ISSN 2330-717X

Restorative Justice In Context Of Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict – OpEd

By

It is necessary to discuss the decades-long Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict from the prisms of restorative justice. In conflict resolution literature, “restorative justice” envisages a set of actions for soothing hostilities between the conflicting parties. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict started with an armed military assault launched by Armenia against Azerbaijan in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The war (1988-1994) resulted in Armenia’s occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven adjacent regions, whist the four UN Security Council resolutions (822, 853, 874, 884) demanding the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories are still ignored. Conflict resolution has so far remained elusive, despite the fact that the OSCE Minsk Group’s Co-Chairmanship Institute, which includes the United States, France and Russia, has been working on this gargantuan task since 1997. To approach a resolution to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, it is necessary that Armenia negotiate with the principles of restorative justice in mind.

Despite the fact that several meetings between the foreign ministers of the two countries were held in 2019 and positive dynamism was noted on the human track with mutual visits of journalists taking place for the first time, substantial progress was not achieved in the negotiations. Therefore, the year 2019 was dubbed as the “lost year for the conflict settlement.” In January 2020, a meeting between the Foreign Ministers in Geneva took place, which was followed by the much-discussed Munich debate between President Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan in February. This debate was assessed by some experts as being rather counterproductive, as it enhanced contradictions and did not contribute to the approximation of positions of the conflicting parties.

Then came the so-called “parliamentary and presidential elections” held by Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the results of which were not recognized by any member of the international community. The elections resulted in the Shusha provocation when the “newly elected president” of the puppet regime in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan was “inaugurated” in Shusha – a city of great moral and cultural significance for Azerbaijan. Incendiary comments by Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan denying Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov’s words about the fact that the staged and step-by-step solution of the conflict was ever the subject of negotiations, added more fuel to the fire.

Against this backdrop, military exercises were held by the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan in May, including in Nakhichevan, while the country also stepped up its military purchases from abroad. Azerbaijan’s purchases were initiated through the recent ratification of the military-financial agreement by the parliament on May 31, which enables Azerbaijan to buy new weapons from Turkey to strengthen its military capabilities. Turkish drones are considered to be a serious option among the wide array of choices that are available under the agreement.

From July 12 to 14, Armenia violated the ceasefire, this time on the Armenia-Azerbaijan international border in the direction of the Tovuz district of Azerbaijan. After the attack was stopped by Azerbaijan, international actors, including the European Union, OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, and the Russian Federation called for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

Moreover, COVID-19-induced lockdowns have further thrown a wrench into the negotiation process. The parties met during the pandemic on April 21 and June 29 through 30 via a video conference between the foreign ministers Mammadyarov and Mnatsakanyan with the participation of Minsk Group co-chairs Igor Popov of Russia, Stephane Visconti of France, Andrew Schofer, of the United States, and Andrej Kasprzyk, the personal representative of the OSCE chairperson-in-office. The joint statement of the April 21 meeting stated that given the current unprecedented challenges faced by people all over the world, “…the Foreign Ministers and the Co-Chairs expressed the hope that the resolve seen in the global pandemic response will bring a creative and constructive impetus to the peace process.” Furthermore, the co-chairs, in the joint statement of June 29 and 30 meeting, called upon the parties “to take additional steps to strengthen the ceasefire and to prepare the populations for peace.”

Given the context of stalemate, the concept of restorative justice to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict becomes important to consider. Restorative justice, a term that stems from conflict resolution literature, means taking actions towards reducing animosity between the conflicting parties. The proponents of this idea argue that “the punishment of the offenders alone does not prevent them from continuing to hate the other side.” Therefore, it is best that “the offenders take the responsibility of acknowledging their offense and get motivated to change the relationship from destructive to constructive.” The concept does not merely seek to compensate the victims for the losses it incurred at the hand of the offender. It also necessitates that existing systems be revised so that injustices perpetrated in the past would no longer be possible in future.

These elements of restorative justice, especially the latter concerning the necessity to revise existing systems, must become a part of Armenia’s policy during this conflict resolution and a subsequent peacemaking process. Acceptance of all wrongdoings towards Azerbaijan and genuine intention to work towards fair and lasting peace based on the norms and principles of international law, including respect for sovereignty, may lay the foundation for achieving restorative justice in this rocky neighborhood.

Denial of the meager progress achieved in the negotiation process so far, just as Armenia’s Prime Minister Pashinyan recently vocalized, further jeopardizes the already tenuous situation and slims the prospects for restorative justice. Moreover, in-your-face kind of provocations initiated by Armenian leadership — first in Khankendi in November 2019 where Pashinyan brazenly declared that “Nagorno-Karabakh is Armenia, period” and later in the aforementioned Shusha provocation and blatant violations of the ceasefire, including the recent Tovuz provocation – all undermine hopes that some sort of progress might be possible this year. Rather than exacerbate the conflict, nations should seek good neighborly relations and peaceful co-existence within the region they belong to. This is critical for the South Caucasus, a region incredibly disintegrated due to the unresolved conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

There are three important steps therefore that Armenia has to take towards attaining restorative justice. First, Armenia must assume responsibility for its decades-long military occupation. Second, Armenia must genuinely engage in negotiations towards peaceful resolution of the conflict based on respect for the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the highest degree of self-rule offered by Azerbaijan to the Nagorno-Karabakh region as a part of future settlement formula. Third, Armenia must work in tandem with other neighbors towards the improvement of regional architecture and pursue good relations with all states in the region, including Azerbaijan. These steps will, in return, attract similar cooperative moves by Azerbaijan in the form of opening of communications, borders with Armenia and its inclusion into all large-scale regional energy and infrastructure projects implemented by Azerbaijan and its international partners. Taking such actions may also mean that Armenia and Azerbaijan could finally reengage and reintegrate their populations and societies.

Restorative justice, which involves the conflicting parties in a dialogue, “encourages offenders to take responsibility for their actions and offer an apology, toward the reestablishment of a consensus between the parties.” Restorative justice is often juxtaposed to “retributive justice,” which mostly carries the punishment connotation to the offender, whereas restorative justice aims at soothing the animosity and hostility between the parties upon the acknowledgement by the offender of its own disruptive deeds. This in its own turn will create an environment where the offender and victim could co-exist in future.

Occupation of Azerbaijani territories is undermining the prospects for restorative justice. Armenia therefore must engage in constructive negotiations with Azerbaijan towards the attainment of just and lasting solution to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, to the greater benefit of itself, as well as regional stability and cooperation. It should be in the best interest of Armenia to work towards achieving restorative justice with Azerbaijan and finally assume responsibility for its actions, having thus laid the foundation for peace and co-existence with the Azerbaijani population in the South Caucasus.

*Dr. Esmira Jafarova is a Board Member of Baku-based Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center)

5 thoughts on “Restorative Justice In Context Of Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict – OpEd

  • Avatar
    August 23, 2020 at 11:58 am
    Permalink

    Dr. Esmira Jafarova misrepresents the conflict. She does this to make her desired outcomes fit an altered version of reality, complete with selected deletion facts. While the term “restorative justice” might sound alluring, it was the Armenians who restored justice taken from them by Joseph Stalin. The Soviet Azerbaijani borders were set by Joseph Stalin when the region Nagorno-Karabakh was well over 90% Armenian. Stalin added Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani jurisdiction as a gift to Turkey in a quid pro quo for Turkey’s support of Soviet Bolshevism.

    Jafarova never mentions that the father of today’s Azerbaijani president, Haydar Aliyev, during his tenure as a member of the Soviet Politburo, First Deputy PM of the USSR, etc., planned for decades to slowly depopulate Nagorno-Karabakh of Armenians by encouraging them with more significant opportunity in Baku and replacing them with Azerbaijanis. The goal would be to increase Azerbaijan’s control of a thin slice of Armenia between Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani exclave nearly depopulated of Armenians by 1990. All these forms of demographic engineering became the basis for the fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis as the Soviet Union was disintegrating.

    Jafarova claims, the “conflict started with an armed military assault launched by Armenia against Azerbaijan in the late 1980s and early 1990s,” yet never mentions that between the end of 1989 and early 1990, well over a quarter-million Armenians were violently expelled from the Azerbaijani capital, Baku. Another hundred thousand or so Armenians were expelled from other towns across Azerbaijan. The Armenians that remained under previous Soviet Azerbaijani jurisdiction were those in Nagorno-Karabakh. These Armenians fought the Azerbaijani army and won full sovereignty over this region – whether recognized by anybody or not. Sovereignty speaks for itself.

    Jafarova expects readers to blindly accept her claims that UN resolutions “demanding the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories are still ignored.” These resolutions claim:

    UNSC Res 822: …withdrawal of local occupying forces troops from Kelbajar …
    UNSC Res 853: …calls on withdrawal of local Armenian troops from Agdam …
    UNSC Res 874: …implement Security Council resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993)…
    UNSC Res 884: …Condemns the recent violations of the cease-fire established between the parties … calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh…

    None of these resolutions say what Jafarov claims they do, just as Jafarov’s claim that Azerbaijan is offering Armenians the highest level of autonomy. For this to be considered, Azerbaijan’s constitution must change from a unitary state to a federation. Azerbaijan’s minorities, such as the Talysh, Lezgians, and Avars, will demand the “widest autonomy.” Azerbaijan would cease to exist.

    What are Armenians supposed to conclude when this same Ministry of Defense threatened to blow up Armenians nuclear power station last month over a series of military defeats at the hand of the Armenians? This is another reminder of Azerbaijani “benevolence!”

    Azerbaijan must understand there may be room for negotiations. Still, if Baku’s precondition is for the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to be subject to Azerbaijani jurisdiction, all bets are off. And to makes things much worse, last month, Azerbaijani President Aliyev fired his experienced foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov, claiming he was pandering to Armenians and replaced him with somebody with little experience. This situation puts Azerbaijan’s zero-sum negotiation position back to where it was decades ago.

    Good luck

    Yerevan, Armenia

    Reply
    • Avatar
      August 24, 2020 at 5:51 am
      Permalink

      Elmira Jafarova’s misleading article is full of lie, very typical for Azerbaijani fake propaganda. Historical Armenian land of Artsakh (Hagorno Karabakh – name given by Salin) is Armenia and will stay as Armenia for ever, Azerbaijan has to understand and accept this simple human rights reality.

      Reply
    • Avatar
      August 31, 2020 at 1:45 am
      Permalink

      I am an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) from indigenous Azerbaijan’s region of Jabrayil which occupied by Armenian and pro-Armenian Russian armed forces on August 23, 1993. Apart from Jabrayil other indigenous Azerbaijani regions as well as Fuzuli, Agdam, Zengilan, Qubadly, Kelbajar, and Lachin were annexed by Armenian, and pro-Armenian Russian armed forces. These occupied Azerbaijani regions are adjacent to Qarabağ. The parts of administrative-territorial division of Qarabağ as follow: Khojavend, Agdere, Askeran, Khojaly, Shusha (the cultural capital of Azerbaijan), and Khankendi (the capital of Qarabağ). On May 18, 1992, Armenian, and pro-Armenian Russian armed forced annexed Azerbaijan’s region of Lachin. By annexing Lachin Armenia has been implementing humanitarian corridor from Armenia to Qarabağ through the said Azerbaijani region. Armenia is an aggressive country. Why Armenia has occupied 7 adjacent regions to Qarabağ? These indigenous Azerbaijani regions are not considered as administrative-territorial division of Qarabağ. Please, judge and punish Armenia for its aggressive policy toward Azerbaijan!

      Reply
  • Avatar
    August 24, 2020 at 7:20 am
    Permalink

    Elmira Jafarova’s misleading article is full of lie, very typical for Azerbaijani fake propaganda. Historical Armenian land of Artsakh (Hagorno Karabakh – name given by Stalin) is Armenia and will stay as Armenia forever, Azerbaijan has to understand and accept this simple human rights reality.

    Reply
  • Avatar
    August 25, 2020 at 1:26 am
    Permalink

    Professor Davidian’s letter is pure propaganda, malicious propaganda that is vacuous because it is alsely based.

    Fact: Besides Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian troops occupy Azerbaijani national territory and have for a quarter of a century.

    Fact: I have stood on ground with a monument built by Armenians commemorating their village in disputed territory that didn’t exist before Armenians revolted against the nascent Azerbaijan government after independence was announced from the Soviet Union. In other words, claims that the disputed territory was people by Armenians since ancient times is false.

    Davidian’s claim that the sizable Armenian population in Baku was forced to leave is false. They left voluntarily and most went to Russia where significant numbers of Armenians live today and have lived for a long time. There were no large “pogroms” of Armenians by Azerbaijanis. One that was claimed by Armenians at Sumgait numbered 30 killed in riot while Azerbaijan was still under Soviet control. That Armenian-charged “genocide was and is false.

    There are still Armenians living in Azerbaijan. The Armenian /Church in Baku is not only standing, it is maintained by the Azerbaijani government for the day when the Armenian Patriarch will arrive to take possession of the church. Are there any working mosques in Armenia to service Azerbaijanis living in Armenia? No.

    Armenian soldiers backed up by Russian troops expelled all Azerbaijanis from Armenia proper and the lands they have occupied since 1992.

    Armenia is shrinking in population every year. Especially so is the Jewish population of Armenia that is now a handful, perhaps 2 or 3 hundred. Armenia claims to have had 10,000 Jews in 1960.

    Fact: In its regular worldwide survey of anti-Semitism, the Anti_defamation League scores Armenia s the second most anti-Semitic country in Europe.

    Professor Davidian falls short of objectivity and betrays a position of open-mindedness. He is a proppagandist for his failed Armenia and can’t honestly debate. That is why he writes letters answering articles that are published but lacks an inventory of honest articles published in objective journals.

    August 24, 2020
    From Mexico,
    Raoul Lowery Contreras

    Author of MURDER IN THE MOUNTAINS: WAR CRIME IN KHOJALY & THE ARMENIAN LOBBY
    Coming September 18, AN HISPANIC VIEW OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, Floricanto Press

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.