Building societal resilience in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Lasting more than 30 years, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains one of the main obstacles to regional cooperation in the South Caucasus, with the roads and borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan being closed, while the hostile relations between the states keep the region deeply fragmented and weak. During the three years since the end of the Second Karabakh War, the capacity for full-scale conflict transformation has been heavily undermined. The military offensive carried out by Azerbaijani forces in September 2023 led to the establishment of total control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the mass exodus of around 100,000External link Armenians from their homes. Today, considering the current power asymmetry between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the geopolitical configuration of great and regional powers involved, the situation continues to be unstable as the risk of the resumption of another full-scale war remains highExternal link.

There is little discussion on the possibility of the return of Karabakh Armenians to their homes, and the current level of distrust between the societies leaves little expectation that this process will be launched in the near future. The scenario of bicommunal coexistence may seem impossible at present, given the deeply entrenched maximalist attitudes dominant in ArmeniaExternal link and AzerbaijanExternal link. The consequences of the wars show the extent of the conflict’s impact on both societies, including but not limited to the several waves of mutually committed violence, the deportation of more than a million refugees during thirty-five years of the conflict, the destruction of Armenian and Azerbaijani cultural heritage, the mass exodus of Armenians, and the ruined cities and landminesExternal link impeding the return of internally-displaced Azerbaijanis. It is particularly difficult to transform the narratives of history and the image of the “other” side in the context of a widespread culture of the conflict, where the symbols of the past wars were actively used both by governments and independent media throughout the whole post-Soviet period. The situation is exacerbated by the elitistExternal link character of peacebuilding in the region that failed to engage a wider audience to the process. 

In these circumstances, it is crucial for civil society representatives, peace activists and local intellectuals to promote narratives that are alternative to the dominant nationalistic discourses to build resilience against conflict-driven insecurity, where resilience is definedExternal link as the ability of communities and regions to “withstand, adapt, and quickly recover from stresses and shocks.” Particularly, in the context of this conflict, it is important to prioritize and strengthen the resilience of societies and minorities due to the authoritarian regime of Azerbaijan, and the high level of nationalism in both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Van Gils points to the specifics of authoritarian states, where “the interests and resilience of the government are not necessarily equal to the resilience and needs of society as a whole.”[i] Another challenge lies in the problem of nationalistic societies with democratically elected leadership, which might not adhere to the democratic values of protection of national minorities, as well as the application of transitional justice for the crimes committed during previous wars.

Today, the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process is being limited to government-led negotiations that are focused on the issues of border delimitation and promoting economic projects that would serve the interests of state-led companies. While such projects indeed have the potential to contribute to the prospects of peace in the region by raising the interest of governments in de-escalation, in the wider perspective, their implementation should serve the interests of ordinary people by establishing contacts between communities and challenging the stereotypes of “incompatibilityExternal link” between the two nations. Notably, special attention should be given to interactions that would bring together non-state actors, local communities, farmers, and residents of bordering Azerbaijani and Armenian districts that have been directly affected by the conflict. One can learn valuable lessons from the experience of the Sadakhlo marketExternal link, a unique example of trade and communication between Azerbaijani and Armenian farmers that operated in Georgia from the 1990s to the mid-2000s. These activities can serve as initial steps in a series of measures designed to enhance resilience at a public level and facilitate comprehensive conflict transformation.

 At the same time, despite the potential of economic ties, one should not overestimateExternal link their contribution to peacebuilding without considering other approaches to conflict resolution. Even before the September 2023 events, a surveyExternal link held in Armenia exposed societal attitudes viewing Turkey and Azerbaijan as the main sources of economic threat, and any progress limited to economic engagement between the parties could only intensify public fears and concerns. In that regard, economic engagement between communities should be an element of a larger comprehensive set of activities aimed at promoting the reconstruction of trust between the conflicting societies. International partners, as well as local civil society representatives, should consider exploring new and innovative approachesExternal link by expanding peacebuilding networks and fostering social discourse on conflict-related topics in think-tanks, universities, and other platforms of academic and public discussions. Special attention should be paid to media and social networks to present arguments that would dispel nationalist narratives and stimulate active public debate and reassesment of the existing perception of the conflict. While such measures might face particular challenges in authoritarian Azerbaijani and war-affected Armenian societies, the understanding of the necessity to prevent another escalation and growing conflict fatigue can raise awareness in the local public and contribute to a gradual transformation of the dominant attitude.

The consequences of the September 2023 offensive brought new challenges requiring a comprehensive approach in the process of building peace and resilience in the conflict-affected societies. While today priority should be given to supporting and assisting the displaced population of Nagorno-Karabakh, in the long term, the establishment of a lasting dialogue between all forms of civil society will be crucial to build much-needed trust between the two societies. Comprehensive measures for the reestablishment of peace should include, but not be limited to, the promotion of grassroots economic cooperation, the implementation of transitional justice, the reassessment and public discussion of the conflict history, and assistance in the demining of the territories. Pragmatic and comprehensive analysis of successful examples of conflict resolution should be explored for their possible application in the conflict. While the wounds and traumas of the war are fresh, it is crucial to seek ways to prevent another cycle of violence and bring long-awaited stability to the region.

Author bio: Dr. Nazrin Gadimova-Akbulut is an independent researcher and a former Research Fellow at the JENA-CAUC project (June-August 2023), focusing on the analysis of building resilience to conflict-driven insecurity in the South Caucasus and the prospect of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict transformation process.

Peer reviewed by: Dr. Laura Luciani, postdoctoral researcher at the Ghent Institute for International and European Studies (Ghent University, Belgium).

[i] Eske Van Gils. 2019. “Whose Resilience? Resilience and Regime Strength in EU-Azerbaijan Relations.” In Resilience and the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood Countries: From Theoretical Concepts to a Normative Agenda, edited by G. Rouet and G. C. Parscariu, 447–474. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.