Positive Neutrality: Between the Russian Bear and the American Eagle

The radical change in the situation on the ground (i.e., there are no more Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh) makes the implementation of this plan more challenging, but it remains legally valid. Its first step is no longer the prevention of ethnic cleansing but the return of Nagorno-Karabakh’s displaced Armenian population, under international protection. Their right of return is absolute. All legal and diplomatic efforts should focus on this goal. The priority must be the adoption of a resolution by the United Nations Security Council establishing the right of return of the Armenian populations of Artsakh to their native territory under the provisional administration and protection of the United Nations, as well as the release of all prisoners of war detained illegally in Azerbaijan. These priorities must be at the top of claims in the negotiation rounds to come between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But is Armenia in a position to bear that legitimate claim?

The psychological balance of power between the negotiators has been unequal since the military defeat in November 2020. It is even more so today. The establishment of a government of national unity is vital because the coming set of events is even more critical for the future of the Armenian nation. There is now talk of a possible attack on either the sovereignty of Armenia or on its territorial integrity.

Currently, the construction of roads and other communication links is underway in Syunik. The issue is who will retain control of the territory and oversee the security of these axes of communication. Azerbaijan makes no secret of its territorial ambitions over Armenia, while Iran defends Armenia’s territorial integrity, and Russia, scalded by the harsh criticism of the Armenian Prime Minister and his close lieutenants, could do without Armenia. If a rapprochement of Armenia with the West at the expense of Russia were to be confirmed, it would take place under the control of Turkey, hence weakening Russia’s influence in the region.

International Context and Weakening of Russia

Russia is entangled in the Ukrainian conflict. Its actions in Artsakh were meant to appease Turkish and Azerbaijani appetites in the South Caucasus so as not to open a second front, just as the Stalinist power had pursued the same policy a hundred years ago by transferring Armenian Karabakh to the Azerbaijan SSR to appease inter-ethnic conflicts.

If the Karabakh Armenians do not return home, the loss of territory will be fatal not only for the Armenians but also for Russia: Azerbaijan would have the legitimate right to request the withdrawal of Russian troops maintaining the ceasefire. In the long term, Turkey’s neo-imperial ambitions in the Caucasus and Central Asia, which are loud and clear, will seal Russia’s fate in these regions: Turkey’s defense budget is growing sharply (+150% in 2024) just as the widespread rearmament in all NATO countries are warning signs of increased tensions.

The United States, France and the European Union have promised security and protection to Armenia. Without an army on the ground, these promises have no value. For the time being, the Western aid concerns democracy and rule of law, which is of little help.

The Armenian Prime Minister maintains his agenda for signing a peace agreement with Azerbaijan by the end of 2023. He hoped to obtain a first commitment from Azerbaijan during the European summit in Granada on October 5. President Aliyev, having obtained the evacuation of the Armenians from Artsakh, is no longer rushing to sign the peace treaty: he did not even go to Grenada. It is now in his interest to raise the stakes.

Azerbaijan and Turkey will bide their time and prefer to achieve an alternative commercial route which passes along the border on the Iran side. This creates additional pressure on Armenia to concede passage through its territory, the so-called “Zangezur corridor.” The principle of a regional integration plan (3+3 format, Armenia/Georgia/Azerbaijan + Turkey/Russia/Iran) seems to satisfy all the protagonists except Georgia.

Will Armenia be sacrificed too?

If the West and Turkey aim for a common objective —eliminating Russia from the South Caucasus — they have different positions in relation to the territorial integrity of Armenia. France is unclear about its objectives, even as it champions Armenia. It is not the same for the United States, whose policy in the region, just as in the Middle East, is dictated by Israel (anyone who wants to understand what is happening in the region must read or reread the best-seller by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt: The Israel Lobby and the U.S. Foreign Policy).  The US Department of State has reaffirmed its strong support for Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but at the same time, its closest ally, Israel, leads the regional strategy.

Israel’s next target is Iran. This fact has just been confirmed by Netanyahu and high-ranking military officials but also by the American administration. The Israeli media machine aims to convince the world that Iran is the real architect of the Hamas attack (a claim that is not confirmed by the Pentagon nor Secretary of State Blinken). In 2002, it was the neo-conservatives (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Adelman, Woolsey, Libby, Bolton, Wurmser and Abrams) who convinced George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (which was notoriously false) to justify the military invasion. The pro-Israeli lobbies have all discreetly but effectively supported this version in Washington DC.

The strategy to destabilize Iran rests on Azerbaijan. The latter has a double interest: to circulate freely in the south of Armenia and to reunite the Azeri peoples of Nakhichevan and North-West Iran with Azerbaijan. The interest for Israel is also twofold: Isolating Iran by cutting its geographical link with Armenia and agitating the Azeri population of Iran with the aim of disintegrating Iran and neutralizing its regional influence (Syria, Lebanon, Gaza).

As part of its strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, Israel has been complicit in the criminal enterprise of ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population of Karabakh, not only by supplying high-precision weapons for the last three years but also by advising its proven method: establishment of checkpoints, siege strategy, forced expulsion, arrest of leaders and the  forced colonization of newly conquered territories to create a fait accompli on the ground, which would hinder the return of the displaced.

The anti-Russian discourse in certain Armenian circles is not foreign to the cooperation established with neoconservative groups (John Bolton et al.), the American Enterprise Institute and Christian Zionists. These groups pursue objectives contrary to the security and sovereignty of Armenia as explained.

Others in Armenia and in the diaspora have bought into the vision of the West as a savior angel that would come to protect Armenia in the event of a Turkish-Azerbaijani aggression. The same miscalculation prevailed at different periods of Armenian recent history (End of 19th century until the genocide, Post genocide protection in Ottoman Empire until withdrawal of allied countries in 1922). Were this option to exist, the reaction time of Western powers would be operationally too late, given the smallness of the Armenian territory and the existence of two fronts.

The West will not engage militarily. it doesn’t have the will nor the capacity. It should be remembered that Cyprus has been occupied by Turkey since 1974, and that Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria have come under Russian control over the last 15 years. The fate of other Ukrainian regions is still uncertain.

France has decided to initiate military cooperation through supplying defensive weapons and training military personnel. These means will not be operational for a certain time, the time necessary for an army to assimilate a new military doctrine, integrate new weapons into its defense system and train its personnel. Azerbaijan continues to purchase numerous weapons and has much more at its disposal.

Balancing of Relations between West and Russia

Bitterness reigns in all political circles in Armenia and in the diaspora over the fact that Russia has failed in its role as protector of the Armenians. This fact is indisputable but it is appropriate to recall several other facts that mitigate and nuance this assessment.

First, it is too easy to say that Russia has abandoned Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia has never recognized the Republic of Artsakh statehood since 1991 and it did not resist its reintegration into Azerbaijan.

Second, the mandates of peacekeeping or interposition forces rarely include the use of military force against warring parties. The most tragic example of that was the failure of United Nations forces to prevent the genocide of the Bosnians of Srebrenica by Serbian paramilitary groups.

Third, Armenia cannot take the risk of completely divorcing itself from Russia in a period of such acute regional and international turbulence. More than half of the country’s economy depends on Russia (banking system and exports), while even more importantly, energy supplies are 100 percent under Russia’s control. The nuclear power plant and mining operations are also under Russian control. Its borders are still guarded by Russia and long-term military cooperation agreements were signed in 2010 and 2013.

Separating completely from Russia today means handing over the keys of Armenia to Turkey. A Russian presence allows the deadlines to be pushed back, giving Armenia time to strengthen itself militarily and develop a new foreign policy.

Fourth, one needs to be more measured about what will ultimately emerge from the current international crises. The effects of the moral failure of the West (United States and Europeans) must not be neglected. They are less credible due to their proper violation of the values they impose to others. The destruction of international public order and the challenge to Western hegemony mainly the American one by the rest of the world, are also key factors.

West Losing Moral Legitimacy

Is Russia less respectable than the United States? It is in terms of democracy and rule of law. It is not in terms of violations of international law? The war between Russia and Ukraine appears to be a balanced war compared to Israel’s completely asymmetrical war and disproportionate military response in Gaza. Hamas has committed indiscriminate terrorist acts, which constitutes a fundamental error and a reprehensible act that deserved a targeted reaction. However, the trapped civilian population is the main victim of the internationally wrongful collective punishment by Israel. One must understand that the Palestinian youth are desperate because they have always lived in conditions of siege, humiliation, bombing, and are offered no political perspective. They prefer to die resisting. Hamas’ influence grew out of Israel’s intentional policy of rejecting any diplomatic solution based on the two-State principle on the basis of pre-1967 borders. Israel has systematically sabotaged all efforts in this direction, weakened or eliminated those who could have negotiated a peace plan. The sixteen-year siege of Gaza (this territory was already an open-air prison because the border with Egypt is under Israeli control) has strengthened Hamas.

Religion has nothing to do with the roots of the conflict. The designs are above all nationalist and the ambitions are territorial: the ongoing destruction of Gaza has two objectives: the first one is to destroy the visible and underground infrastructures of Hamas and the combatants; by doing so, the territory becomes uninhabitable and this forces its Palestinian population to leave it: a second “Nakba” is underway. The annexation of the territory may well be Israel’s second objective.

The parallel between the processes of forced displacement of the native populations of Artsakh and Gaza is striking. But in their implementation, that of Presidents Erdogan and Aliyev could almost earn them the qualification of humanists.

France, Europe and foremost the United States bear heavy political, moral and legal responsibility in the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh and Gaza. They are complicit in the crimes committed: ethnic cleansing and violation of international humanitarian law. These are serious and blatant violations of peremptory norms of international law.

We are also witnessing an unprecedented repression of civil and political rights and freedoms at the domestic level: banning of gatherings in support of the Palestinian population and arrests of demonstrators. The assimilation of criticism of the State of Israel to anti-Semitism has reached a new level. Students and professors are threatened with sanctions from their universities, due to pressure from donors.

The restructuring of the international order will take place and it is not certain that the United States and the Europeans will emerge victorious because their moral legitimacy is collapsing and resentment against them is increasing; their abysmal public debt will force them to stop financing the wars waged by their permanent or circumstantial allies; their disastrous policies in Africa, Asia and the Middle East trigger crises and increase the flow of migrants towards Europe, a process that will increase political and social tensions within European states and encourage a political refocusing towards nationalist and xenophobic parties.

Hence pro-American statements in Armenia deserve to be more nuanced and the Executive’s political decisions must be temporized. The Prime Minister, usually provocative, looks wiser. He has been criticizing Russia but in an objective and measured manner because he does not close the door to constructive dialogue. Could the silence of the opposition in recent months and their resignation as to the forced evacuation of Karabakh be a sign of a national political consensus?

In the current state of the regional and international crises, and in consideration of West’s moral bankruptcy and weakening, Armenia should keep a balanced policy in its relations with the Eastern bloc (Russia, Iran, India, China) and Western powers (Europe, France, Canada, United States). It should also establish a government of national unity and develop a strategy of positive neutrality if it wishes to protect its territorial integrity and preserve the chances of Armenians returning to Artsakh under negotiated guarantees. The loss of Southern Armenia would be the end of Armenia, because the Armenian population, already prey to strong emigration would otherwise no longer see a viable future. The numbers suggest a dangerous trend: an expert report on demographic issues, presented at the Future Armenian Convention in March 2023 in Yerevan, indicates that at the current pace of depopulation, the Armenian population would reach 1.9 million in 2050 and 1 million in 2100.

(Philippe Raffi Kalfayan based in Paris, is a lawyer, lecturer in international law and a former secretary general of FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights), who has earned a Ph.D. in international law. He is a regular columnist for the Armenian Mirror-Spectator.)