By Christina Markarian
In an October 24 panel discussion at the Quincy Institute, a think tank “that emphasizes military restraint and diplomatic engagement,” Shujaat Ahmadzada, an independent Azerbaijani researcher, gave an interesting overview of Azerbaijan’s intentions regarding Nagorno-Karabakh. He was joined by Lara Setrakian, as a representative of the Armenian perspective, and the panel was moderated by historian, analyst Anatol Lieven who is the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia Programs director.
Ahmadzada’s statements are a useful window into Azerbaijan’s political positions.
“The key strategic objective of Azerbaijan can be described…as a 3-D policy. The first is de-internationalization. The second was de-institutionalization. And, the third was de- territorialization,” was Ahmadzada’s summary of Azerbaijan’s goals during the recent years of violence.
De-internationalization
Ahmadzada described de-internationalization as the process of making Nagorno-Karabakh an entirely “internal matter for Azerbaijan” by isolating Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia. He stated this objective was achieved on April 23 “when Baku decided to establish a checkpoint on the Lachin corridor, which is the only road (that) connects the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast areas with Republic of Armenia proper.”
In his perspective, Azerbaijan’s September 2023 invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, which Ahmadzada refers to as the “One Day War,” achieved de-internationalization by reducing Karabakh to a “secessionist entity” that was wholly under Azerbaijani control.
De-institutionalization
Ahmadzada expressed that September 19 saw the implementation of the second goal: de-institutionalization. He described the Nagorno-Karabakh “self-defense army”, the local military units, as a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
Ahmadzada continues, “During this one day war,…the second objective has been achieved through the coercive means…to force the Nagorno-Karabakh secessionist entity to surrender and lay down arms…”. In the ceasefire statement, Karabakh agreed to dissolve itself as an institution and a political entity, thereby finalizing this de-institutionalization.
Setrakian, President of the Applied Policy Research Institute of Armenia, an independent think tank based in Yerevan, reminded Ahmadzada that “the U.S. and the E.U. had made it extremely clear to Baku, that there should not be the use of force against the population in Nagorno-Karabakh, that the blockade that had preceded the military operation by Baku on September 19, was unacceptable. It was illegal.”
De-territorialization
Ahmadzada explained that the third goal of Azerbaijan was a de-territorialization, “that is, turning the whole area and integrating it back to Azerbaijan in a way that that is not territorially united and territorially one distinct entity, but rather a part of a larger Azerbaijan.”
Perhaps surprisingly, Ahmadzada confessed that he was not expecting the scale of the mass exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh.
“I was expecting, especially the Russians, and perhaps the other stakeholders to get involved and not let people get out of the enclave,” he said.
Ahmadzada seemed to be saying that Nagorno-Karabakh becoming devoid of its inhabitants is not what Baku intended. However, Setrakian commented that, “De-territorialization is a very powerful word. Armenians had long suspected that Baku wanted this land without the Armenians on it.”
According to Ahmadzada, “Azerbaijan’s main goal as of now, in very specific terms, is to make Armenia predictable, that is to prevent any possibility…for secessionism in Azerbaijan, and doing so by pushing the peace agreement agenda in ways which recognition has to take place.”
Nine Villages
In a question about a critically important issue of Armenia’s territorial integrity, Ahmadzada discussed the matter of nine villages which Azerbaijan now claims ownership. One village, Artsvashen, is an Armenian enclave surrounded by Azerbaijan. Four villages, Karki, Sofulu, Voskepar, and Barkhudarly, are Azerbaijani enclaves surrounded by Armenia. It is vital to note that Voskepar and Karki are strategically important for Armenia: interstate highways connecting Armenia with Georgia and Iran pass through these territories.
In addition, four villages bordering the Qazak District have been depopulated, but are under Armenian control. Those are Baghanis Ayrum, Ashaghi Eskipara, Gyzylhajily, and Kheyrimli. Ahmadzada stated that the eight villages (four enclaves and four border villages) belong to Azerbaijan, under international law. Setrakian questioned, “whether they really ought to so many years after the fall of the Soviet Union be called legitimately part of Azerbaijan. This is questionable from a legal standpoint.”
Most importantly, Ahmadzada stated that these villages are not the ultimate end goal, but rather to be used as a coercion tool for a peace agreement in which Armenia would recognize the post-September 19 territorial gains. Ahmadzada referred to the possibility of land claims being used as a “bargaining chip” that may be “exchanged or swapped” for a security arrangement in which Armenia fully recognizes the results of the “One Day War”.
There are other negotiating goals for Baku, such as an extraterritorial connection between the western part of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan exclave, delimitation of borders, landmine maps, and missing persons information.
Discussion mediator Anatol Lieven pressed Ahmadzada on the extraterritorial connection, “Is this…something that Azerbaijan is actually hoping to get? Or is this a means of putting pressure on Armenia to ratify to sign a peace treaty on Baku’s terms?”
Ahmadzada explained that Baku was open to various options for connecting the western part of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan exclave. One option is an extraterritorial route, in cooperation with Russia that allows unimpeded access coming from the Armenian side. Another option is accepting the Armenian customs and checks. A third option is a route going through Iran or Georgia. Ahmadzada posited, “I think for Azerbaijan, there are many scenarios and…it seems like the weather is fine, as long as there is a military superiority as long as the original cards, both very locally and also globally, are in its favor.”
