Muslim World Report

Armenia's 90s Conflict: Undermined by War of Choice Arguments?

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 15, 2025 10:16 AM | 6 min read | 1162 words

TL;DR: This post explores the complexities of justifying war through the lens of the 90s conflict in Armenia, reflecting on the implications of such justifications on current conflicts. We delve into various scenarios including the acceptance of Russia’s justifications, recognition of Armenia’s historical claims, and the potential for diplomatic resolutions, highlighting the moral and ethical challenges in understanding warfare narratives.

Editorial: The Paradox of Justifying War in Historical Contexts

The Situation

The ongoing debate surrounding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reignited discussions about the moral and legal justifications for warfare, particularly through the lens of historical conflicts. The case of Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the 1990s provides a significant parallel worth exploring more deeply. Just as Russia has framed its actions in Ukraine as necessary for the protection of ethnic Russians, utilizing humanitarian justifications, Armenia sought to unify its population and assert independence against Azerbaijan’s territorial claims.

In both instances, the humanitarian narrative becomes a powerful tool employed to frame national aspirations as worthy of violent conflict.

Key Points:

  • The Nagorno-Karabakh war resulted in approximately 10,000 civilian deaths, raising essential questions about the moral cost of such conflicts.
  • While Armenia positioned itself as not an official belligerent, it deployed non-uniformed forces to protect ethnic Armenians, complicating the narratives surrounding the conflict (Kahn, 2002).
  • The opening of the Lachin corridor in May 1992 marked a significant escalation, blurring lines of accountability and complicating the discourse around Armenia’s involvement.

Such complexities highlight the dangers of oversimplified narratives that categorize actions as either justifiable or condemnable, revealing the intricate moral landscape of modern warfare.

As global reflections on Russia’s military actions continue, parallels with the Armenian case become striking. Both conflicts provoke critical dialogues about:

  • The value of human life amidst nationalistic aspirations.
  • The moral grounds upon which wars are waged.

The framing of these wars—whether as necessary or avoidable—poses a significant dilemma for policymakers and historians alike. The implications extend beyond borders, compelling us to confront uncomfortable truths about sovereignty, self-determination, and the dire consequences of decisions made in the name of national security (Patterson, 2013).

What If Russia’s Justifications Are Accepted?

If the international community were to accept Russia’s humanitarian justifications for its actions in Ukraine, it could set a precarious precedent for the treatment of territorial disputes globally. Nations with contentious borders may begin to adopt similar justifications, invoking the protection of perceived oppressed populations as a rationale for military action.

Potential Consequences:

  • Emboldened aggression: State and non-state actors might pursue aggressive territorial claims under the guise of humanitarian intervention, perpetuating a cycle of violence and destabilizing regions already fraught with ethnic tensions.
  • Legitimization of imperialist aspirations: Acceptance of such narratives risks legitimizing interventions that could obscure moral and legal validity, leading to a crisis in international relations and law (Dill & Shue, 2012).

The potential for widespread conflict increases as nations recognize the efficacy of using humanitarian rhetoric to justify military actions, regardless of underlying motives (Dexter, 2007).

Broader Implications:

  • Conflicts could arise from strategically using humanitarian language to justify expansionist policies.
  • A shift towards a normalization of military action as a solution to internal dissent could alter the global conflict resolution calculus.

What If Armenia’s Historical Claims Are Recognized?

What if the international community formally recognizes Armenia’s historical claims and grievances regarding Nagorno-Karabakh? Such recognition would represent a significant shift in global attitudes toward the conflict.

Possible Outcomes:

  • Greater autonomy or independence for ethnic Armenians could alter the geopolitical landscape of the South Caucasus.
  • However, this could escalate tensions with Azerbaijan, provoking military responses and steering both nations toward renewed violence.

International bodies like the United Nations may find themselves embroiled in the complex demands of self-determination versus national borders (Stahn & Kleffner, 2008). The regional implications of such recognition could catalyze movements in other conflicts rooted in similar historical grievances, destabilizing situations globally.

This potential recognition leads us to question the role of international law and ethics in the modern state system. If decisions are made on historical claims alone, reconciling with international law principles becomes problematic.

Key Considerations:

  • Increased calls for recognition of various historical injustices could inspire movements across regions, testing the balance of power within and between states.
  • How do historical grievances influence contemporary governance and conflict resolution?

What If a Diplomatic Resolution is Achieved?

What if a diplomatic resolution is brokered by external powers to address the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Such an outcome would underscore the potential for peaceful negotiations.

Requirements for Success:

  • A multilateral approach involving stakeholders such as Russia, Turkey, and Western nations is essential to create a framework for peace.
  • Compromises and robust mechanisms for overseeing implementation are necessary to ensure adherence to agreements (Patterson, 2013).

However, the challenge remains to address deep-seated grievances fueling the conflict for decades. Failure to confront these underlying issues could lead to a fragile peace.

Additional Challenges:

  • External interests must not overshadow local populations’ legitimate concerns.
  • Long-term sustainability of peace relies on involvement and commitment from local stakeholders.

Negotiations could pave the way for cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, fostering new economic partnerships and shared development initiatives. The complexities of such diplomacy require a nuanced approach that respects historical realities while promoting a forward-looking agenda.

International observers may also need to reconsider their roles in conflicts. A successful resolution could pivot towards fostering sustainable peace through development and cooperation, emphasizing long-term peacebuilding over short-term crisis management.

Conclusion

As we delve into the intricate dynamics surrounding warfare, national claims, and humanitarian narratives, the necessity for reflective discussion becomes evident. The evolving narratives of conflict compel us to analyze motivations behind justifications for war. Understanding the moral complexities in these situations is crucial for developing thoughtful responses to contemporary conflicts.

Engaging in this analysis requires an acknowledgment of the power of narratives that influence public perception and policy. As the global landscape evolves, a nuanced understanding of history, culture, and politics is essential in crafting responses prioritizing human dignity and justice.

In light of ongoing geopolitical developments, it is imperative to remain attuned to historical lessons, actively engaging in dialogues striving for a more equitable and peaceful global landscape. Policymakers, scholars, and citizens are called to foster environments where human rights, self-determination, and coexistence are paramount.

References

← Prev Next →