The Political Seeds of the Black Garden: Nagorno-Karabagh

By: Iren Tatevosyan
irentatevosyan@yahoo.com

Nagorno-Karabagh, a small mountainous territory affixed between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia, has witnessed the most contentious battles in Transcaucasian history. Called the “black garden” for its fertile lands, the vegetation of Karabagh has been cultivated by the blood of Azeri and Armenian warriors and civilians. In 1994 the body count reached 20,000 – notwithstanding the 40,000 Azerbaijanis who fled and the 90,000 Armenians that were displaced. Why such an intense and unrelenting struggle over this small region?

Part of the ancient Armenian province of Artsakh and Utik, Karabagh was annexed by Greater Armenia before the 5th century. This prominent ancient Armenian state would eventually succumb to the invasions and conquests of the Arabs, Seljuk Turks, Mongols and Persians. Subject to the rule of these foreigners, Armenians would be a stateless people until 1918, with some autonomy in Karabagh as the only exception.
In the 20th century, the once semi-obliterated Armenians would rouse a collective essence and pronounce their self-determination, spurring Karabagh Armenians to approve a referendum in 1991 asking for the independence of Nagorno-Karabagh from Soviet Azerbaijan.

The Azeris, once known as Tartars, are believed to be an ethnical mixture of Turks and Iranians who converted to Islam and adopted the Turkic language under Seljuk rule. It was not untill after 1750 that Azeris settled in Sushi. However, to predate their history and establish legitimacy over Nagorno-Karabagh, Azeri historians argue ties to Caucasian Albanians.

Nagorno-Karabagh is the focal point of the clash between these two civilizations and the battle is entrenched in nationalism and territorialism, as both cultures build their self-image by contrasting their nationalities. ATurcopholic identity further fueled Azeri hatred for the Armenians as Pan-Turkic plans to destroy Armenia were hailed by those who wanted to obliterate the Republic of Armenia and unite with their Turkish brethren. Moreover, the religious difference added fiery color to the completed painting of the Christian Armenian and Muslim Azeri distinctiveness.

To understand the strategic importance and hostility over Mountainous Karabagh, the international actors that have an irrefutable interest in this land must also be explored.

Under Soviet rule, divide and conquer tacticts caused the relatively homogenous Mountainous Karabagh to be torn from the remainder of Armenia and granted to Azerbaijan. In seeking to strengthen their borders and protect their power, Bolsheviks turned to the Turks to redefine boundaries, seeing this allied relationship as a means of expanding the Bolshevik propaganda to the Muslim states in the hopes that these minorities would become indifferent to their past and join the international struggle for class consciousness. It was under this false pretension that the provinces of Nagorno-Karabagh and Nakhichevan were given to Soviet Azerbajian and Kars and Ardahan to Turkey.

To their miscalculated dismay, however, the Soviets soon realized that Bolshevism would never trump the growing sentiments of Pan-Turkism, awakening to Turkey’s quests for power in Central Asia by taking an active stance against the belligerent assaults directed at the Armenians following the 1991/92 victories in Karabagh.

Turkey’s obsessive interest in the Mountainous Karabagh region and Armenia is strictly geopolitical. Azerbaijan is naturally endowed with a plethora of oil and natural gas and its Turcopholic identity makes Turkey the primary beneficiary of these reserves. To get Baku’s oil to Turkey, however, a pipeline must be laid which would run through Armenia and settle north in the Black Sea, ideally abolishing the Republic or Armenia. Such a drastic alteration to the geopolitical scene of the Near East and Central Asia would establish Turkey as the greatest political power in the region- threatening Soviet and Iranian interests.

Iran, more so than the Russia, is in a bitter struggle with Turkey to gain control of the Middle East. Yet, it the Soviet Union, with its internal resources, economy, military, population and territory, commanded the highest esteem and fear in the region. Their ability to threaten the outbreak of World War III upon Turkey’s intervention in Karabagh is a testament to their position as a great power.

As Azerbaijan’s second largest trading partner, Great Briatain also had an interest in the oil equipment, communications, agriculture and banking in Azerbaijan. In fact, it leads a consortium of oil firms seeking contracts with the Azeris and has hailed Azerbaijani legitimacy over the region of Mountainous Karabagh.

It was the efforts of Great Britain which had originally curtailed the union of Mountainous Karabagh via the Lachin Strip to Armenia in 1918. General Thomson of Britain ordered the great Armenian General Andranik to halt his procession to Karabagh, organized to open the aforementioned connection to Armenia, in return for peace negotiations. Andranik’s compliance, later his greatest regret, allowed for the return of the Azeris to the Armenian villages which were burnt and pillaged.

Today, the Republic of Armenia has become a prisoner of its geography. Sandwiched between Turkey and Azerbaijan, its government has taken a neutral stance fearing invasion of Armenia’s southern provinces. Unfortunately, with Turkish support, Armenia is clearly disadvantaged.

What then explains the sheer survival of the Mountainous Karabagh Armenians against these insurmountable forces? For one, the conflicting interests of the great power stakeholder’s account for the deadlocked policies produced toward the region. Each pursues its own agenda of power aggrandizement, yet must recount its ambitions in consideration of its fellow player’s ability to arm against them.

Thus, this minute yet geopolitically significant garden has become an ethical and international thorn on the side peace.

Logically, the Armenians of Karabagh should have surrendered due to the inferiority of their weaponry and sparseness of allies. Yet, Armenians argue that Karabagh is a matter of life and death, while for Azerbaijanis it is a matter of ambition. The nationalism, borne domestically in the mountainous region, matters more to these people. Their words and identities usurp the famine, threats, and tortures that have plagued them. They will not trade off their rights to what used to be their last bastion of hope for independence for a zero-sum compromise—no matter what they are threatened with.