Territorial Integrity and Self Determination

The renewed call for the declaration of the right to self-determination for Nagorno Karabakh (thereby effectively identifying the area as Armenian territory) this spring by Armenia’s populist Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, followed by the equally determined Azerbaijani reaction to take back territory held by Armenia, inflamed passions and restarted a conflict that had been simmering just below the surface for over three decades. Subsequent ceasefires negotiated by Russia, France and the US failed with intransient positions on both sides and claims and counterclaims about ceasefire violations over the last two weeks. Azeri President Ilham Aliyev insists on the withdrawal of Armenian forces to internationally recognized borders in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution agreed upon ten years ago but never implemented on the ground. The Armenian government accuses Azerbaijan of mounting a planned offensive and says that it is acting in self-defense.

Nagorno Karabakh is an ethnic Armenian enclave situated within Azerbaijan. Azeris claim that the region has been under their jurisdiction in recent history while Armenians claim that it had been part of the Armenian domain since time immemorial. Through the centuries the area remained under control of multiple dynasties and was populated by varied ethnic communities. When the Transcaucasus region became part of the Soviet Union, administrative boundaries between the Union Republics were vaguely defined and of little salience locally. However, when Republican boundaries became international borders the framing of the relationship between nation, people, ethnicity and territory by the state assumed increased relevance. In addition, contested maps meant that there was often debate on the exact location of the lines dividing the states. Karabakh’s demands to be united with Armenia had already became a regular occurrence in the final days before the disintegration of the USSR and in the months that followed growing Azeri and Armenian nationalism resulted in conflict and displacement.

While there are many aspects to the problem as it exists today, geopolitical (with Russia, US and Turkey vying for greater influence over the strategically important region) geo-economic (given the presence of natural resources and the multiple existing and planned pipelines) and of course the human cost of any conflict, one way to examine the issue today in terms of contradictions that enclaves like Nagorgo Karabakh present globally. An enclave is understood as part of a territory of one state enclosed within the territory of another state. This contradicts the idea of contiguous nation states and it would seem that states would be happy to exchange them or just give them up. But that is not the case in most situations.

The importance of enclaves in international relations is far beyond their relative weight in terms of population and land, and this importance is not restricted to the people who live in them, influencing other political and economic issues between their respective main-lands and surrounding states. The discussion assumes relevance since often enclaves influence relations between their main lands and surrounding states in a dis-proportionate degree to the smallness of both their territory and population. In fact it is argued that Karabakh controls Armenia far more than vice versa, since except for the current Armenian Prime Minister most Armenian leaders have had their roots in Nagorno Karabakh.

While enclaves remain as legacies of imperial boundary making in many parts of the world, till recently the largest number of enclaves was in our immediate neighbourhood along the Indo Bangladesh border where there were Indian enclaves within Bangladesh and Bangladeshi enclaves within India, the so called Chitmahals. In fact there are cases of double enclavity where an Indian enclave within a Bangladeshi one was surrounded by Indian territory. Exchange of territory between the two states in 2015 resolved the question on paper however on the ground issues related to ‘new citizenship’ prevails. There have been various forms of negotiated settlements for enclaves with varying degrees of success. However there still remain enclaves like Sokh, a Uzbek enclave within Kyrgyzstan populated by Tajiks bringing with it larger questions of whether there can in fact be a perfect solution to these territorial entities that have overlapping and multiple interpretations of belonging and rights.

Every situation of enclavity is of course unique and Nagorno Karabakh is no exception. Situated within Azerbaijan but Inhabited mostly by ethnic Armenians, in the post disintegration period the oblast had been returned to Azeri control and is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. However, there had been repeated requests for the transfer of the oblast to Armenia and on 1 December 1989 the Armenian Supreme Soviet took a decision to recognize Karabakh right to self determination and in fact proclaimed reunification of Nagorno Karabakh with Armenia. This contradiction between the right to self-determination for the Karabakh Armenians and the principle of territorial integrity demanded by Azerbaijan is yet to be resolved.

Enclaves therefore raise certain questions: (1) are there specific political and economic patterns conditioned by the notions of enclavity? (2) how do enclaves emerge? (3) are enclaves capable of being economically sustainable on their own? (4) how do national, religious, and linguistic composition patterns contribute to the quality of relations with the surrounding state and the mainland state? (5) does enclave existence lead to different notions of identity? (6) as enclaves are often objects of tension, how does one secure peace in and around them? (7) what is the place of enclaves in the bilateral relations between the surrounding and the mainland state? What is the place of enclaves in world politics or the global economy?

The answers to these questions will obviously vary in different parts of the world and solutions would largely depend on the evolution of the position of the principle actors. Unfortunately, in the case of Nagorno Karabakh the position of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Karabakh Armenians have not changed in essence. Azerbaijan insists on restoration of its territorial integrity, the Karabakh Armenians backed by Armenia view the idea solution as independence and international recognition of the Republic including the Lachin corridor. Solutions are never simple as ethnic issues are complicated by inter regional and global concerns. The Nagorno Karabakh issue is complicated by water disputes with Azerbaijan claiming that Armenians have reduced the flow of water in the Tatar river by controlling the water flow from the Sarsang Reservoir situated in the enclave. A highly interdependent system of water and disputes over the seasonal and spatial allocation of water and the economic value of water provisions remains unresolved at the regional level.  On the other hand, interests of regional and global powers in the region complicate existing concerns. Conflict zones today attract militants from various kinds of militant organizations and there have been reports of Syrian militants being involved on the Azerbaijan side. The obvious Turkish hand in this has meant that there is opposition to what is being viewed as an attempt by Turkey to broaden its Pan Turkic influence in the region.

While various levels of ‘broad autonomy’ have been offered as a solution by Azerbaijan including discussions on a loose confederation, there is little clarity on how the relationship between the three would be organized. The Azerbaijani position seems to be that Nagorno Karabakh would enjoy self-rule but no role in foreign affairs, defence, and nation-level taxation. While this indicates a ‘vertical’ relationship Stepanakert insists on what the Armenian side terms ‘horizontal’ relations with Azerbaijan.

As escalating military engagements indicate, a diplomatic solution acceptable to all is yet to emerge bringing with it the larger question of whether there can be a negotiated solution to an ethno political conflict that has its roots in imperial boundary making.

Anita Sengupta

Director, AGA