How Stable is the Karabakh Ceasefire at 25? One Can Only Hope It Holds

Paul Goble

            Staunton, May 13 – Twenty-five years ago yesterday, the participants in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven other adjoining Azerbaijani districts Armenia occupies agreed to a ceasefire; and while sporadic violence continues, that ceasefire has held even though there are few international observers along its line.

            Instead, it is policed, if that is the proper term, by the participants, even as talks between Baku and Yerevan and negotiations in the Minsk Group continue. But because this is a “round” anniversary and because most sides would like a settlement at least if it is on their terms, many are speculating about the possibilities that the ceasefire will be followed by a genuine peace.

            As someone who has been thinking about this conflict for far longer than 25 years and who even has a footnote in it with the so-called Goble Plan of 1992 which would have allowed Karabakh and a corridor to become part of Armenia in exchange for Armenia yielding Zengezur, the land bridge between Nakchivan and Azerbaijan proper, I would like to offer a few ideas.

            Because I am not a diplomat who has to be somewhat optimistic about change to do his job or a think tanker who wants to come up with ideas for which he will get credit (and possibly gain a diplomatic post!), I do not have to be optimistic and do not have to offer any plan. (My own was offered when the situation was more fluid in the wake of the collapse of the USSR.)

            In my view, the current situation is likely to continue more or less indefinitely. There are three reasons for this: First, the two most immediate players, Armenia and Azerbaijan, support two irreconcilable principles, the right of nations to self-determination in the first case and international recognition of sovereign borders in the other.

            This is not a circle that can be squared. If the first is agreed to, the second will be sacrificed to some degree and vice versa. Moreover, most proposals for doing that would require the kind of international intervention few have the stomach for and which Azerbaijan, the proposed object of some kind of international “nanny state” can’t be expected to accept.

            Second, Moscow doesn’t want a solution. It is the most important regional power; and its interests are best served by having the conflict continue, even as it proclaims its paramount role as peace keeper in chief.  I have often said that Russia does believe in “peace keeping” -- but it spells it differently – “piece keeping.” 

            And third, there is no indication that there is any outside state or coalition of states that is prepared to do what would be required to counterbalance Russian power there. Neither the Europeans not the Americans nor the Chinese appear to believe they have sufficient interests in the region to do more than take part in continuing talks.

            Those talks will continue, but in my view, they are no more likely to yield a positive result in the future than they have up to now despite that each new round just like this anniversary will feature predictions of “breakthroughs to peace.”

            Because these three things are true, one can only hope that the current ceasefire will hold. The likely alternatives would almost certainly be worse. Azerbaijan which does have a military capable of defeating Armenia if Armenia acts alone knows that if it used massive force, it might recover territory but only at the cost of losing status in the world.

            And what is more important, any Azerbaijani move would bring Russia in on the Armenian side directly or in “hybrid” fashion, likely with the support of the international community whose members would see Moscow’s action in this case as defending what that community cares most about, stability in all things.

            Consequently, the best or at least the most likely hope is that the ceasefire will hold, that both sides will use it to develop their countries behind it, and that yet another war will be avoided.  That is a bleak hope to be sure, but it is far more likely than the latest round of optimistic speculations that this anniversary has sparked.