It has been close to nine months since the “second Nagorno-Karabakh war” ended with the country of Azerbaijan becoming victorious over Armenia for control of the contested enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, the hastily signed peace deal by Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia to end the military conflict within the region has not brought forth a solution for long-term peace and stability in the region. Many Armenians continue to be affected by the conflict with thousands being displaced and hundreds being illegally detained and tortured. This is in conjunction with the state-led campaign of cultural destruction of Armenian heritage in efforts to eliminate the historical existence of the Armenian population. Overall, the peace deal has not overcome the decades long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with the status and stability of the region still in question today.

The 44-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia has been an ongoing conflict which traces its roots back to many centuries ago when Muslim Azerbaijanis and Christian Armenians fought for control over the region. The continuous dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave was evident even during the Armenian genocide where leaders of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic worked alongside the Ottomans to eliminate the Armenian population. During the early 1900s, the Soviet Union decided to grant Nagorno-Karabakh an autonomous oblast status which was used to gain support for Soviet ruling from Armenia. However, this decision was reversed, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was given to the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) by the upcoming leader of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin. This decision to win the support from then-Turkish President Mustafa Kemal Ataturk set into motion decades of political, economic, and cultural turmoil against the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh that still continues today.

Despite a full ceasefire agreement signed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, the provisions within the deal have not brought forth full stability or peace to the region. Within the agreement, certain provisions were included such as a phasing out of the Armenian military from the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh, Lachin, Kelbajar, and Agdam. Within the peace deal, it is evident that the victors of the conflict were the Azerbaijanis who gained back much of the territory they lost over 30 years ago while not having to give any sort of autonomy to Nagorno-Karabakh. However, for Armenia, the ceasefire agreement points to the massive losses they must bear in the aftermath of the conflict. The biggest loss is the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh which is seen by the Armenian community as integral to their heritage, history, and culture. This loss of the region has led to many Armenians taking to the streets to voice their frustrations towards the signing of the peace deal which many believe was done with no consideration of the Armenian people.

Furthermore, the ceasefire does not take into consideration the situations regarding the thousands of ethnic Armenians who remain in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. While the ending of the fighting between the two sides does lessen the violence towards civilians, there is no real assurance from the peace deal that ensures that ethnic Armenians will have a safe evacuation from Nagorno-Karabakh or neighboring areas. Within the peace deal, the internally displaced persons, and refugees have been called to return to Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding areas. However, the deal did not clearly outline the provisions for the ethnic Armenians wishing to remain or return to Nagorno-Karabakh especially during the period of rising tensions where more Azerbaijanis are returning to the region.

As Azerbaijan’s occupation of the region continues, it has become more noticeable that many of the “cultural restoration” projects in the region are in efforts to erase Armenian heritage and history. As explained by Foreign Policy, “…Azerbaijan’s occupation has seen the erasure of Armenian inscriptions and cultural markers… in effort to deny the indigeneity of Armenians to the region”. Additionally, the continued inflammatory rhetoric from Azerbaijan government officials that refers to southern Armenia as the “historical territory of Azerbaijan” has been interpreted as a threat by the Armenian population. It has been clear through the provisions of the ceasefire agreement and the continuous dangerous rhetoric that the country of Azerbaijan is not dedicated to protecting the rights of the Armenian population within Nagorno-Karabakh or engaging in good faith talks to ensure long-lasting stability within the region.

There needs to be a proper negotiated settlement agreed upon by those involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The region and surrounding territories of Nagorno-Karabakh have yet to overcome the traumatic events and consequences of the conflict which has led to a lessening in the chances of peace and stability over time. As identified by the US Ambassador to Armenia, Lynne Tracy, the civilians of Nagorno-Karabakh are still caught up in the middle of the conflict. This is impending their ability to live safely and securely in their own homes. The United States has urged Armenia and Azerbaijan to start new peace talks to find a comprehensive solution to this impending crisis.

During the negotiated settlement talks, it can potentially be beneficial if there is unbiased mediation involved in the process of conflict resolution. The involvement of international third parties can help to stop the continuation of hostilities and lessen the severity of the conflict. This will be greatly beneficial in the case of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. For example, since Russia has a key role in the history of the conflict and negotiated peace settlements, it can turn to the Organization for Cooperation and Security to oversee the peace negotiations for Nagorno-Karabakh. The negotiated peace settlement talks could also involve the UN Security Council members passing a resolution for a ceasefire. This resolution can include specific provisions that outline the rights and protections of civilians.  Additionally, the continued dedication to protect the internally displaced people and refugees should also be considered within the negotiated peace talks. There needs to be a commitment within the negotiated peace deal to ensure that resources are allocated properly to help with the costs of resettling civilians and fixing infrastructure destroyed in the conflict.

Within these peace talks, it is crucial that both Armenia and Azerbaijan are listening and negotiating with each other. If the peace deal made is like the one made on November 9, 2020 – as in it only sees provisions that primarily benefit one actor of the conflict – there may be a recurrence of conflict. The so-called peace deal can potentially leave a generation of the Armenian population frustrated and resentful of the instabilities and inequalities of the region. More importantly, it does not leave the ability to establish long-lasting peace in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories.

Overall, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has a long and complicated history which continues to have a hold on the region and populations of Azerbaijan and Armenia. This conflict continues to take lives and has forcibly displaced numerous civilians who are caught in the crossfire of this recurring conflict. It is essential to have a negotiated peace settlement that seeks to address the aftermath of the conflict while protecting the rights of civilians. If there is not a dedication to stop the recurrence of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the region will only continue to suffer and experience more instability and insecurity resulting in less protections for civilians.