Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in Azerbaijan’s Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, and Opinion-Policy Linkage on the Conflict

BACKGROUND

Since the end of the 1980s, a conflict emerged berween Azerbaijan and Armenia over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1992 the conflict culminated into the war between these countries. Cornell (2001), in his book Small nations and great powers: a study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucaus, writes how the conflict over this territory turned to be inter-state issue as well as the casualties of the war:

The conflict has led to over twenty thousands casualties and almost one and a half million refugees, a refugee flow which has resulted in a considerable crisis especially in Azerbaijan, with the number of displaced persons numbering close to one million. Over fourteen percent of the territory of Azerbaijan is occupied, territories which have been ethnically cleansed in the course of warfare of their Azeri population by Armenian Forces. The conflict is regarded as an internal conflict by the major powers and international organizations, and the efforts of the international community to bring an end to the conflict have been half-hearted at best and exiguous at worst. The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh clearly possesses an intra-state dimension, that of the struggle for independence on the part of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, since the beginning of 1992 the conflict also possesses an inter-state dimension in the sense that it involved two sovereign states as belligerents: Armenia and Azerbaijan… p. 31. … By early 1992, the power vacuum created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the loss of the last factor containing the conflict. Thus with the imminent withdrawal of the formerly Soviet forces, Karabakh became the scene of what gradually increased to a full-scale war. The Armenian side, having prepared itself to solve the conflict through military means, did not loose any time to act. p. 61[i]

As stated above, the war outbroke just after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In fact, following the Glasnost and Perestroika policies of Gorbachev, the Soviet Union had already lost almost all its influences on its member republics. Most important fact is that people of this gigantic union themselves believed in the demise of the Soviet Union and its influence. Especially, people of Azerbaijan, after the January Massacre, done by the Red Army of the Soviet Union during the dissolution period, were among the strong believers to this demise. In these circumstances, nationalist movements became dominant in all post soviet republics. On the other hand, according to Abrahamian (1998), there always been nationalism in the Soviet Union in the form of “linguistic nationalism”, caused by the imposition of the Russian language to all Soviet republics instead of the mother tongue of each republic[ii]. Therefore, after dissolution of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict became a war between ‘Armenians’ and ‘Azerbaijanis’, or ‘Hays’ and ‘Turks’, according to Armenian nationalists of this period. Khojaly Massacre ‘performed’ by the Armenian army was the breaking point of the war making these two nations to turn to be enemies for several decades, as history approves. On the official website of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan (mfa.gov.az) the settlement process of the conflict presented by the UN and OSCE is described below:

In general, the legal and political constituent for the settlement of the conflict is based on the norms and principles of international law, laid down in UN Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 as well as in the appropriate documents and decisions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other international organizations. As mentioned above, the UN Security Council resolutions were adopted in 1993 in response to the occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan and reaffirmed respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the international borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan and all other States in the region. The Council demanded immediate cessation of all hostile acts, immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of occupying forces from all occupied regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and called for the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region, ensuring the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes. n. pag.[iii]

Until today, the settlement of the conflict is very (if not the most) significant issue in both domestic realm and the foreign policies of both countries. In this article, public opinion in Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its effects on Azerbaijan’s foreign policy will be briefly analyzed.

PUBLIC OPINION IN AZERBAIJAN ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT, IT’S IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY, AND OPINION-POLICY CONNECTION ON THE CONFLICT

1. 1. Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict as ‘Bread and Butter’ Issue in Domestic Realm

After the January Massacre, and the following declaration of independence followed by dropping the term ‘Soviet Republic’ from its name, Azerbaijan entered into the most difficult phase of its history, where social, economic and political upheavals waited for it.

Firstly, Karabakh War detoriorated the social life in all aspects and throughout the whole country. In addition to dead bodies of soldiers ‘went’ to all cities and villages, the people(now, refugees) displaced from their motherland, Dağlıq(Nagorny) Karabakh, flowed to all regions, especially to big cities of Azerbaijan. According to the report of Chloe Arnold (2002), Baku-based BBC correspondent, until the ceasefire established in 1994, ”an estimated 17,000 people had been killed, another 50,000 had been wounded, and 1.2 million had been forced from their homes. Today, many of the 100,000 Azeris who fled their villages in Nagorno-Karabakh are still living in abandoned railway cars, mud-brick houses, and tents”. Considering the size of population in Azerbaijan which approximately was 7 million(The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan), it is obvious that the number of refugees which was over 1 million created deep social concerns in Azerbaijan. The refugees could not adapt to the ‘new life’ in another lands, and local people did not get well along refugees because they had to share already scarce resources with newcomers. For this and many another reasons, people felt such bitter consequences of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on everywhere in daily life.

Moreover, economic life was as collapsed as demographic situation. Economy had already been collapsed as a result of the Soviet dissolution. According to the World Bank report (2002), “Most of the formerly Soviet states began the transition to a market economy in 1990-1991 and made efforts to rebuild and restructure their economic systems, with varying results. The process triggered a severe transition decline, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) dropping by more than 40% between 1990 and 1995”[iv]. In addition to this, the unexpected and huge migration caused by Nagorno-Karabakh War paralyzed the already deteriorated economy. Inflation and unemployment were at the top of the problems and the public opinion on this issue was formed in a way that all the guilt for the current situation was seen on the Karabakh War, and its initiator-Armenia.

Furthermore, political situation in Azerbaijan was negatively affected by the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Ayaz Mutallibov, the head of the state since September 8, 1991, resigned from his post on March 6, 1992, under the pressure of Azerbaijan Popular Front (leader of which was Elçibey) due to failure in defending Khojaly and giving an opportunity to Armenian army to realize a genocide in Khojaly. The national presidential elections were held on June 7, 1992, and Elçibey was elected the President of Azerbaijan Republic by gaining over 50% of votes.[v] The same issue of Karabakh War made Elçibey also to resign from presidency, and apart from Karabakh issue, there was a threat of civil war in the country. It was not until 1996 the stability and order was established in Azerbaijan under the presidency of Haydar Aliyev. Political landscape, however, were the same throughout this period. Settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict were the first priority of these three governments although Mutallibov was communist while Elçibey and Aliyev rejected communism.

1. 2. Weight of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in Azerbaijan’s Foreign Policy

Generally, since the independence of Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh issue and its settlement have always been among the top priorities of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy. In their speeches, Azerbaijani officials, including president and foreign minister, always claimed about the opportunities that both Armenia and Azerbaijan could benefit if the conflict resolved within the frames of the integrity of Azerbaijani territories, that is, after Armenia’s withdrawal of its army from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Elmar Mammadyarov, Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, in his article published on Wall Street Journal (2008), once again emphasized the importance of the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict not only for the parties of conflict but also for the region:

The current market price for oil and gas is high and we should be able to maximize the economic potential of our strategic resources. The unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, however, threatens the security of the existing pipeline infrastructure, preventing us from optimizing the region’s energy trade with Europe. For us in Azerbaijan this will impede economic growth, which has been averaging around 30% in the past few years. n. pag.[vi]

Above, in the excerpt, again it can be seen that official Azerbaijan wants to return its territorries at any cost and without any compromise. This is the real proof of the huge impact of public opinion on the foreign policy.

The question emerges: How it is possible for public opinion to have such huge links with  foreign policy on this issue?

1. 3. A Multiaxial Evaluation of the link between Foreign Policy and Public Opinion on Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

Nagorno-Karabakh issue, in general, is one of the issues which are difficult to be categorized as an issue solely belonging to domestic or foreign policies. It is for this reason that opinion-policy linkage on Karabakh issue is so huge and ‘fresh’. Therefore, it would be mistake to comment this issue without considering the socio-economic and political factors affecting this links. Based on ‘a Multiaxial Assessment of Policy Climate in Mediating Opinion-Policy Connections’ proposed by Shiraev and Sobel (2003), the link between opinion and policy can be analyzed by several dimensions and axes. There are two dimensions affecting the opinion-policy linkage. First one is ‘basic socio-economic and political factors’ which include two axes, namely, ‘political institutions and communications’ and ‘political landscape’. Second dimension is ‘basic cultural and psychological factors’, again which includes two axes, namely, ‘general socio-cultural variables’ and ’contextual and situational factors’[vii]. In order to clarify the affect of these dimensions and axes on opinion-policy linkage in Nagorno-Karabakh issue, on the Graph 1 the case is shown graphically.

Graph 1 – Analysis of impact of  several factors on foreign policy-public opinion connection on the issue of Nagorno Karabakh conflict

CONCLUSION

Considering the historical, political, social and economic factors on Nagorno-Karabakh issue and the policy-opinion connection on this issue, the following conclusions can be drawn.

First, the history made this conflict escalate into the war in which hundred thousands were killed and over a million people were internally displaced. Second, political life during the early independence period was full of upheavals and instability; however, the political atmosphere on the Karabakh issue has always remained unchanged. This is mainly because of the fact the public opinion has remained unchanged on the issue. Third, socio-economic factors were very effective in the process of opinion forming. The war was considered to be the father of all social and economic upheavals in the country. Fourth, the attention was drawn to the fact that on issues like Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where it is not possible to categorize the issue solely as domestic or foreign, opinion-policy linkage is very huge because public opinion has great impact on foreign policy.

Cemil Islamov

[ii] Abrahamian, L. (1998, 08 01). Mother Tongue: Linguistic Nationalism and the Cult of Translation in Postcommunist Armenia. Berkeley, USA. Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9cm4d9vn

[iii] Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (tarih yok). Republic of Azerbaijan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved on June 12, 2010, from http://www.mfa.gov.az/eng/khojaly_en/index.php

[iv] The World Bank. (2002). Transition: The First Ten Years – Analysis and Lessons For Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington. DC.

[v] Academic dictionaries and encyclopedias.http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/42307

[vi] Mammadyarov, E. (2008). The Caspian Moment. Wall Street Journal , 4.

[vii] Sobel, R., & Shiraev, E. (2003). International Public Opinion and the Bosnia Crisis. Lanham: Lexington  Books.