By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Armenia and Azerbaijan have reached a peace agreement to end nearly four decades of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, a region internationally recognized as Azerbaijani but previously controlled by Armenian separatists. The agreement addresses two key articles concerning the deployment of third-country forces and mutual withdrawal of international claims. However, Azerbaijan insists on constitutional changes in Armenia to eliminate territorial claims before signing, a point disputed by Armenia’s Prime Minister. Despite this remaining hurdle, both countries express willingness to continue negotiations toward finalizing the peace treaty.
Read the original article here
Armenia and Azerbaijan’s recent agreement on a peace treaty marks a significant turning point after nearly four decades of conflict. This breakthrough, shrouded somewhat by the near-simultaneous eruption of the Israel-Hamas war, appears to be a culmination of several factors. The Azerbaijani recapture of Nagorno-Karabakh undoubtedly played a crucial role, shifting the balance of power dramatically.
The influence of Russia, long a significant player in the region, also seems to have been a key element in the negotiations. It’s likely that the need to address this conflict, and focus on broader geopolitical threats, made a negotiated settlement more appealing to both sides. However, the circumstances surrounding the peace agreement raise uncomfortable questions.
The ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh casts a long shadow over this apparent resolution. This act, seemingly accepted as a fait accompli in the peace deal, highlights the complex ethical and geopolitical considerations at play. The lack of international attention initially, eclipsed by other major conflicts, suggests a global apathy towards the suffering of the Armenian population. And this unfortunate lack of focus on events in the Caucasus isn’t just a modern phenomenon.
Many people were completely unaware of the decades-long conflict, a testament to the lack of consistent media coverage. The war itself, spanning several years and even including a brutal nine-month blockade preventing essential supplies from reaching Armenia, largely escaped the attention of the global public. It’s a situation that underscores the selective nature of international concern, often prioritizing conflicts perceived as more relevant to major powers.
Interestingly, Armenia’s decision to pursue a peace agreement also seems linked to a growing disillusionment with its traditional ally, Russia. Russia’s failure to provide meaningful support during the conflict, coupled with its ongoing actions in Ukraine, has prompted Armenia to re-evaluate its foreign policy priorities. This growing distrust of Russia, evidenced by Armenia’s declining participation in military exercises with Russia and its increasing engagement with the EU and the US, signals a significant shift in geopolitical alignment.
The constitutional court decision in Armenia, clarifying the absence of territorial claims against Azerbaijan, may have also paved the way for negotiations. This decision could have signaled a willingness within Armenia to compromise and find a lasting resolution. The peace deal, however, does not fully erase the pain and suffering inflicted upon the Armenian people. The Azerbaijani gains, including the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh, remain a source of significant concern and will be a difficult issue to overcome in forging a long-lasting peace.
The role of the United States, and Western powers generally, in this conflict is complex and raises broader questions about the international community’s engagement in conflicts involving smaller nations. The lack of meaningful intervention, aside from rhetorical statements, highlights how international politics often prioritize other concerns over the human rights and sovereignty of smaller nations. The relative lack of economic incentives, such as the absence of large arms deals, might also have played a part in the limited international attention paid to the conflict.
Despite the agreement, challenges undoubtedly remain. The deep-seated historical grievances and the lingering trauma of the conflict will require significant time and effort to address. The peace treaty, while a significant step forward, is far from a complete solution and should not overshadow the need for a process of reconciliation and accountability that includes a focus on the protection of human rights and addressing the causes of conflict. The hope is that this agreement can usher in an era of lasting peace and cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but the process will undoubtedly be a long and challenging one. This peace, hard-won as it is, necessitates a sustained commitment from both nations and the international community to prevent future conflicts and build a more stable and prosperous future for the region.