The siege on Nagorno-Karabakh tightens, increasing tension in the Caucasus

Spain – April 5 2023
ANDRÉS MOURENZA
Istanbul – APR 05, 2023 – 12:22 CEST

The siege on Nagorno-Karabakh continues to tighten. In the last week, Azerbaijani troops have crossed the separation line that was agreed two years ago to stop the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and these soldiers have taken a strategic summit. The goal is to control a road that, according to Azerbaijan, is used to supply weapons to this Armenian-held enclave located in territory internationally recognized as Azerbaijan.

Instead, according to local authorities, this mountain road had become the only way to bypass a blockade that Azerbaijan has been subjecting the territory to since December 12, when alleged environmental protesters, with the support of security forces, blocked off the Lachin corridor, a road that connects with the Republic of Armenia and is vital for the survival of the enclave. Experts fear that these moves, and the skirmishes over the past few weeks — three Karabakh police officers and two Azerbaijani soldiers were killed on March 5 — are a prelude to larger clashes.

Among the enclave’s population, these military movements awaken the worst ghosts of the past. In 1991, a few months before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijani troops began to advance to stop the Karabakh movement seeking to incorporate the disputed territory into Armenia (which led to a three-year war with over 20,000 dead that the Armenians won). More recently, in 2020, a new war over Nagorno-Karabakh ended in victory for Azerbaijan after six weeks of combat and more than 7,000 deaths.

That conflict ended with the signing of a ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan mediated by Moscow, according to which a Russian contingent would be in charge of guaranteeing compliance with the agreement and free transit through the Lachin corridor. However, although Moscow has criticized recent military movements, the Russian military has become largely a silent witness to Azerbaijani actions.

Zaur Shiriyev, an analyst for the International Crisis Group in Azerbaijan, explains that “Russian peacekeeping forces have no technical mandate. Moscow has pressured Baku [the capital of Azerbaijan] to establish rules on the use of force, but it has refused. So the Russian military cannot act against Azerbaijan, they are only allowed to defend themselves if they are attacked.”

In Stepanakert, the capital of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, people have become accustomed to eating rice, pasta and canned food, day after day. The arrival of spring has added a little more variety to their diet, since some wild herbs can be collected. But fruit, vegetables and greens are mostly unaffordable. “For a kilo of potatoes you have to pay 4,500 dram [€10.70], when last year they used to cost 1,000 or 1,500. Tomatoes also cost 4,500 dram. For meat, there is only pork and chicken, locally produced, but very expensive. The question is not even the price of products, it is their absence: the stores are still empty, and when something does show up, it sells out quickly,” explains Nona Poghosyan, a resident of Stepanakert.

In an enclave where 90% of food was being imported from the neighboring Republic of Armenia, the siege has been an unprecedented disaster. Before the blockade, some 400 tons of products were transported daily to Nagorno-Karabagh through the Lachin corridor. But now only a tenth of that amount is arriving, just what the trucks of the Russian peacekeepers and the Red Cross are allowed to transport. And the price problem has been aggravated because, according to testimonies collected by Novaya Gazeta, Russian soldiers are trying to take advantage of the situation by charging “several thousand dollars” for each truckload they bring in. A source from the de facto government of Nagorno-Karabakh confirmed to this newspaper that there have been “certain problems” of this type, but that they are trying to solve them “with the Russian commanders.”

[yellow] Territory under Armenian control and Russian supervision

[black] Lachin Corridor

To the scarcity of raw materials and food, energy must now be added. Nagorno-Karabakh authorities reported that Azerbaijan has cut the high-voltage power line that provided them with electricity and that, since January 9, they have depended on meager local production that implies six-hour-a-day supply cuts. The gas pipeline that communicates with Armenia also suffers from periodic interruptions. As a result, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh have had to get used to candles and stoves that they feed with the firewood they cut down from their forests. Close to a fifth of the companies that were operating in the territory have had to shut their doors, and thousands of workers have become unemployed.

Artak Beglarian, advisor to the Nagorno-Karabakh government, complains: “They are aggravating the blockade and its humanitarian consequences to force us to give up.” Beglarian assures that the authorities of the enclave are willing to discuss “rational solutions” to the conflict, but he also warns that, with each resigned acceptance by the Armenians, new demands from Azerbaijan will follow “because they feel impunity” due to the lack of international pressure. For example, a month ago, Minister of State Ruben Vardanian was forced to resign because it was one of the demands made by the government in Baku, which considered him to be a man from Moscow. But the situation did not change afterwards. “Since we are being falsely accused of importing weapons, we have proposed installing devices to scan all entering vehicles. They have not accepted that, either. What they are looking for is ethnic cleansing,” says Beglarian.

In late February, the International Court of Justice, a United Nations body, demanded that Azerbaijan immediately reopen the Lachin corridor until this court issues a final ruling on the case. But the government of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (in power since 2003) has ignored the ruling. “Until Baku manages to establish some control over the Lachin corridor and the demilitarization of the local Armenian forces is ensured, it seems that the crisis will continue,” argues Zaur Shiriyev. According to this analyst, as a result of the war in Ukraine, Azerbaijan has seen Russia’s weakness and is trying to take advantage of it to regain full control over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Araz Imanov, an advisor to the Azerbaijani government for the Nagorno-Karabakh region, wrote last week: “Everything that is within our internationally recognized borders can and should be controlled by us. [Establishing a] checkpoint [in the Lachin corridor] is only a matter of time, and the sooner it is established, the better.” However, for the Armenians, an Azerbaijani-controlled post is unacceptable. Beglarian, an advisor to the Karabakh government, replies: “Given their racist policy against the Armenians, it would be very dangerous for us. In addition, nothing similar is contemplated in the ceasefire agreement of 2020.″

Contacts between the two parties have not gone well, so the Russian and U.S. governments have put their diplomats to work and there have been telephone conversations between various capitals. However, the solution to the dispute seems far away. And this, according to the analyst Shiriyev, is causing “a high risk of a military escalation in the coming days or weeks.”

Europe Should Never Put A Sign Of Equality Between The Perpetrator Of Genocide And The One Who Resists It. Raffi Hovannisian

Perpetrator Of Genocide And The One Who Resists It. Raffi Hovannisian

Yerevan–Anti-Russian sentiments in Armenia, EU mission, RA-West relations.
These topics were touched upon at the Lavrov-Mirzoyan press conference, and the
RA Foreign Minister’s answers were abrupt, evasive, and sometimes he was
silent. Is it possible to form an impression about Armenian-Russian relations
from the press conference? In what condition are they, and under the created
situation, what impact will they have on the Republic of Armenia?


– The state of those relations needs to be better;
they are in the basement; it can be seen in the reflection, as always, it is
vertical, not horizontal, and partnership. As always, the primary
responsibility belongs to the current government, which has brought its
irresponsible, disrespectful, irrelevant policy here. Russia also has its
responsibility: Its procedure and diplomacy in the direction of Turkey and
Azerbaijan has allowed Armenia to conduct a very superficial and irresponsible
policy. But the main thing is that we are in this situation because of
Armenia’s fragmented, superficial, and opportunistic politics. As for
anti-Russian or any anti-Western policy, there are forces in pro-government and
anti-government political circles that use very simple approaches and make very
counterintuitive, emotional expressions, either in an anti-Russian or Western
direction, either loving or rejecting them. Neither one nor the other reflects
the popular objective approach nor the national interest of Armenia. Armenia-centric
politics has no anti-Russian or anti-Western policy, but everything starts and
ends with Armenia’s state and national interest. Anti-Russia is targeted in a
question and answer; the opposite question and answer are heard during another
event. These are temporary, rhetorical problems created mainly by the
irresponsible policies of the current government.

 

– And in general, is Russia to blame for that Nikol
Pashinyan and his team coming to power in Armenia and continuing to remain in
force?

– You should not focus on
the reasons for the change of power in modern Armenian history but on today’s
state disaster, an unprecedented national crisis that needs to be overcome,
which is as internal as it is external. We must change internally, both
individually and nationally, and with state-authority personnel if our state
historiography is to continue. Regarding your question, I think that if the
history, government behavior, glory, and elections of our previous periods had
been of a different quality, in another way, the widespread anger and the
imperative of the popular upsurge would not have been at the level that erupted
in 2018. It is still being determined from which direction the international
actors were there. I have heard 4-5 different theories, but I need to find out
whether Russia, the West, or the East accompanied all of this. But we wouldn’t
have this day if it weren’t for the widespread anger, the vices of the previous
period, and the opportunism of the incumbents who came out. But popular upsurge
and the national outrage were used to realize their goals: There was
misbehavior and hypocrisy on the part of many, and that international
accompaniment could take place either very proactively on the one hand or
passively tolerated on the other; one initiated, accompanied and supported, the
other accepted, and, we can say, there was a particular international support.

– Recently, the session of the EPP political assembly took
place in Helsinki. On the first day of work, in the open part of the session,
you also gave a speech and raised the issue of imposing sanctions against
Azerbaijan. The audience responded warmly to your address; however, the
speakers, the EPP President, and the European Parliament President have yet to
respond to your questions. How would you interpret that?

– First, we should act
more and talk less. When we return home from international courts, it is not
essential what an individual or a party has done; what matters is that we act.
And when we have documents corresponding to the interests of Armenia or
pro-Armenian developments, they should not be attributed to our work or grace.
If something, a step, was done by my colleague, by another party, or by me, we
should be quietly satisfied that we participated. Still, that work was mainly
done by Europe, the USA, the Russian Federation, and Iran if that work has been
done in the given case.

I have been doing this
for 30 years, and I rarely address it, neither with a press conference nor with
a message; this is ongoing work; once in a while, it has an impact, but once in
a while, the effect is not immediately visible, once in a while different
people’s speeches, closed meetings with the heads of European structures, or
leaders of influential parties, something else. All those drops become
something: one sentence in the resolution, one deputy’s speech in the Council
of Ministers, or one article.

Its invisible
connections, one door opens another, and you can’t say I did it. In this case,
there were two possibilities in Helsinki: the panel discussion on the first day
featured three high-ranking European officials who spoke about Europe as a
driver of security values and defense. It was a very general conversation that
had nothing to do with Armenia: Ukraine, military, civilian cooperation,
Southern politics, and others; there was almost nothing about the Caucasus.
There was time and opportunity for three questions. As a representative of the
observer-member organization, I already had a speech the next day of work, so I
had to think whether it was worth asking for a vote. But since there were
high-ranking people, I thought it was worth it. First, the Ukrainian made a
speech. Applause, etc., as it is perceptible to them, the consciousness and
thought of all Europe is there. Then, the former Prime Minister of France
spoke, then I. It was the end, time was running out, and people were restless. I
told them there is another place, a little East, then the focus of your
interest. However, you have to decide whether this should be a question of
European values, security, and defense. Because Armenia and Artsakh is a place
that is now under siege by a war criminal, his elder brother, NATO member
Turkey, wants to destroy that part of European civilization. Turkey, a NATO
ally, wants to keep Finland and Sweden out of NATO.

I said that the siege of
Artsakh, which was then entering its 90th day, should have the same effect as
the siege and fall of Constantinople for Europe, which they may not feel today,
but will feel later. And I made it so that you are already doing your job; you
should have reports dedicated to Azerbaijan and Armenia soon, but not only kind
words and wording should solve this issue, but you should also go a step
further to sanctions.

Because if there is no
sanction against the perpetrator of genocide, the war criminal, there is no EPP
as a driving force in European security, values, and protection. I said that I
did not leave Armenia to beg them for anything; they should decide, this is
your business, and while you are talking about a dictatorship from your point
of view, as a fetish, you should think if there are other dictatorships, Azerbaijan,
Turkey.

The same Azerbaijan that
takes repackaged gas from Russia and gives it to you, and some of your leaders,
EPP members, and the same President of the European Commission said,
“Azerbaijan is our reliable partner.” Well, then, you decide for yourself: what
is the European value of remote security? Since the discussion was not
dedicated to the problems of the Caucasus, to Armenia, this, in the end, was a
bit like a cold shower, which did not imply any enthusiasm, just a little
confrontation for Europe.

And on the second day, I
already developed that approach in my speech, emphasizing democracy and our
internal problems; four years ago, a national upsurge, a hope for democracy,
also landed. Returning to Artsakh and international relations, I insisted that
Europe should never put a sign of equality between the perpetrator of genocide
and the one who resisted it.

– What impression did you get from your contacts
towards the Republic of Armenia, Artsakh, and, generally, the region? What is
the attitude of the European political forces?


– In general, from the environment, emotional
background, and speeches of political assemblies and congresses in the recent
period, I can say that there was almost a single-target situation, and Europe,
on the international stage, was targeting Ukraine, also organizationally, on
elections in EPP member states. But, recently, partly due to geopolitical
competition with Russia, but rather due to the quality of our participation,
both in bilateral meetings and in public speeches, our positions have become more
purposeful, accessible, and also interconnected through various documents and
steps. That is positive and encouraging, but we should not be under any
illusions because we have not seen a significant change in the general policy.
We hope to see more far-reaching changes with comprehensive, systematic work.
The latest adopted reports significantly differ from their predecessors,
opening a window of opportunity.

Interview: Nelly
GRIGORYAN  

“Aravot” newspaper,
24.03.2023


Reports about Raffi Hovannisian’s national and civic activities, together with a partial record of his public expressions, are still accessible at www.heritage.am.

Heritage Party Press Service
 
Founded in 2002, Heritage has regional divisions throughout the land. Its central headquarters are located at 75 Yerznkian Street, Yerevan 0033, Armenia, with telephone contact at (37410) 27.16.00, fax at (37410) 52.48.18, email at , website: www.heritage.am