Dr Bilawal Kamran
After nearly four decades of conflict, Armenia and Azerbaijan have reached a significant milestone in their turbulent relationship, agreeing on the text of a peace treaty that could end years of warfare and tension. This development marks a potential turning point in the long-running Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has shaped much of the geopolitics of the South Caucasus region. While the news is heralded as a hopeful step towards peace, a critical analysis of this agreement raises several important questions regarding the sustainability of the peace process, the political motivations behind the treaty, and the potential challenges that could arise during its implementation.
To understand the significance of this peace agreement, one must first look at the history of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The roots of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan go back to the early 20th century but became particularly pronounced in the late 1980s. At that time, the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnically Armenian-majority enclave within Azerbaijan, declared independence with the support of Armenia. This sparked a brutal war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. The 1994 ceasefire ended the most intense phase of fighting, but it did not resolve the underlying issues, leaving Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of ethnic Armenians, even though it remained internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.
The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, which erupted after years of simmering tensions, resulted in a significant military defeat for Armenia and a strategic victory for Azerbaijan. The war ended with a ceasefire agreement brokered by Russia, but the underlying causes of the conflict remained unresolved, leaving a fragile peace that was always in danger of breaking down.
According to recent statements from both Armenia and Azerbaijan, officials from both sides have agreed on the text of a peace treaty. Armenia’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that the peace agreement is ready for signing, and consultations are underway to determine the date and location for the signing of the agreement. Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry also confirmed the conclusion of negotiations over the text of the treaty, emphasizing its importance in establishing peace and interstate relations between the two countries.
The peace agreement is seen as an important step forward, signaling that both countries have recognized the necessity of finding a resolution to the conflict that has caused immense human suffering, regional instability, and international concern. However, while the agreement represents a hopeful move towards reconciliation, it is essential to critically examine whether it will lead to lasting peace or if it is merely a temporary fix to an intractable problem.
Pl watch the video and subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality podcasts:
Critical Analysis: Challenges and Concerns
The Political Landscape: Motivations Behind the Peace Agreement
One of the most critical factors to consider when analyzing this peace agreement is the political context within Armenia and Azerbaijan. Both countries have been shaped by nationalist sentiments, and their leaders have used the conflict as a means to consolidate power domestically. The 2020 war, for example, was framed by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev as a necessary struggle for territorial integrity, and the victory in the war significantly bolstered his standing. On the other hand, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan faced immense domestic pressure following Armenia’s defeat in the 2020 conflict, and a peace agreement with Azerbaijan could help to stabilize his leadership.
Despite the apparent agreement on peace, the motivations behind this treaty are complex. The treaty is likely seen by both countries as a way to maintain or enhance their political legitimacy. In Azerbaijan, President Aliyev can claim that his country has achieved its territorial objectives, while in Armenia, Pashinyan may view the peace agreement as a way to secure the survival of the country following a difficult period of internal strife and war. This means that both sides might have agreed to the peace treaty more out of a desire to consolidate their positions than a genuine commitment to long-term reconciliation.
The Role of External Actors
Another critical aspect of the peace process is the role of external actors. Russia, a traditional ally of Armenia, has played a significant role in brokering ceasefire agreements between the two countries. However, Russia’s influence in the region has diminished in recent years, particularly after its own military actions in Ukraine. The United States and the European Union have also shown interest in the stability of the South Caucasus, with the potential for new diplomatic engagements. While the agreement could signal a new phase in the region’s geopolitics, it is important to assess whether outside powers, particularly Russia and Turkey, will influence the implementation of the peace deal in ways that could undermine its durability. Azerbaijan has grown increasingly closer to Turkey, and any peace deal could be complicated by their bilateral interests.
Moreover, the involvement of these external actors raises concerns about whether the peace process will be truly impartial. For instance, Russia’s role as a peacekeeper in the region might be questioned, especially if it seeks to prioritize its own interests over the stability of the region. Similarly, Turkey’s strong support for Azerbaijan could complicate the peace process if it pushes for conditions that Armenia might find unacceptable.
The Question of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Status
One of the central unresolved issues of the peace process remains the status of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. While the most recent peace agreements have largely been focused on halting the fighting and establishing a ceasefire, the future of Nagorno-Karabakh remains a key point of contention. Azerbaijan insists on the region’s return to its control, while Armenia continues to support the ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, claiming their right to self-determination.
It is unclear from the statements surrounding the peace agreement whether the question of Nagorno-Karabakh’s political future will be addressed. While Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed to cease hostilities, the core issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status is unlikely to be resolved by a single agreement. The region’s population, largely ethnic Armenians, may not easily accept Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, especially after the trauma of the 2020 war. Without a clear resolution on this matter, the peace agreement could simply paper over the cracks, leading to a fragile peace that could unravel with the next flare-up in violence.
Human Rights and Displacement
A peace agreement is also fraught with humanitarian concerns. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have been accused of committing human rights abuses during the conflicts, including the targeting of civilians and the displacement of thousands of people. A lasting peace agreement will require not only a cessation of hostilities but also a commitment to addressing the rights and needs of displaced persons and ensuring the protection of minorities.
The process of repatriation, ensuring the return of displaced individuals to their homes, and addressing grievances related to wartime atrocities will be crucial to creating a durable peace. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan must be willing to engage in post-conflict reconciliation, which is often one of the most difficult aspects of peacebuilding. If these issues are left unaddressed, the peace agreement may not have the necessary social and psychological foundation to endure.
Conclusion: A Hopeful Yet Uncertain Future
The peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan is undoubtedly a promising development, signaling a potential end to a long and painful chapter in the South Caucasus. However, while the breakthrough is encouraging, several critical challenges remain. The political motivations behind the agreement, the role of external actors, the unresolved status of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the humanitarian issues that have emerged from decades of conflict will all play significant roles in determining whether this peace agreement will lead to a lasting resolution or simply serve as a temporary pause in an ongoing conflict.
The situation remains fragile, and while this agreement represents a step forward, it is far from a guarantee of lasting peace. The world will be watching closely to see if both Armenia and Azerbaijan can move beyond their historical grievances and build a future of stability, security, and cooperation. Until then, skepticism remains a reasonable stance, as the path to lasting peace in the region remains fraught with difficulties.
