Khagan Mammadov

The Caspian sea basin is distinguished by its strategic position and rich hydrocarbon resources, and therefore it is always the space of regular competition of various economic and commercial interests. Presently for the super states that are zealous to influence this region Azerbaijan is an important geo-strategic and economic point.  

The South Caucasus region has the widest development potentiality due to its resources, geo-political position and common spiritual - cultural heritage of states of this region. But these potentialities are able to be realized only in political, military-political stability. Otherwise, many objective and subjective reasons create obstacles for the realization of these potentialities. Ethnic conflict is one of such reasons.

Analyses of the historical development of this area show that as soon as the Caucasus underwent the aggression of great super states, it became the most unstable region of the world. After the completion of the 'Cold War' the issue of controlling and transportation of Eurasian energy resources was on the agenda.       Presently not only states but private companies as well joined the struggle for the oil and geo-political prestige in the region.  

The conflict hotbeds in the Caucasus impact both the regional states' position and possibilities and in general, CIS countries' geo-political situation. Thus, the regional countries had a chance to establish a huge transport-communication corridor between both the North and the South, the East and the West. The Caucasian new established states have serious problems in national security issues, in resolving the conflicts and in creating the sustainable peace and stability.   

Struggle for oil, international discords, ambiguity are the facts of threat for the security in the Caucasus. The Armenian separatists dreaming of merging the 'historical lands' are continuing to put forward great claims on protecting human rights of Armenian population of the NKAR. Their aim, first of all, was to achieve the administrative division according to ethnic principles. In fact, these actions ended with driving the non-Armenian population out of the territory, the realization of terror acts against the peaceful population and carrying out ethnic cleansing policy. It should be kept in mind that all those acts with the elements of crime were carried out under the motto of 'restoration of historical justice'.   

It should be stated that viewpoints on who earlier or later settled in that or this land, endeavours to find out the bases of how to    inspect the modern boundaries had never been  successful, on the contrary, it always escalated nationalism and conflicts. The Armenian separatists' motivating factor was the ingrained belief about the 'historical injustice.'

The huge Armenian diasporas in Europe and the USA play the role of a specific 'engine' in  their national purpose. As a rule, they are well-organized diaspora organizations that could protect and maintain connection with their motherland.  

As Azerbaijanis had lived at peace and side-by-side with Armenians for decades in most districts of Armenia and NKAR, it was impossible to establish a monoethnic state through peaceful means.

The conflict between Armenia-Azerbaijan-Nagorno-Karabakh that occurred after the 'Cold War' has its own history. In order to conduct a true analysis we need to make a short excursion to the history of this conflict.   

The first embryos of the 'Armenian issue' started to grow still in the XVIII century. The Armenians that spread over the territory of Turkey managed to form their own commercial bourgeois. As soon as the West capitalism penetrated the Middle East, the Western states achieved the Armenian bourgeois' support and started to benefit from the Armenians for the purposes of destructing the Turkish natural economy. On the other hand, the Russian Empire under the motto 'Liberate the Christians from the Oppression of Muslim Turkey' tried to occupy the Black Sea, Bosporus and Dardanelles, at the same time, England as the main competition  of Russia in the Near East took steps to prevent Russia's efforts and realize its own plans.  England promised the Armenians 'From sea to sea -Great Armenia.' On the other hand, according to a secret agreement with Turkey, England captured Cyprus, in return, it promised joint struggle against Russian threat. So, the Turkish Armenians were deprived of protection. But the Armenian separatists never gave up the idea of 'Great Armenia'.

Concerning Azerbaijan, in the XIII century due to the policy of 'Divide and Rule' and the struggle of forces that wished to own Azerbaijan, ended with the establishment of khanates, like Baku, Karabakh, Guba, Iravan, Nakhchivan and others. The XVIII - early XIX centuries contradictions between Iran-Turkey and Russia that struggled for authority in the Caucasus became strained and, of course, it made impact on the Azerbaijanis.

As a result of many scientific researches it was proved that Karabakh had always been the integral part of Azerbaijan since III till XIX BC , i.e. till being included in the Russian Empire.  

After the Nystad Peace Treaty was signed in Nystad, Sweden in 1721, the Russian tsar Peter I the Great turned to the lands in the Caspian Sea basin and captured Baku in 1723. In order to get firmly established in these territories settled mainly by Muslims, tsar Peter I started to plan and realise certain work there. He stated the importance of migrating Christians, as well as the Armenians to these territories. The policy Peter I was continued by other Russian rulers. In his letter to N. Sisyanov in 1802, the Russian tsar Alexander I wrote: 'At all hazards, we should benefit from the Armenians in some khanates of Azerbaijan.' Taking advantage of being an instrument for the policy of the Russian Empire, the Armenian nationalists by all means tried to realize their illusion of 'Great Armenia'. After General Yermolov's arrival in the Caucasus in 1817, all the khanates lost their independence, and Mehdigulu Khan, the ruler of Karabakh, was obliged to find shelter in Iran. Due to Article 3 of the Treaty of Turkmenchay (February 10, 1828), the Irevan and Nakhchican Khanates came under the Russian rule. Just as soon as the Treaty of Turkmenchay was signed, Nicholas I with his Decree dated March 21, 1828, 'the Armenian province' administrative-territorial division in the area of the Nakhchivan Khanate was founded.  According to Article 15 of the Treaty, a start was given to massive migration of Iranian Armenians to the Karbakh, Irevan and Nakhchivan provinces: '... from this day on, residents are allowed freely to pass the border of Iran and enter the territory of Russia with their families within a year...'. After the Russo-Turkish wars in 1829 and 1878, similar events happened as well.  

Notwithstanding, in XIX century, after the Baku and Ganya provinces, the Irevan province was the third mostly populated province with Azerbaijanis. However, the Armenian-Azerbaijani war in 1906 and the March events in 1918 caused reduction in number of Azerbaijanis in that province. In spite of all the events, after the establishment of the Soviet Power, the Nagorno-Karabakh area remained within the borders of Azerbaijan.  

In the decision of the Caucasus Bureau of the Central Committee dated July 5, 1921, it was stated: '... taking into consideration the importance of the national reconciliation between the Armenians and Muslims, regular economic relations of Upper and Lower  Karabakh and Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh is granted wide  autonomy and it is decided to keep it within the Azerbaijan SSR.'

Perestroika and glasnost processes in the USSR stipulated new land pretensions. The Armenian nationalists proceeded their launched action and the Azerbaijanis were driven out from Armenia and Karabakh.  Consequently, the occupied cities and settlements turned into ruins, hundreds of thousands of people were settled in shelters, and Armenian forces were still going on with terror acts.

The world community know that this conflict rest neither on the conflict and 'old hostility' nor religious and cultural differences. The main reasons of the conflict are more prosaic: it is a clash of interests between regional factors and foreign forces, and just the struggle for a plot of land. In related research work, it was stated that there was a relation between the peace processes and the routes of the oil pipelines. The peace processes and the oil diplomacy created a complicated geo-political knot. Initially, the super states tried to conceal the use of conflicts about oil geo-policy as a manipulating mean. It is no accident that the leading handlers of these peace-making and oil games (USA and Russia) prefer and try to draw a veil over the relation between the conflict and oil pipeline, and tried to exaggerate the 'internal' motives of the conflict. Anyway, the author thinks that the super states are interested in restoring peace in the region. The  continued conflicts mainly derive advantages from nationalist ideology of separatist groups, and only high political culture is able to create background for a just decision of the conflict.