Connect with us

EU

Time for liberal thinking in Nagarno-Karabakh conflict

SHARE:

Published

on

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Possible scenarios for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is in its hottest phase of the last 30 years, are one of the most baffling problems for the international community in recent days. Whether the last hostility is “the storm before the calm” or relatively " the calm before the storm" is vital for the future of the region and perhaps the world, writes  Louse Auge.

Earlier, it was absolutely normal to make prognosis on the development of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on two main scenarios.

The first and of course the desirable one was to find a solution to the conflict through peace talks. However, the failure of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs to mediate during long 26 years has cast a dark line over this scenario.

The second, but undesirable scenario was another war which also included following two major scenarios: war limited between Armenia and Azerbaijan or a larger-scale war fuelled by the intervention of external forces, first of all Turkey and Russia, turning it into a global catastrophe.

It is unreasonable for Turkey, a strategic ally of Azerbaijan, to intervene directly into this conflict without an additional third country factor, as the military capabilities of Azerbaijan, have proved it unnecessary. Thus, the main threat is the provocation of Russia by Armenia, which is suffering heavy military defeats against Azerbaijan.

It is no longer a secret that Armenia’s primary goal by subjecting densely populated residential areas of Azerbaijan, including those far away from the frontline, to heavy artillery and missile attacks demonstratively from the territories of Armenia, was to provoke Azerbaijan to take similar retaliatory measures, ultimately hoping for direct Russian military intervention. However, despite numerous attempts of Armenia, the restrained approach of the Azerbaijani political and military leadership, as well as the realpolitik and rational approach of the Russian political establishment, led by President Putin, dangerous, mindless and criminal efforts of Armenia have so far been thwarted.

After another talks in Geneva on October 30 between the foreign ministers of the countries’ in war and envoys from France, Russia and the United States, it became clearer that the only scenario in force now is for Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve the conflict among themselves - by peace or war. Armenia's unwillingness to leave the occupied Azerbaijani territories voluntarily makes a peaceful solution impossible. Which unfortunately leaves only one scenario valid - war.

Advertisement

However, against the background of the international community's longstanding thesis that there is no military solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, a necessary question arises: a peaceful solution has not been possible, and 26 years of negotiations have failed to bring lasting peace to the region. But after one month of military confrontation, there are new realities on the ground now. Will the results of this war eventually bring peace and stability to the region?

Interestingly, by drawing some parallels between conflictology and economics, it is possible to clue an answer to this question. The fact that the war is fought only between Azerbaijan and Armenia and there is no outside interference, inevitably brings to mind the liberal economic theory in which economic relations are formed only on the basis of supply and demand without state intervention. According to the proponents of this theory, in this case, the market will be regulated by the "invisible hand", a metaphor, introduced by the 18th-century Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith. Liberalism defines the “invisible hand” as an unobservable market force that helps the demand and supply of goods in a free market to reach equilibrium automatically. This theory also supports the idea that shortcomings and crises in economic activity can be effectively addressed through an "invisible hand" based on pure market principles. On the other hand, although government intervention to the economy may have some regulatory effects, it will not be sustainable and long-lasting. Self-regulation of the market is a condition for economic stability.

Despite all its shortcomings and criticisms, this theory perhaps is the best solution to apply to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict at this stage.

Natural equilibrium in the region is possible only through mutual recognition and restoration of international borders. Without ensuring these basics, any outside interference or attempts to re-freeze the conflict will not bring a lasting solution and will eventually lead to future new wars.

So far, the battles of last month show that Azerbaijan is closer to determined victory in this war. As a result, Armenia will have to renounce its territorial claims once and for all, leaving no reason for further wars with Azerbaijan. The huge demographic, economic and military gap of Armenia against Azerbaijan and, as well as the absence of any claims of Azerbaijan to the territories of Armenia, will preclude a new war between the two countries in the future.

Thus, as painful as it may sound, if the world really wants a durable peace in the region, the only way now is to let the warring parties to find the necessary balance among themselves. "Laissez-faire, laissez-passer", as the liberals recap it nicely. And peace and stability, which many consider highly unlikely, will not be far off.

All opinions expressed in the above article are those of the author alone, and do not reflect any opinions on the part of EU Reporter.

Share this article:

EU Reporter publishes articles from a variety of outside sources which express a wide range of viewpoints. The positions taken in these articles are not necessarily those of EU Reporter.

Trending