Return of Armenians to Karabakh

Official Baku asserts that Armenians can return to Karabakh by accepting Azerbaijani citizenship. But is it that straightforward? JAMnews consulted three Azerbaijani observers for their insights.

Military observer Asef Kuliyev suggests that the current situation is unfavorable for both Azerbaijani and Armenian authorities to pursue this process.

Political observer Agshin Kerimov is more optimistic, suggesting that the return of Armenians to Karabakh is feasible only if it is acknowledged as an internal matter of Azerbaijan.

Columnist Haji Namazov is confident that Armenians will not return to Karabakh in the near future, providing his arguments to support this assertion.

• Who is the new prime minister of Georgia? What are the main facts about Irakli Kobakhidze?
• The health condition of the detained opposition figure has worsened
• Russian special forces ‘Rosgvardia’ will not be permitted to enter Abkhazia

“Acceptance of Azerbaijani citizenship is the sole condition for Armenians to return to Karabakh,” stated Farid Shafiyev, Chairman of the Board of the Center for Analysis of International Relations, recently.

Military observer Asaf Guliyev emphasizes the importance of assessing the current situation before considering potential conditions for Armenians to live in Karabakh. “Without evaluating today’s realities, forecasting future scenarios is impossible,” he states.

“Despite the announced reintegration by official Baku, it has not yet occurred. This is why I emphasize ‘official Baku,’ as attitudes toward this issue in Azerbaijan are mixed. Alongside those sincerely supporting the idea of reintegration and considering the country’s international image, there are others who envision Karabakh without Armenians.

Today’s realities align with the desires of the majority of Azerbaijanis. The aspirations of those who wished to see Karabakh without Armenians have materialized, while supporters of reintegration have been spared the challenges they might have encountered.

First of all, Russia. Because Moscow has no other support to hold on to in the region;

Secondly, Europe. Because Europe cannot think of any other lever to keep Azerbaijan under constant pressure.

Thirdly, some Armenian centers. Because the strengthening of Pashinyan’s power reduces their influence on Armenia and Armenian society.

The return of Armenians to Karabakh would place Karabakh Armenians at the forefront of Armenian centers’ activities, ensuring their vitality and reinforcing the perception of them as saviors.

These are two centers: Azerbaijan and official Yerevan.

For Azerbaijan, the equation is straightforward: no Armenians in Karabakh, no problems. However, for official Yerevan, the situation is far more intricate.

Official Baku consistently declares its readiness to welcome back Karabakh Armenians, ensuring their safety. In exchange, it seeks recognition of the rights of Azerbaijanis expelled from Armenia in 1988.

This dynamic creates diplomatic discomfort for Armenia. Consequently, the current Armenian authorities remain indifferent to excluding the issue of Karabakh Armenians from the peace talks agenda. Addressing it would entail responding to Azerbaijan’s demands regarding refugees from Armenia, a scenario Pashinyan seeks to avoid.

In light of current realities, it appears impossible for Karabakh Armenians to return. Even if feasible, they risk becoming pawns in the hands of specific interests. Thus, discussing conditions for their return, such as accepting Azerbaijani citizenship or adhering to the country’s laws, seems inappropriate. As for Armenians presently in Karabakh, their social standing as isolated, vulnerable individuals without hope is evident to all,” stated Asaf Guliyev.

Political observer Akshin Kerimov argues that the return of Armenians from Karabakh to Azerbaijan should not be seen as a maneuver by official Yerevan to establish a geopolitical balance against Baku. He suggests that if such returns were to be considered, Azerbaijan would demand guarantees to prevent them from becoming a potential “time-bomb” in the future.

“As threats and opportunities evolve amidst the global crisis, we observe the emergence of flexible mechanisms targeted against Azerbaijan. Therefore, Baku should conduct comprehensive strategic analyses on the longstanding regional challenges stemming from maps used against Azerbaijan for decades, even centuries, and present them to all relevant stakeholders.

Once Azerbaijan secures all necessary security guarantees for the return of Armenians to Karabakh, it can initiate legal procedures. There is no need to complicate matters or reinvent the wheel for Azerbaijan. Baku approaches all potential scenarios with a focus on ensuring guaranteed territorial integrity, sovereignty, and constitutional order.

This suggests that legal measures for the return of Armenians cannot entail privileges, additional rights, or special status for them. Furthermore, the return of Armenians to Karabakh should not serve the interests of regional and global power centers for their manipulations in this region; rather, it should be categorized as an internal affair of Azerbaijan.

If Armenia seeks the return of Armenians to Karabakh, it should not insist on theses that demand exclusive rights and privileges for Karabakh Armenians. On the contrary, a return scenario that avoids such demands could offer additional benefits for Azerbaijan in the long term.

In discussing the return of Karabakh Armenians, it’s important to consider the return of Azerbaijanis previously expelled from Armenia. Establishing positions for the return of Karabakh Armenians could create preferential legal guarantees, facilitating a smoother and more predictable return of Azerbaijanis to Armenia.

It’s clear that Baku, by skillfully managing an agenda that encompasses the return of Azerbaijanis to Armenia, portrays its stance on the issue in an idealized manner. In essence, discussing the topic of return while considering Azerbaijan’s rhetoric tips the scales in favor of Baku,” Akshin Kerimov conveyed to JAMnews.

“The return of Armenians to Karabakh in the present and near future appears unrealistic, primarily from a practical standpoint, in addition to considering the military and political situation in the region,” stated political observer Haji Namazov.

According to him, the prospect of Armenians living in Karabakh under the laws of Azerbaijan conceals numerous long-term problems that will need to be addressed:

“I won’t delve into the details of the rhetoric from both sides, as it’s widely known and extensively discussed by experts regarding all statements from Baku and Yerevan.

Let’s approach this soberly, without drama, and solely from a practical standpoint.

Azerbaijan is currently engaged in the active repopulation of the liberated territories with internally displaced persons (IDPs) who are returning to their native lands after decades. This year, the return will commence to Khankendi and Khojaly, and in the near future, to Agdere and other settlements previously inhabited by Armenians until September 2023. While Azerbaijanis rightfully should return to the places from which they were forcibly expelled in the early 1990s. But…

It’s challenging, if not nearly impossible, for Armenians and Azerbaijanis to live together peacefully at this moment, whether in one village, on one street, or in one house. The wounds from past conflicts are still raw, making it difficult to find Karabakh Azeri and Armenian families untouched by loss during the two wars and brief armed clashes over the past 35 years.

Do you understand what we are talking about? I’m not even delving into the challenges of integrating Armenians into Azerbaijan’s legal framework, education system, job market, and military service. These issues must be addressed if both peoples are to coexist peacefully. There’s no alternative; Armenia and Azerbaijan are neighbors, and there’s no escaping that reality.

When it comes to living together rather than just being neighbors across the border, the challenges become much more acute. In my opinion, these problems cannot be solved today; they will take time. I’m unsure how much time—perhaps 10 years, maybe 20. But peace must come to these lands; there is no alternative,” concluded Haji Namazov.

Shelling of Armenian positions

In the morning, the Armenian Ministry of Defense issued a statement reporting that units of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces had opened fire from small arms towards Armenian positions near the settlement of Nerkin Hand. The statement indicated that four soldiers were killed and one was wounded in the incident.

Baku stated that they conducted “Revenge” operation in response to “yesterday’s provocation by the Armenian Armed Forces” in the Kapan-Zangilan section. According to the Azerbaijani side, an Azerbaijani border guard was injured due to shelling from the Armenian Armed Forces.

An investigation into this incident has been initiated in Armenia. The military police stated, “If this circumstance is confirmed, the perpetrators will be brought to justice.” However, Baku did not await the results and proceeded with a punitive operation. In light of this, Armenian politicians asserted that “the Azerbaijani authorities simply needed a pretext.”

According to political observer Hakob Badalyan, Baku continues to leverage the use of force and seeks to extract political concessions from Armenia. He does not rule out the possibility that Azerbaijan “will persist in military operations to address specific issues and capture additional positions.”

• Pashinyan dodges tough queries: interview with The Telegraph

• Представит ли Ереван иск против Алиева в МУС? Прямого ответа пока нет

• Will Yerevan sue Aliyev at the ICC? No answers yet

The Armenian Ministry of Defense reports that on February 13, from 05:30 to 09:30, units of the Azerbaijani armed forces fired at Armenian positions near the village of Nerkin Hand. Initially, it was reported that two Armenian soldiers were killed, but later, it was confirmed that four people died. The wounded man’s condition is moderate.

The Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the incident as “another provocation” by the Azerbaijani armed forces.

Commenting on the information received the night before from Baku and the morning military operation, the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced:

“This indicates that Azerbaijan is looking for pretexts for escalation on the border. […] We strongly condemn these actions of Azerbaijan resorting to military provocations, we call to refrain from steps that destabilize the situation and return to negotiations. Once again, we reaffirm the proposals previously voiced by the Armenian side to implement reliable measures aimed at increasing border security.”

“Some of the bodies of those killed have already been taken out, and there are no conscripts among them,” said Andranik Kocharyan, head of the parliamentary commission on defense and security, to reporters.

According to the deputy, the victims, aged between 40 and 67, are all members of the Yerkrapah Volunteer Union:

“The volunteers were stationed on guard duty, and a situation arose where the shooting began, resulting in casualties and one wounded individual. The official investigation will determine the legality of the shelling.”

Former Armenian Ombudsman Arman Tatoyan asserted that Armenian military personnel came under fire from Azerbaijani positions situated on the sovereign territory of Armenia:

“They were targeted from positions within Armenia’s sovereign territory, where they [Azerbaijani armed forces] had previously encroached. Any presence of Azerbaijani military near Armenian settlements or along inter-settlement roads is unlawful and criminal.”

Tatoyan underscored that the Azerbaijani side is exhibiting “unrestrained behavior.” He viewed all peace-related statements from Baku as “false declarations” amid deep-seated animosity towards Armenians and the propagation of enmity.

The map published on Tatoyan’s Facebook page, illustrating the locations of Azerbaijani positions within Armenian territory

Armenian Ambassador-at-Large Edmon Marukyan wrote on his X page:

“First, Azerbaijan declares that there was fire from the Armenian side, as if there was a wounded person, then the Armenian side declares that it will investigate the incident, and the Azerbaijani side attacks and kills and injures people without waiting for any investigation, thus showing that they were prepared for an attack and were just looking for a cause.

Thus, it is obvious that Azerbaijan does not give up its “traditional” criminal, aggressive behavior and first spreads unchecked, one sided, fake news as if there was a shooting from the Armenian side, and then carries out a ready-made operation in the sovereign territory of Armenia, killing and distorting new lives.

This chain of criminal acts carried out by Azerbaijan must be stopped. The international community must condemn this chain of vile unprovoked actions carried out by Azerbaijan and call Azerbaijan to withdraw its occupational forces from more than 215 square kilometres of sovereign territory of Armenia, which is an aggression by virtue and provocation against Armenia.”

According to political observer Hakob Badalyan, the Azerbaijani side is attempting to coerce Yerevan into making political concessions by leveraging the threat of force:

“Azerbaijan is seeking to capitalize on the current international climate and exploit its military superiority for political gain. To accomplish this, it applies pressure on Armenia either through direct military action or by employing the threat of force.”

The analyst believes that Baku aims to secure concessions that would significantly bolster its position in political negotiations with Armenia and with stakeholders invested in the Caucasus region. These concessions extend beyond the provisions outlined in the peace agreement with Armenia:

“They are directly or indirectly linked to the broader Caucasian agenda, of which the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is a central component.”

Badalyan warns against being misled by the “lulls observed at the border,” suggesting that despite a prolonged period of calm, there has been no significant change in the situation. He recalls that before the 44-day war of 2020, the Azerbaijani side also maintained a similar pause for some time.

Regarding the morning incident and the potential reaction from the international community, Badalyan notes that “managing and containing Baku is a difficult task” due to varying interests among different centers and Azerbaijan’s adeptness in exploiting these differences.

He suggests that the international community has essentially left Armenia and Azerbaijan to navigate negotiations “one on one” to avoid bearing responsibility. According to Badalyan, international partners are attempting to distance themselves to evade accountability for potential tensions:

“Under these circumstances, it would be extremely naive to believe that there is an international community capable of assessing Azerbaijan’s actions and rebuking them.”