There will be no peace with Armenia without democracy in Azerbaijan: Mary Kaldor

Lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan cannot be achieved solely at the level of political elites, Mary Kaldor, professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science and an expert in international security, told Alpha News.

“I think it is necessary to work with civil society in Azerbaijan. Of course, there is practically none of it left. There is no democracy, so working there is very difficult. In my view, Azerbaijan’s political elites need the conflict. A peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan is possible and will be reached someday, but most likely it will be the result of agreements at the highest political level. Such an agreement is possible only if Ilham Aliyev considers it beneficial for maintaining his own power and political position.

“At the same time, we cannot talk about real peace without talking about justice. Throughout the conflict, acts of violence and ethnic cleansing were committed, and by more than one side. Justice must be restored in any case. I am particularly concerned about what is happening in Armenia itself today.

“As far as I understand, the Armenian government is effectively refusing to actively pursue issues related to the ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh, the rights of the affected population and the Armenians’ right of return. It seems that, for the sake of a peace agreement, the authorities are ready to give up certain demands and international legal claims against Azerbaijan. I find this situation ‘strange’ and contradictory.

“Of course, crimes must be investigated regardless of who committed them. That includes the events of the early 1990s. Justice cannot be selective. However, refusing to discuss what happened and to defend the rights of the victims should not become a condition for peace.

“I was actively involved in the developments in the South Caucasus in the early 1990s. At the time, I headed the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly. I visited Nagorno-Karabakh many times and was directly involved in peacebuilding initiatives. Even then, it seemed to me that the conflict was rooted not only in the territorial issue but also in the problem of democracy. Authoritarian leaders use hatred and the image of an external enemy as a tool to stay in power. They convince society that they are protecting it from the neighboring country, creating an atmosphere of constant threat. Under such conditions, the conflict becomes not just a foreign policy problem but also a mechanism of domestic political control.

“Of course, Armenia’s situation differs from Azerbaijan’s: Armenia suffered a military defeat, and the consequences of that defeat are entirely different. But the underlying problem is the same: authoritarian political systems may need conflict to stay in power. That is why I do not believe that signing a peace agreement alone guarantees Armenia’s security and rules out a new war. In my view, long-term security cannot be ensured until democratic change takes place in Azerbaijan,” she said.

Speaking about why the Armenian government is unwilling to consistently defend the rights of Armenians forced to leave Nagorno-Karabakh, Kaldor suggested that the country’s leadership may be under some pressure. “But from whom exactly, and what political interests lie behind it, is a separate question,” she noted.

“I am also troubled by what is happening in Armenia itself today. I have always believed that the war against Armenia was aimed, among other things, at undermining its democratic development. And it is especially sad to see that, after the military defeat, the country faces new internal tensions. I assumed the defeat would lead to major political change. But perhaps it was precisely abandoning certain demands and shifting the political agenda that allowed the current government to stay in power,” she added.