International Relations

The Impossible Question of Trust Between Armenia and Azerbaijan

On the 27th of September 2020, the world powers started to show concerns about the escalation of tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. While France, the USA and Russia have tried to keep a mediation role, Turkey has openly sided with Baku and accused Armenia of escalating the conflict on purpose. In the cradle of the conflict, each side blames the other for the illegal occupation of their rightful territory.

Whether one side has a more legitimate reason for aggression or a stronger claim over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh is not, however, the point of this article. Instead, it will analyse the trust mechanism in the relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan, how this trust has been broken, and how it may eventually be repaired.

Where it all started

Tensions surrounding the region of Nagorno-Karabakh have existed for a long time. The modern development of the conflict can be traced back to the early 1920s, when the USSR took control of the Caucasus. Particularly, it can be pinpointed to 1921, when the Soviet Union placed the ethnically Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh under the jurisdiction of the Azerbaijani Soviet Republic in an attempt to divide and rule the South Caucasus.

The territory, more commonly known as Artsakh in Armenian, has repeatedly attempted to reunite with Soviet Armenia. Despite its attempts, it has remained de iure Azerbaijani land, although de facto it has declared itself independent since 1992 and self-governs accordingly. The dissolution of the USSR led to an open war between Armenia and Azerbaijan for six years, in what became known as the Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988-1994). Since then, the situation has remained one of frozen conflict, with no outright war but significant clashes occurring occasionally alongside the border.  

The most significant of these skirmishes happened in 2016, taking the name of the Four-Day War, and now again in 2020 as we are witnessing a significant and worrying escalation of belligerence.

The Parliament building on the 'Square of the Armenian Renaissance' in the centre of Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
The Parliament building on the ‘Square of the Armenian Renaissance’ in the centre of Stepanakert, Artsakh Republic.

The role of trust in the conflict-process

At the basis of the tensions is a structural incompatibility: the conflict is based on the belief that Armenia and Azerbaijan’s interests are incompatible. Not only has the dispute lasted 30 years since the dissolution of the USSR, but it has deep roots that date back centuries. Today, the two countries are very well aware of the reasons that push them to fight and are willing to continue as such. The conflict cannot be resolved in the current context, leading to frustration, anger, and hostilities.

Behaviour from both sides denotes little cooperation and a lot of aggressive assertiveness. The current goal set is the “annihilation” of the other party to get a better position during peace talks. The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan might come to an end eventually, but it will not be the end of the conflict per se. The countries will go to war endlessly unless they find a compromise that is accepted by both parties.

Where does trust fit into all this? According to Cambridge, trust is “to believe that someone is good and honest and will not harm you, or that something is safe and reliable”. It is not difficult in this context to realise that trust is far from being set. The issue is that with a lack of trust, agreements will be breached by fear of what the other might do. By way of example, this is what we have been seeing repeatedly with breached ceasefire agreements in recent days.

Trust has lots of benefits during a conflict. The first one is simply information exchange: it’s easier and more transparent in good conditions, which leads to more sustainable agreements. It also leads to cooperative behaviour, which is absolutely crucial, unlike today’s focus on “annihilation”. A minimum of trust also allows negotiators to employ strategies of “positive influence”, which pushes the entire negotiation to go in a positive way for both parties. These strategies are more desirable than the coercive strategies that are in place today: for example, Azerbaijan claiming that they will not accept anything until they get the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh back.

One of the main barriers to trust is the group effect. When people that do not know each other are randomly put into two groups, they tend to believe people from their group rather than the other. In moments of tension, the information given to someone in one’s group will be considered as the truth and the information of the other group as fake. That is why fake news in periods of war are spread so easily. Add in the mix a feeling of nationalism and pro-war state propaganda and trust cannot survive a day. A minimum of trust may offer the other group the benefit of the doubt, which is totally absent in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Pro-war and anti-Armenian protest broke out on July 14th, 2020 in Baku.

Another barrier is the accountability of the negotiators. When two negotiators sit at the table, alone and without public opinion to take into consideration, they usually show more concessions and more flexibility. Trust tends to grow more easily as the interpersonal relationship slowly builds up. However, when one is held accountable by the citizens of one’s country, concessions are rarely offered. Negotiations in this setting tend to be less successful. This is exactly what happens when Azerbaijan’s president announces that Azerbaijan’s citizens do not agree with the ceasefire, which gives him a perfect reason to refuse to stop the fighting.

How to create trust when tension is rocket high

While the fighting continues and soldiers and civilians lose their lives over this conflict, what could be done to achieve peace? What could be done to restore trust? There are many examples of countries that went from full-scale war to trusting alliances, such as the entirety of Europe, the USA or Japan. But how to achieve that level of trust?

First, before any strategies are discussed, some trust dynamics starters need to be set. Announcing an action, and doing it exactly as announced, shows the other party that they are reliable. Secondly, to ensure a lasting negotiation, conciliatory measures must be irrevocable.

Usually, a first gesture of goodwill will be answered by another positive gesture, which can lead to a virtuous cycle of collaboration and trust. Breaking a tense status quo is easier after one party makes the first concession, hoping that the other party responds in a similar fashion. Of course, such a move is extremely risky, as the other party might simply take advantage of the situation.

In the scenario of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, let us imagine that Armenia makes the first move and offers some occupied regions back to Azerbaijan, as a sign of goodwill towards peace. Azerbaijan could make the effort to offer concessions to Armenia back, or it could simply take the regions and continue the fighting to further its position of power and recover what it perceived to be its legitimate territory.

Another option is to make a huge first gesture of goodwill. A big offer will only make the opposing party look illegitimate to its population and to the international community by refusing to negotiate. It is, again, a highly risky but effective way of forcing trust into the relationship. This technique was used during the war between Israel and Egypt, when Egypt’s president Anwar el-Sadat decided to go to Israel to discuss peace terms directly. In war times, this is a huge sign that led to lasting peace. However, he had spent a lot, both politically and personally, as he got assassinated for this act once back in Egypt.

Finally, the safest option is to modify the structure of the problem itself. Instead of tackling the problem of the Nagorno-Karabakh region in its entirety, it would be more sustainable to break the problem into smaller issues and tackle each of them one by one. It is much easier to make a first move concession on a small, lest costly issue than on the entire problem.

But as the conflict in the Caucasus endures and no efforts are being made to establish lasting trust, a real solution to the problem might not come any time soon, despite the best attempts of State mediators, the UN and the OSCE Minsk Group.

Tags

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. Please don t take side. Russia has all the facts and documents proving Nagorno Karabakhs belonging to Azerbaijan. One of the greatest conracts was signed between Tsar Russia and Azerbaijani Karabakh khan (khan means ruler,king) Ibrahimkhalil xan in 1805. Armenians were moved to the territory of Azerbaijan to be border between Azerbaijan and Turkey and Russia used them against Turkey instead they wanted a piece of land to create a state. Azerbaijani territory was chosen for it.In 1920 Azerbaijani land Irevan (they call it as Erevan) was given to them.for a century. Now, its not hard to reserach archives of Russia in google.Just research

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
Close
Close