In the XX century, the states where democratic regimes were already rooted in the political culture of the society, they had never been at war with one another. The approval of democratic orders in a particular region, are usually accompanied by a decrease of international conflict and tension there. This is the fact empirically established by researchers. It can be assumed that there are certain internal features of a consolidated democracy, probably with inherent focus on conflict resolution policy, first, through legal means, which are manifested not only in domestic, but also in foreign relations, and accordingly change the nature of the interaction between States.

This phenomenon is apparently wrong to link to the socio - political uniformity of democratic states and with their stipulated similar types of political structure. There appeared several stable centres of international tension and conflicts in the socialist part of the world where homogeneous states in socio - political terms with the same type of political thinking were established in the second half of the XX century. The socio - political homogeneity of a government is not a guarantee against conflicts and wars in fact. For example, the totalitarian regimes in the XX century - the communist and fascist - guided by the messianic ideological doctrines, according to which the purpose of the foreign policy of the State was to spread this ideology. This in turn caused an expansionist foreign policy that almost inevitably led to clashes, including armed, with surrounding states.

If the government action on the international stage and its associated ambitions are not enforced by economic, political and military resources, then probability of a 'dead end' in current foreign policy and strategy increases.  Armenia is faced with just the same situation. Its ambitious paradigm is established on economic and military weakness and powerlessness.  

Ultimately, it would lead to crises and the collapse of a pipe dream - 'Great Armenia'.

The territorial factor plays a leading role in the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict and reflects the socio-economic interests of Armenia (natural resources, number of population, etc.). The researchers note that each separatist-minded group or a class tends to interpret its own interests as 'national' or even 'universal'.

There are two main interpretations of the concept of 'national interest' in the scientific literature. First, liberal interpretation that is prevalent in developed democratic societies, and is formed as a kind of generalization of the interests of citizens. The foreign policy objectives of the state, consequently, the public interest, including in the field of foreign policy, according to this concept, meet the interests of citizens, and above all, their need for external security - economic, political and military. Such mechanisms determine the essential features of foreign policy formation in democratic countries with mature society.

Another group of scientists - politicians maintain the concept that equates national interests with the interests of the state, i. e, the concept of 'national interests'. While analysing this concept, it becomes clear that the interests of the state and the interests of the nation within a certain specific community relying on ethnic background, cannot be identified, as it gives rise to separatism in the foreign policy of  a given state. Such presentation of a problem would inevitably lead to inter-ethnic tensions with neighbouring states. And this occurs not due to the power but due to the weakness of the bureaucratic structures of the state that are not able to work effectively in the condition of a democratic control, substitute the constitutional goals of the state with the mythical care of its greatness. In a mono-ethnic state, as Armenia became - it is the myth of 'Great Armenia' that gave rise to territorial claims that caused the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia.  

Thus, an aspect of the inter-State conflicts since the 'cold war' is their relation with internal political conflicts, and one of the factors of origin of inter-state conflict is a political factor, and one of the  factors of springing up a conflict in a country is the political factor within that country, as the revival of ethnicity in any country is accompanied by the emergence of new political minority leaders that seek greater political power. They call the legitimacy of the existing state system in question, defending the right of minorities to self-determination as an equal member of the international political system, as a nation among nations. In Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Armenia supports not only the separatism, but openly turns to be one of the conflict parties.   

In the late 80s, after the proclamation of perestroika in the Soviet Union, there were formed some legal public 'informal' organizations in Armenia. The most powerful one was the Armenian National Movement (ANM). Its aim was: acting as a part of the Constitution of the USSR and Armenian SSR, guiding the principles of democracy and social justice, promoting the implementation of tasks that were before the Armenian people in national, social, economic and spiritual aspects.

Massive demonstrations, meetings in Yerevan, companies on signatures collection, declarations demanding reunification of Karabakh and Armenia, formation of volunteer units - all these attempts forced the country authority to make illegal steps in order  to stay in power.  On June 15, 1988, the Supreme Soviet of Armenia adopted a decision to include Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia. The Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR stated the incompetence of such a decision, and thus, the Karabakh conflict took the legal registration.

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been used by political forces within the country as a tool to come to power. As soon as  Ter-Petrosyan got into power, he realized that the implementation of the decisions on the reunification of Karabakh with Armenia would lead not only to fierce war with Azerbaijan, but also isolate the country internationally. The requirement for the unification of Karabakh has been taken off from the agenda. The Armenian authority took up another position: they denied their direct participation in the Karabakh war with Azerbaijan, and introduced Armenia as the 'third party' in this conflict. On February 1992, the Armenian authority declared that the decision adopted on June 1988 lost force and later on Armenia would keep to the international legal norms. But that new political approach was met with severe resistance on behalf of R. Kocharyan, Prime Minister and V. Sargsyan, Defence Minister of Armenia, and eventually Ter-Petrosyan resigned. R. Kocharyan became the new president of Armenia on March 30, 1998.   

It is evident that without the Karabakh conflict the today's Armenian authority won't be able to run the country. Today's power manipulating with maximalist mottos criticizes their predecessors' 'defeatist' policy. The Armenian authority creates vision of negotiations, and by all means tries to prolong the peaceful negotiations and resolution of the conflict, and even it is ready to limit its sovereignty.  

A main target of the foreign policy of Armenia is the recognition of the 'Armenian genocide' internationally.  They hold constant lobbying activities on this aspect in different, including the most authoritative international organizations (UN, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, etc.), as well as in the parliaments of Western and other countries. Armenia does not hide the fact that the issue of recognition of 'Armenian genocide' can be a way of diplomatic protection of Armenia during the negotiation process on settling the crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh.

In 2000, the US Congress, as you know, wanted to consider the bill on the so-called 'Armenian genocide'. It was only after the personal intervention of President Clinton, warning the congressmen that in case of recognition, 'the US national interests would suffer' and the resolution was removed from the agenda at the last moment. In France, however, neither Mr J. Chirac nor Lionel Jospin dared to bring direct pressure on their MPs because of influential Armenian Diaspora in France.

Armenia receives psychological support from states that recognized the 'genocide', and realizes its historical ambitions under the political cover of the 'next rescue' of Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Thus, the internal policy of Armenia was reduced to suppress democracy and human rights (forced expulsion of all non-Armenian population from Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the totalitarian regime in Armenia), and the external aggressive adventures in the name of creating the 'Great Armenia' and cynical defiance of its international obligations.

The analysis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has shown that the main cause of the conflict is the nationalist ideology of Armenian extremists and territorial claims of Armenia against Azerbaijan.

Translated by Etimad Bashkechid