The Globally Relevant Lessons of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

In a TV interview in the aftermath of the World Food Program (WFP) receiving this year's Nobel Peace Prize, a former senior Japanese official at the WFP spoke of the one big lesson from his more than 30 years with the organization. He noted that every inequality, no matter how far away, is relevant to every nation and people around the world, and it is necessary for everyone to keep their eyes peeled for every conflict that emerges to better understand themselves. The words of the former WFP manager could not more in time today especially in Japan, as a deadly military conflict rages in the Caucasus with little mainstream coverage.

At the heart of the low-level war between the neighboring countries of Armenia and Azerbaijan is Nagorno-Karabakh, a region that was subjected to a bloody conflict when both states declared their independence from the Soviet Union. Both sides have their justifiable reasons. Armenia notes that the majority of the region's people are ethnic Armenians clamoring for their nominal overlords in Baku, the Azeri capital. Azerbaijan notes that the region is not in dispute, having been part of the country during the Soviet period and internationally recognized as such in the post-Soviet era. 

But even with justifications on both sides, there is no easy way to answer who is right and who is wrong. The conflict over Karabakh is essentially one of emotionally charged nationalism, one that defies logic and seen as purely zero-sum in the eyes of the two peoples. In countless social media posts and comment sections below international news coverage of the renewed prospect of all-out war, Azeris and Armenians each claim that Karabakh is theirs and theirs alone, showing no signs of compromise. And as their respective general public express their firm nationalistic views, the two governments find themselves unable to back down lest they are labeled weak and traitorous. 

The emotional nationalism shown by the two populations over Karabakh is by no means unique. Dozens of frozen border conflicts remain around the world, each involving popular sentiments that conclude that the land in question belongs exclusively to one side or the other. Yet, in every dispute, the reality is much more nuanced. No region is home to only people of one ethnicity, especially in a place like the Caucasus where groups of people came and went, leaving the very concept of ethnic identity flexible and socially adjustable. In such an environment, no matter how one chooses to draw national borders, some people will be on the wrong side, drawing the ire of hardline nationalists.

That is not to mention that national governments and outside powers play an enormous role in shaping those ethnic identities and nationalism. Like governments of many other supposedly monoethnic nation-state today, those of Azerbaijan and Armenia encourage the socialization of their citizens as exclusively one race, through schools, the media, and other national institutions. Western notions of ethnic self-determination and the Soviet tradition of ethnic homelands only help nationalists dig in through appealing to one-and-only ethnic pride. Such ethnic pride has gone global and militant as the backlash against globalization continues apace.

Indeed, outside powers have proven themselves to be shamelessly self-interested in taking advantage of pure nationalism in promoting their own agendas. The conflict over Karabakh has already drawn in Turkey, with its cultural and religious ties with the Azeris, Iran, with its large Azeri minority, Russia, with a defense pack with Armenia, and the Armenian diaspora, with their sometimes influential presence throughout much of the Western world and the wider Middle Eastern region. As is the case for any conflict over land today, what may seem to be the business of only two peoples are bound to draw in the big powers with their own aims and goals.

The historical and contemporary involvement of those outside powers threatens to make the conflicts deadlier than they should be. Soviets deliberately put a large Armenian minority within the borders of Azerbaijan to keep the two people dependent on Moscow for peace, a tactic that is also used, and caused so much conflict, in Central Asia. The memories of Turkey's continued refusal to recognize the Ottoman genocide of Armenians and its provision of military drones and mercenary soldiers to suppose Azerbaijan only galvanize the continued animosity of Armenians around the world toward Turks and Azeris. Such hostilities can be tapped for political capital at home and around the world.

Because a regional conflict like Karabakh's can so quickly become a global one, nationalists must think twice before fanning the flames of war and go on a one-sided flag-waving campaign of dominating the global narrative on the conflict. In a globalized world with too many regional powers of nearly equal stature, and a lack of an interested hegemon that can force through a solution (whether it be one country like the US or an international organization like the UN), all local conflicts quickly become international. As more and more players get involved, nationalists may find themselves realizing that the conflict is no longer about a piece of land and who it belongs to, but much larger forces that they cannot control. They will come to regret their initial excitement for war.