in this dispute, Altstadt noted. Each side has a self-image that the other side does not fully appreciate, and it clearly affects how each side deals with the other. Azerbaijan’s image as a winner in the oil game is a matter for the future, as it will be at least five years before Azerbaijan sees a return on today’s investments. Currently, there is no getting around the fact that Azerbaijan is in the position of loser, and Azeris are very sensitive about this negative image of their country. They are also extremely fearful about the possibility of territorial disintegration, something that they believe will happen along a proverbial slippery slope in which Nagorno-Karabakh is only the first step. They believe the future of their national and state integrity lies in the favorable resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

     Azerbaijan also has a tremendous fear of isolation, Altstadt continued. The country believes itself isolated from Europe and the United States; pacts between Armenia and Russia, such as last year’s mutual defense agreement, only exacerbate these concerns. The Armenian-Russian alliance also gives rise to fears that this is a sort of “Christian” alliance against Azeris that could involve other countries. At the same time, however, most Azeris (as well as other parties to the conflict) understand that the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh is not a religious one.

Attitudes toward a Karabakh Settlement
Because Azerbaijan is the “loser,” it has a strong incentive to find a permanent resolution to the Karabakh dispute. It needs a settlement, Altstadt maintained, not least because it needs domestic stability to enact internal reforms and development. If Azerbaijan is going reap the rewards of its oil reserves, it will need the internal order required to channel in coming funds in ways that will benefit the country. The country also needs a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute to solve its very dire refugee problem.

     On the other hand, its status as loser creates some obstacles to reaching a settlement, Altstadt continued. First, it must reclaim the large part of its territory that is occupied. In addition to this very practical matter of occupied land, however, is a very strong sense of humiliation among the Azeris stemming from the military defeat, and the great dishonor that goes along with it. There is thus a very strong desire not to pursue a compromise settlement, but to seek revenge, to avenge the deaths of those who lost their lives in the conflict.

     Another obstacle, Altstadt said, is that the Azeris seem to be waiting for someone else to settle the Karabakh problem—for someone to do right by them, to “rescue” them. This mentality is in part a legacy of the Soviet period, but it is also a reflection of the Azeri perception of their own powerlessness, coupled with the conviction that they are right and everyone else should be able to see the dispute in that light. Many Azeris believe that their oil wealth is sufficient motivation for the U.S. government to come to their deliverance, somehow forcing Congress to face down the Armenian lobby in the United States. Perhaps not fully understanding how the different branches of government in the United States work, the Azeris seem to believe that if there are oil interests, U.S. government interests will be right behind them. Many people in Azerbaijan, Altstadt said, are surprised that events have not yet played out in this way; it is difficult for them to believe that the United States is not necessarily going to come to their country’s rescue.

Azeri Sense of Nationhood
One Azeri conviction with regard to the Karabakh dispute that is shared by much of the international community is that the country’s territorial integrity must be preserved and defended, not least for the sake of international precedent. A factor involved in this fierce determination to preserve their territorial integrity, suggested Suny, is the weak or underdeveloped sense of nationhood among Azeris. Azerbaijan was a relatively newly formed state, and discussion about the nation did not begin until the nineteenth century; it did not fully “congeal” until the Soviet period. Armenia has a longer history of consolidated nationhood—indeed, much longer than most nations in the world today—which made it much easier to motivate the people to fight in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Azeri nationalist language seemed to be a reactive nationalism against a perceived and actual Armenian threat.

     It is true, Altstadt said, that the Azeri sense of nationhood is weaker, though this is caused in part by the many larger identities that engulfed them for much of their history. The Azeris have at various times been aware of belonging to a larger Turkic world and a wider Islamic one and, to a certain extent, even an Islamic-Turko-Iranian world. The difficulty for Azeris has always been paring down those identities into one that is rooted expressly in where they live. They were close to doing this at the turn of the century, Altstadt pointed out, having finally gained for themselves the components of modern twentieth-century statehood. Then came the Bolshevik Revolution, followed by the civil war, forced incorporation into the Soviet Union, and the brutalities of the Stalin era, when virtually all Azeri intellectuals were killed. Throughout the Soviet period, a strong course of Russification was promoted in Azerbaijan (stronger than in Armenia and Georgia, in part because of Moscow’s fear of the Islamic religion), during which the Azeri alphabet was changed twice to cut the people off from their history. It is no wonder, Altstadt said, that their sense of nationhood is somewhat weak.

     In the 1970s, there was something of a national reawakening in Azerbaijan, mainly in literary journals that were written in the Azeri language to avoid incurring the disapproval of the Soviet rulers. Unfortunately, this movement was cut short by the Karabakh crisis, forcing people out of the necessary process of discourse and into political action. The result is that far more of the Azeri sense of identity is wrapped up in the Karabakh issue than might otherwise be the case. Molla-zade agreed that the Azeri sense of nationhood before the twentieth century was feeble, as the identity was more Turk or Muslim than Azeri. However, the 1918–20 period of independence was very powerful for Azeris in their understanding of themselves as a people, and for most Azeris that period remains a pivotal point in their history and nationhood that they have not forgotten. Azeris are very aware that Azerbaijan was the first democratic republic in the Islamic world.

Perceptions of the Other
In addition to this matter of self-image, there is the issue of the image or perception of the other, which is a strong factor in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is very possible, Altstadt said, that Armenians perceive that there is less at stake for Azeris in the Karabakh conflict than Azeris actually believe to be the case. Azeris, in their concern for their state’s integrity, fear for the very existence of their nation, something that is perhaps not fully appreciated by the Armenians. At the same time, Azeris seem to see Armenians purely as aggressors, without being able to understand that Armenians also believe fervently that their own survival is at stake in this conflict. Somewhat ironically, Armenia sees Azerbaijan much as the Azeris would prefer—that is, strong and well organized. Yet the reality is that Azerbaijan is neither economically strong (though its economic potential may be promising) nor politically well organized.

     There are also conflicting views of other players in this conflict, especially Turkey, Altstadt said. During the Soviet period, Azerbaijan harbored an almost romantic view of Turkey and was very open to Turkey’s influence and actions after independence. Since independence, President Aliev has cultivated good relations with Turkey but at the same time has recognized the need to balance those relations with ties to other countries, namely Russia and Iran. As a result, relations with Turkey have cooled somewhat, not least because of Turkey’s response to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Despite what Armenians think, Azerbaijan has been disappointed by Turkey, having expected much more assistance than ever materialized. Thus, what appeared to Armenians to be active Turkish aid for Azerbaijan, resulting in behavior threatening to them, was to Azeris inadequate and indifferent support. Azeri disappointment has been exacerbated by the realization that the help they expected to flow from the United States as a result of oil interests has not appeared either.

Realities about the System
When the oil revenue begins to flow into Azerbaijan—five, seven, ten years from now—where will that money go? If conditions in the country do not change significantly, Altstadt said, then without a doubt that money is going to go into the pockets of the political and economic elite. There is not even a chance that the money will be used to raise a powerful army that could retake the occupied provinces—not unless there are meaningful changes in the government structures in Azerbaijan. At present, there is simply not enough of a consensus in the country on its goals, still less on the means to carry them out. And the necessary changes will not come about through one or even two clean elections; there was a clean election held once and it did not present the country with a legitimate and stable government.

     When Aliev came to power in 1993 under questionable circumstances, it was after a brief period of instability, Altstadt said. He spent the first part of his rule restoring some semblance of order in the country, including the balance in foreign relations mentioned earlier. Unfortunately for Azerbaijan’s long-term development, Aliev also reestablished political and economic control reminiscent of his era as first secretary of the Communist Party, though without the constraints and limits that would have, in the old days, come from Moscow. Thus, the ability of the circles around him to engage in corruption has in fact become greater since independence. Though one could make the case, Altstadt continued, that some forms of corruption are less damaging than others, or at least can be constructive in establishing economic structures, the kind of corruption that is flourishing in Azerbaijan is almost entirely debilitating and destructive—and almost completely out of control.

Contents | Key Points | Foreword | One: Introduction | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six: Conclusion | Author | Map

Home  |  Jobs  |  FAQs   |  Contact Us  |  Directions  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map

United States Institute of Peace  --  1200 17th Street NW  -- Washington, DC 20036
(202) 457-1700 (phone)  --  (202) 429-6063 (fax)
Send Feedback