Tweet
AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Sept 5 2014
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through war or peace
5 September 2014, 10:01 (GMT+05:00)
By Claude Salhani
Armenia and Azerbaijan, who are in a state of war despite a
cease-fire, have three options on how to approach the stalemated
conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, a dispute that lasted more than two
decades.
Each option comes with a sour pill, as there is no magic solution. But
such is the reality of trying to find a peaceful resolution to a
bloody conflict.
The two sides can agree to disagree and continue with the status quo.
They can continue to exchange gunfire and mortar rounds on a daily and
nightly basis and to lob rhetoric and insults at each other. There are
both advantages and setbacks with this option. The advantage goes to
Armenia - at least in the initial stage- - as it gets to keep all the
occupied lands - 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory - that it
grabbed. This, however, is a very shortsighted option, as it lays down
the groundwork for a potential military escalation down the road. At
some point in time, Baku might feel it has no other option.
Unwanted as it may be, a military confrontation might seem as the only
solution. Two new factors that Yerevan may want to consider: the
election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the post of Turkish president, and
the nomination of Ahmet Davutoglu to the post of prime minister. The
two men are staunch supporters of Azerbaijan and have vowed to support
Baku in its efforts to reclaim the occupied territories.
Turkey closed its borders with Armenia in solidarity with Azerbaijan.
Armenia, in spite of its many domestic headaches and internal
economic, political and social ills may feel somewhat untouchable
while under Russian protection, as it currently is. But that can
change at a moment's notice if Moscow becomes too pre-occupied in
another conflict, such as in Ukraine. This would leave Armenia
vulnerable and out in the cold.
The second option is a military one and while Azerbaijan would
undoubtedly have military superiority, there are great risks involved
in embarking on a military campaign as the final outcome is always
unpredictable and could lead to a regional conflagration.
That leaves the third and only real viable option: dialogue and a
peaceful resolution. While this be the smartest solution to follow, it
will also be the most difficult, as it would involve having to talk to
one's enemies.
A conflict by its very nature is usually not a pleasant experience.
And a conflict such as the one in Nagorno-Karabakh, that carries with
it heavy baggage in the form of hatred of the other, given the history
of violence and bloodshed that has tainted this land.
But in order for any dialogue to take place there needs to be a
starting point where the two sides can begin to meet and to exchange
their views. That is difficult to happen when the antagonists continue
to exchange fire along the line of separation and in strong worded
communiqués.
"The rhetoric that we have been hearing on both sides has not been
encouraging, as it only exacerbates and polarizes different
positions," Irfan Siddiq, Britain's ambassador to Baku told AzerNews
on Thursday.
"It increases hatred of the other and what we need in this time is
understanding of the other. I know this is a difficult thing to ask
for in this heated environment when people say why should we
understand people who kill our neighbors and take our land, but for
there to be any resolution that is what will be required, and its what
we have seen through history," the ambassador said.
http://www.azernews.az/analysis/70313.html
From: A. Papazian
Sept 5 2014
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through war or peace
5 September 2014, 10:01 (GMT+05:00)
By Claude Salhani
Armenia and Azerbaijan, who are in a state of war despite a
cease-fire, have three options on how to approach the stalemated
conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, a dispute that lasted more than two
decades.
Each option comes with a sour pill, as there is no magic solution. But
such is the reality of trying to find a peaceful resolution to a
bloody conflict.
The two sides can agree to disagree and continue with the status quo.
They can continue to exchange gunfire and mortar rounds on a daily and
nightly basis and to lob rhetoric and insults at each other. There are
both advantages and setbacks with this option. The advantage goes to
Armenia - at least in the initial stage- - as it gets to keep all the
occupied lands - 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory - that it
grabbed. This, however, is a very shortsighted option, as it lays down
the groundwork for a potential military escalation down the road. At
some point in time, Baku might feel it has no other option.
Unwanted as it may be, a military confrontation might seem as the only
solution. Two new factors that Yerevan may want to consider: the
election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the post of Turkish president, and
the nomination of Ahmet Davutoglu to the post of prime minister. The
two men are staunch supporters of Azerbaijan and have vowed to support
Baku in its efforts to reclaim the occupied territories.
Turkey closed its borders with Armenia in solidarity with Azerbaijan.
Armenia, in spite of its many domestic headaches and internal
economic, political and social ills may feel somewhat untouchable
while under Russian protection, as it currently is. But that can
change at a moment's notice if Moscow becomes too pre-occupied in
another conflict, such as in Ukraine. This would leave Armenia
vulnerable and out in the cold.
The second option is a military one and while Azerbaijan would
undoubtedly have military superiority, there are great risks involved
in embarking on a military campaign as the final outcome is always
unpredictable and could lead to a regional conflagration.
That leaves the third and only real viable option: dialogue and a
peaceful resolution. While this be the smartest solution to follow, it
will also be the most difficult, as it would involve having to talk to
one's enemies.
A conflict by its very nature is usually not a pleasant experience.
And a conflict such as the one in Nagorno-Karabakh, that carries with
it heavy baggage in the form of hatred of the other, given the history
of violence and bloodshed that has tainted this land.
But in order for any dialogue to take place there needs to be a
starting point where the two sides can begin to meet and to exchange
their views. That is difficult to happen when the antagonists continue
to exchange fire along the line of separation and in strong worded
communiqués.
"The rhetoric that we have been hearing on both sides has not been
encouraging, as it only exacerbates and polarizes different
positions," Irfan Siddiq, Britain's ambassador to Baku told AzerNews
on Thursday.
"It increases hatred of the other and what we need in this time is
understanding of the other. I know this is a difficult thing to ask
for in this heated environment when people say why should we
understand people who kill our neighbors and take our land, but for
there to be any resolution that is what will be required, and its what
we have seen through history," the ambassador said.
http://www.azernews.az/analysis/70313.html
From: A. Papazian