Hate, Fear and Neo-Imperialism A research into the failure of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process Master Thesis in International Relations: Global Conflict in the Modern Era Leiden University By Maurits Foorthuis S1263498 Supervisor: Dr. L. Milevski June 29th, 2018 Word count: 14,960 words “The only solution to the conflict would be if we could invent a medicine that would kill all Azeris” - Artur, taxi driver in Yerevan, January 2018 2 Table of contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Literature review………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 Theoretical framework……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Timeframe 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 Timeframe 2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..25 Timeframe 3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31 Timeframe 4……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..37 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………42 Appendix 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..44 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45 3 Introduction Nagorno-Karabakh is an autonomous province in Azerbaijan of which, up until 1988, the majority of inhabitants was Armenian. During the Soviet period, the Christian Armenians felt discriminated against by the Muslim Azeri’s, and as such, in 1988, they demanded permission to the Azeri Soviet authorities to merge with the Armenian Soviet Republic. The Azeri authorities refused, which led to demonstrations and clashes in the fertile province of Nagorno-Karabakh. The clashes escalated into a full-scale war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1991, resulting in Armenia occupying most of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as parts of its neighboring provinces. Currently, Armenia occupies around twenty percent of Azeri territory (Brown, 2002: 67). Nagorno-Karabakh has declared itself independent as the ‘Republic of Artsakh’, however it operates de-facto as an Armenian autonomous province. Throughout the history of the conflict, Russia has operated as a mediator between the fighting parties, successfully resulting in a ceasefire reached in 1994. The ceasefire froze the conflict, but despite various mediation efforts, the conflict remains frozen today. However, despite the ceasefire, minor clashes erupt between the Armenian-backed armed forces of Nagorno- Karabakh and the Azeri army on almost a monthly basis (The Economist, 2013). In April 2016, these clashes escalated into a four-day war, resulting in dozens of casualties on both sides of the conflict, both soldiers and citizens (The Economist, 2016). As it was the case in 1994, in 2016 it was again Russia who managed to broker a ceasefire. However, despite repeated diplomatic interventions, Russia has failed to create a lasting sustainable peace between the two nations. Azerbaijan and Armenia have, despite participating in several peace negotiations with each other, not been able to reach a sustainable peace agreement either. Throughout the course of the conflict, there have been several important peace conferences in which both countries participated. The most important peace conference took place in 2001 in Key West, Florida. However, none of these conferences have led to any significant change in the status quo of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This master thesis will examine why that is so, looking both at local actors as well as at Russian interests in the region. The research question of this master thesis will be: “In what way has a peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict been obstructed by local actors and/or by Russia’s lasting influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan?” 4 Russia’s influence in the southern Caucasus will be examined with the help of neo-imperialism. In order to examine the level of obstruction by local actors, the symbolic politics approach will be used. The local actors that will be researched in this master thesis will be Armenia, Azerbaijan and the unofficial government of the so-called ‘Republic of Artsakh’. The scope of this master thesis is limited to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its impact on Armenia and Azerbaijan from 1988 to 2016. 5 Literature review The question ‘In what way has a peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict been obstructed by local actors and/or by Russia’s lasting influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan?’ can be answered in different ways. There is a debate going on amongst scholars about whether it is mainly the Kremlin who obstructs and obstructed a peaceful solution to the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict, or whether it is mostly local populations, governments and elites who are the obstructers. In order to examine the different points of view in this debate, a literature review of the debate will be conducted. This literature review will be grouped according to the two different stances in the debate. First, literature from scholars who believe that Russia is the main obstructer of a peaceful solution will be reviewed. In the second part of this literature review, scholars who believe that it is mainly local actors who are to blame for the obstruction of a peaceful solution to the conflict will be reviewed. One answer to the research question would be that Russia is obstructing a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, for it is not “genuinely interested in a resolution” of the conflict (Nixey, 2012: 4). James Nixey argues that the mediation efforts as made by Russia are meant to increase Russian leverage over Armenia and Azerbaijan, not to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict. Nixey uses the fact that Russia refuses to install an international peacekeeping mission in Karabakh, and instead opts for installing a Russian peacekeeping mission, as an argument to support his claim. He argues that Russia wants to install Russian troops in Nagorno-Karabakh in order to increase its influence in the region. Nixey draws the conclusion that Russia is interested in maintaining the current status quo. Furthermore, he argues that Russia is not interested in an escalation of the conflict due to its interests and investments in the region. British professor Mary Kaldor describes in a book on oil wars how, during the Azeri-Armenian war from 1988 to 1994, Russia was very involved in the conflict. She describes how Russia was supporting the Armenian army while at the same time was setting up Azeri brigades in order to fight in Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, she describes how Russia set up self defence forces, which included Russian mercenaries (Kaldor et al., 2007: 170). Kaldor argues that the conflict was likely “manipulated for political purposes” (Ibid: 172). She describes how in Azerbaijan, radical anti-Russian nationalists were defeated and replaced by pro-Russian communists as a result of the conflict. When the pro-Russian government was installed, 6 Azerbaijan joined the Commonwealth of Independent States. Kaldor argues that Russia obstructed all the peacekeeping efforts in order to maintain their influence in the region. A second motivation for Russia to obstruct a peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is, according to Kaldor, the Azeri (conflict-related) blockade of Armenia. The blockade makes Armenia very dependent on Russia, which is in the interest of Russia. The main reason as to why the conflict has not been resolved yet, Kaldor argues, is because Armenia and Azerbaijan are rentier states. Armenia is very dependent on the Armenian diaspora in both Russia and the USA. Azerbaijan on the other hand is very dependent on the oil market. Since Russia has a great influence on this market, it gives Moscow leverage over the country. Furthermore, both Armenia and Azerbaijan are very dependent on Russian military assistance, giving Russia all the more reasons to obstruct the peace process in Nagorno-Karabakh. Nona Mikhelidze argues that Russia maintains a “stable instability” in Nagorno-Karabakh and exploits the conflict to maintain its influence (Mikhelidze, 2010). On Russian influence in the Caucasus, Alexander Mansourov argues that Russia’s foreign policy under president Putin can be explained with the help of neo-imperialism (Mansourov, 2005: 151). According to Mansourov, Russia makes use of the divide-and-rule tactics in order to “undermine the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors and to solidify imperial control over the former Soviet lands” (Ibid: 160). A second group of scholars argue that it is not Russia who is obstructing the peace process in Nagorno-Karabakh. According to these scholars, local elements are responsible for the continuation of the conflict. Thomas de Waal, arguably the most prominent scholar on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, seems to think this is the case. When in April 2016 the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict erupted once again, Western leaders blamed Russia for provoking the conflict. De Waal however very much doubts that Russia was responsible for the April 2016 war (New York Times, 2016). He argues that Armenia and Azerbaijan were to blame for the recent outbreaks of violence, not Russia. According to De Waal, it is mainly Azerbaijan who breaks the ceasefire, for it is very much unsatisfied with the status quo. De Waal also emphasized that the Kremlin recently came up with a new peace plan to solve the ongoing conflict. The significance of the Russian peacekeeping efforts is something that is also emphasized by Yoko Hirose and Grazvydas Jasutis. Both authors argue that, although the conflict might not 7 have frozen without the ceasefire agreement negotiated by Russia in 1994,