The European Union hopes for a normalization of relations between Yerevan and Baku, after the lightning offensive by the Azerbaijanis on the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which caused almost all of the 120,000 Armenians who lived there to flee. And this, while the President of the European Council Charles Michel invited Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev for talks to try to reduce tensions between the two countries.
Historian Vincent Duclert is more pessimistic about the outcome of a conflict which has opposed the two States for decades. The former director of the Raymond Aron Center (CESPRA), who in 2021 submitted a report to Emmanuel Macron on France’s role in the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, and published this month the work “Armenia, a genocide without end and the world which is dying out” (Les Belles Lettres editions), considers that the dictator of Baku, encouraged by his Turkish accomplice Erdogan, will not stop there. According to him, the survival of the Armenian people in the Caucasus is threatened. Hence the need for a strong European reaction. Interview.
L’Express: After Azerbaijan’s lightning offensive and the massive departure of the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh, was the French Minister of Foreign Affairs right to say that the maneuvers of the Azerbaijanis in recent weeks ” looked like “ethnic cleansing” ?
Vincent Duclert : Yes quite. I would say that this is ethnic cleansing to the extent that Azerbaijan’s maneuvers resulted in the depopulation of a territory made up of 99% Armenians: Nagorno-Karabakh. This former Armenian enclave will be repopulated by Azerbaijanis, and entirely subject to the dictatorship of Ilham Aliev. There is therefore a massive transformation of the population, which we can call “ethnic cleansing”.
Especially since the blocking of the Lachin corridor since December 2022, the only road linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, can be qualified as an act of genocide, according to article 2 of the 1948 Convention. Azerbaijan seized the weapon of hunger to strangle this population, as was the case in the Warsaw ghetto, but also during the Armenian genocide of 1915, then the deportation in 1923 of hundreds of thousands of Armenians , who died from lack of food.
This time, the Armenians themselves voluntarily agreed, under the influence of absolute terror, to leave Nagorno-Karabakh after the surrender of the authorities of the enclave. This is a great achievement for Azerbaijan.
Is the Armenian state now threatened?
Yes I fear it. You only have to listen to President Aliyev’s speeches to understand that he will not stop there. The Azerbaijani president has repeatedly stated that Armenia is only a province of Azerbaijan. He clearly has objectives of conquest: either over the whole of Armenia, or by amputating its territory. And the pressure has already started, at the borders, with the demand for the Zangezour corridor, which connects the Azerbaijani enclave of Nakhitchevan to Azerbaijan, crossing the Armenian province of Syunik. But Azerbaijan also has territorial claims to the north of Armenia.
Aliyev’s statements, combined with those of President Erdogan, aim to affirm that Armenians no longer have a possible existence in the Caucasus.
Are Azerbaijan and Turkey acting as a duo against Armenia?
The alliance between Turkey and Azerbaijan is extremely powerful, as Azerbaijan desires territorial continuity not only between its Azerbaijani enclave of Nakhichevan and the rest of the country, but also with Turkey. We can really speak of a complicit duo against Armenia, because they also have an anti-democratic ideological objective: the “velvet revolution” of 2018, which brought Pashinian to power through a democratic movement, poses a problem for these two states which are sinking a little deeper into autocracy every day.
All the regional powers are, in some way, making Armenia pay the price for its democratization. Hence the lack of support from the Russians, who have been very ambiguous protectors in this conflict, having always prevented Armenia from arming itself effectively. The balance of power is clearly to the disadvantage of Armenia, which cannot count on any regional ally (apart from Iran, but whose support is doubtful in the event of an attack).
Finally, Turkey and Azerbaijan are completely polarized on hatred of the Armenian: we are talking about two denialist states which do not recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915. After the victory of 2022, Aliev publicly rejoiced at having repelled the “Armenian dogs”. The conflict therefore goes beyond the classic territorial conflict. Erdogan, for his part, explained in a speech that “the soul of Enver Pasha” would be “fulfilled” thanks to this victory, but Enver Pasha, former minister of war, was one of the main instigators of the Armenian genocide in the ‘Ottoman Empire.
Will the Azerbaijanis try to eliminate traces of Armenian culture in Nagorno-Karabakh?
Yes, because a genocide is not reduced to the massacre of populations, but also to the destruction of culture, landmarks, the horizon, of a people, which is a complementary way of erasing them. This is what is currently happening to Armenia: Turkey and Azerbaijan completely deny its historical existence in the Caucasus.
It is certainly necessary to address territorial and national questions, but we must see beyond: currently, an entire people is threatened with extermination, in the continuity of a genocide that began 130 years ago.
When were the Armenians present in this region?
Founded in the 2nd century BC, the Christian Armenian kingdom disappeared with the rise of the Byzantine and Ottoman empires. But the Armenian population remained. Two thirds of Armenians, or 2 million people, lived in the Ottoman Empire. Well assimilated, this Christian minority was perceived as a threat to the Turkish-Muslim majority. The Armenian population will then be eliminated during the genocide of 1915, in reality prepared since 1894. In 1923, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk founded the Turkish state, and a third of the Armenians were deported. The independent Republic of Armenia, created in 1918, is populated by survivors of the massacres. The two remaining centers of settlement are therefore Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia, the Armenians of Nakhchivan having also been eliminated.
The Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, however, had been present in this territory for centuries. When he attached it to Azerbaijan in 1921, Stalin also recognized its Armenian identity.
Could this conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh, which has lasted for more than thirty years, have been resolved?
The Armenians won a victory against Azerbaijan in 1994, which allowed them to establish the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on Azerbaijani territory. They could have negotiated with Baku at that time, but it was a missed opportunity. However, neither Azerbaijan nor Turkey are democratic, so the negotiations would probably not have achieved much.
Didn’t the fact of having recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijani in 2020 complicate the situation for Nikol Pashinian?
To understand this decision taken by the Armenian Prime Minister, we must first realize to what extent the Armenians are completely cornered. They live in a state of deep despair, and feel like they are on borrowed time. For Pashinian, the only possibility of getting out of this crisis was to gain time.
Likewise, on September 19, he chose not to support the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, so as not to endanger the survival of the army and the Armenian people, and in the hope of a firm reaction from the international community. The decision by the Armenian authorities of Karabakh to self-dissolve, on September 28, is part of the same logic. The pressure is such that the Armenians are in some way forced to commit suicide, or to make immense concessions intended to gain time to survive.
Nikol Pashinian has pursued a fairly intelligent and realistic policy, contrary to the wishes of his nationalist opponents, who consider themselves able to stand up to Azerbaijan by taking up arms. But it is completely unrealistic for small Armenia, whose army, functioning inherited from the Soviet Union, is not sufficiently equipped and still undermined by corruption. If Pashinian refused to support the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh on September 19, it is because he knows that he does not have the means. Armed support would only have incited Azerbaijan to attack Armenia.
Should Western sanctions be imposed against Azerbaijan?
Armenia’s isolation is terrible, and Aliev is fully aware of this vulnerability. Only pressure from the international community on Azerbaijan could prevent a new Azeri attack. Once ethnic cleansing is identified and the blockade of the Lachin corridor is described as an act of genocide, Western countries will be more hesitant to support Azerbaijan.
The condemnation of Azerbaijan will first come through symbols and declarations. Armenia’s invitation to the European Council is a strong gesture. The United States is also getting closer to Yerevan.
But the West’s concrete means are limited, due to Russia’s veto of every decision of the UN Security Council. The Armenians of Armenia remain in a very bad situation. Moreover, we can clearly see that Azerbaijan is trying to impose a very asymmetrical diplomacy.
However, positions can change very quickly, as evidenced by the declarations of French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna on the notion of ethnic cleansing. We can see here the effect of a growing public consciousness, in France and in Europe.