Tweet
IS WAR OVER KARABAKH INEVITABLE?
by Joshua Kucera
EurasiaNet.org
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62716
Jan 14 2011
NY
In considering the long-term prospects for a new war in Nagorno
Karabakh, the key factor is of course Azerbaijan's growing wealth,
especially relative to Armenia's stangnancy. But that could lead
to two opposing results: either Azerbaijan would not want to risk
damaging its vibrant economy by starting a war, or its oil-funded
military will be so much stronger than Armenia's that trying to retake
Karabakh would be inevitable.
Azerbaijan scholar and consultant Svante Cornell has written a new book
on the country, Azerbaijan Since Independence, which he introduced at
an event yesterday in DC. And the part that was most interesting to
me was that he came down very much on the side of war being inevitable.
His argument: that while an Azerbaijan invasion of Karabakh would
elicit international condemnation, it would probably be short-lived
and not amount to much, comparable to what happened with Croatia
when it ethnically cleansed the Serb-dominated eastern part of the
country in the 1990s. (UPDATE: I should have mentioned originally,
Cornell assumes that the invasion would be quick; if not, a protracted
conflict would cause a lot of foreign companies to not be interested
in operating there.)
In addition, Azerbaijan, as the party unhappy with the status quo,
always has an interest in keeping the situation at high tension. And
that raises the risk of an accidental escalation of a small incident
into a full-scale war.
And for domestic political purposes, it may eventually be worth
it to start a war, even if it had disastrous consequences. Cornell
suggested that the current government wouldn't do this, only a future
one. But I can't help but think of the Wikileaked cable that compared
President Ilham Aliyev to Sonny Corleone, hot-headed and considering
the affairs of state to be personal, not merely business.
Karabakh was thus not comparable to Cyprus -- a frozen conflict that
seems to soften over time -- but rather to more entrenched conflicts
like Israel-Palestine or Kashmir. "Every year without a resolution it's
becoming more dangerous, not less dangerous... the situation is not
sustainable because the balance of power between the two protagonists
is changing. Armenia is sitting on the land, and whether you like it
or not, Azerbaijan is getting richer, its economy is four or five times
larger than Armenia's and sooner or later, something's got to give."
Cornell is generally pretty pro-Azerbaijan, and his framing of the
situation as something inevitable seems to absolve Azerbaijan of any
responsibility for its actions, which I think one could quibble with.
But he knows Azerbaijan well, and this is an analysis worth
considering.
From: A. Papazian
by Joshua Kucera
EurasiaNet.org
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62716
Jan 14 2011
NY
In considering the long-term prospects for a new war in Nagorno
Karabakh, the key factor is of course Azerbaijan's growing wealth,
especially relative to Armenia's stangnancy. But that could lead
to two opposing results: either Azerbaijan would not want to risk
damaging its vibrant economy by starting a war, or its oil-funded
military will be so much stronger than Armenia's that trying to retake
Karabakh would be inevitable.
Azerbaijan scholar and consultant Svante Cornell has written a new book
on the country, Azerbaijan Since Independence, which he introduced at
an event yesterday in DC. And the part that was most interesting to
me was that he came down very much on the side of war being inevitable.
His argument: that while an Azerbaijan invasion of Karabakh would
elicit international condemnation, it would probably be short-lived
and not amount to much, comparable to what happened with Croatia
when it ethnically cleansed the Serb-dominated eastern part of the
country in the 1990s. (UPDATE: I should have mentioned originally,
Cornell assumes that the invasion would be quick; if not, a protracted
conflict would cause a lot of foreign companies to not be interested
in operating there.)
In addition, Azerbaijan, as the party unhappy with the status quo,
always has an interest in keeping the situation at high tension. And
that raises the risk of an accidental escalation of a small incident
into a full-scale war.
And for domestic political purposes, it may eventually be worth
it to start a war, even if it had disastrous consequences. Cornell
suggested that the current government wouldn't do this, only a future
one. But I can't help but think of the Wikileaked cable that compared
President Ilham Aliyev to Sonny Corleone, hot-headed and considering
the affairs of state to be personal, not merely business.
Karabakh was thus not comparable to Cyprus -- a frozen conflict that
seems to soften over time -- but rather to more entrenched conflicts
like Israel-Palestine or Kashmir. "Every year without a resolution it's
becoming more dangerous, not less dangerous... the situation is not
sustainable because the balance of power between the two protagonists
is changing. Armenia is sitting on the land, and whether you like it
or not, Azerbaijan is getting richer, its economy is four or five times
larger than Armenia's and sooner or later, something's got to give."
Cornell is generally pretty pro-Azerbaijan, and his framing of the
situation as something inevitable seems to absolve Azerbaijan of any
responsibility for its actions, which I think one could quibble with.
But he knows Azerbaijan well, and this is an analysis worth
considering.
From: A. Papazian