Land for Peace in Nagorny Karabakh? Political Geographies and Public Attitudes Inside a Contested De Facto State

Abstract

Discussions of the territorial conflict over Nagorny Karabakh often fail to convey the multiple political geographies at play in the dispute. This paper outlines six distinct political geographies—territorial regimes and geographical imaginations—that are important in understanding Armenian perspectives on the conflict only (Azerbaijani perspectives are the subject of ongoing research). It presents the results of a 2011 social survey in Nagorny Karabakh that measures the extent of support these contending spatial visions have among local Armenian residents of the area. The survey finds widespread support for the territorial maximalist conceptions. These results underscore an important chasm between international diplomatic conceptions of Nagorny Karabakh and the everyday spatial attitudes and perceptions of residents in these disputed territories.

Extracto

En los debates sobre el conflicto territorial de Nagorny Karabakh muchas veces no se comunican las diferentes geografías políticas en juego. En este artículo se describen seis geografías políticas distintas—regímenes territoriales e imaginaciones geográficas—que son importantes solamente para entender las perspectivas armenias acerca del conflicto (las perspectivas azerbaiyanas siguen siendo objeto de investigación). Se presentan los resultados de un estudio social de 2011 en Nagorny Karabakh en el que se mide el nivel de apoyo que tienen estas visiones espaciales en pugna entre los residentes armenios de la zona. En la encuesta se observa un apoyo generalizado a las concepciones territoriales más maximalistas. Estos resultados ponen de relieve un importante abismo entre las concepciones diplomáticas internacionales de Nagorny Karabakh y las actitudes y percepciones espaciales diarias de los residentes en estos territorios en disputa.

摘要

有关纳戈尔诺—卡拉巴赫（NagornyKarabakh）领土冲突的探讨，经常无法传达在该争议中作用的多重政治地理。本文概述理解亚美尼亚人看待冲突的观点时，相当重要的六个显着政治地理——领土政权以及地理想像（有关阿塞拜疆的观点，则为正在研究中的主题）。本文呈现2011年在纳戈尔诺—卡拉巴赫所进行的社会调查，此一调查测量该地区的在地亚美尼亚居民对于这些相互竞争的空间想像的支持度。该调查发现了对于领土最大化概念的普遍支持。此一调查结果，凸显了国际外交对纳戈尔诺—卡拉巴赫的概念，和生活在这些具有争议的领土上的居民的每日空间态度与感知之间，存在着重大的分裂。

Résumé

Souvent les discussions sur le conflit territorial pour le Haut-Karabakh ne rendent pas fidèlement compte des géographies politiques multiples en jeu. Cet article esquisse six géographies politiques distinctes—des régimes territoriales et des géographies imaginaires—qui sont importantes pour ne comprendre que les perspectives arméniennes sur le conflit (les perspectives azerbaïdjanaises faisant actuellement l'objet de recherches). On présente les résultats d'une enquête sociale menée en 2011 en Haut-Karabakh qui évalue l'importance du soutien qu'ont reçu ces visions géographiques opposées parmi les autochtones de la région de l'Arménie en question. À partir de l'enquête il s'avère un grand soutien en faveur des conceptions maximalistes les plus territoriales. Ces résultats soulignent le gouffre qui sépare les conceptions diplomatiques internationales du Haut-Karabakh et les mentalités et les perspectives géographiques de tous les jours des habitants de ces territoires contestés.

Keywords:

• Nagorny Karabakh
• territorial preferences
• political geographies
• de facto sovereignty

Acknowledgements

This research project is part of a larger De Facto State Research Project funded by US National Science Foundation grant number 0827016 in the Human and Social Dynamics Initiative. This project is scholarly scientific and does not take a position on the legality or otherwise of de facto states. We wish to thank Professor Vladimir Kolossov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, for his invaluable work helping with survey design and implementation across the four post-Soviet de facto states that make up the project. We thank Professor Gevork Pogosian of the Sociological Research Center at the Armenian Academy of Sciences in Yerevan and his staff for administering a survey in Nagorny Karabakh as part of the De Facto State Research Project. We also acknowledge the many state officials, students and professors, and members of social-political organizations who met with us about this project in Tiraspol, Chisinau, Tskhinval(i), Sukhum(i), and Stepanakert. Special thanks are due to Laurence Broers, Thomas De Waal, Emil Sanamyan, Kim Marten and others at the Association for the Study of Nationalities conference in April 2013 for comments on drafts of this manuscript. None are responsible for any errors or arguments herein. Thanks once again to Nancy Thorwardson, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, for preparing the maps and graphs for publication.

Notes

1. For writing convenience we do not propose to use the qualifier ‘de facto’ every time the NKR is cited in this paper. We use it here and assume it hereafter. Its absence should not be taken as evidence of any denial of this de facto status or legitimating of this contested entity. The same disclaimer applies to place names used in the text as we use the best known monikers outside the region.

2. See http://www.president.nkr.am/ and http://www.nkrusa.org/

3. Whether and how the territorial signifiers ‘Judea and Samaria’ function in opposition to the West Bank’ in the Israel/Palestinian context is similar to how ‘Artsakh’ functions relative to ‘Nagorny Karabakh’ is a question that deserves further research as part of a broader scholarly investigation of ‘sacral geographies’ and ‘spiritual geopolitics’ (see Yiftachel, 2006; Toal and Dahlman, 2011).

4. Reflecting the way the name now works in modern nationalist discourse, two cartographic representations of Artsakh as a definable territory are featured on its Wikipedia entry. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artsakh

5. For the translated text of this declaration see: http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/declaration_independence.shtml

6. In November 1991 the ethnonationalist Serbian Democratic Party in Bosnia-Herzegovina organized a referendum that was worked to constitute Bosnian Serbs as a distinct collective people, with a right to their own ethnoterritorial homeland.

7. For the full text see http://www.nkr.am/en/constitution/9/

8. The following citations are from an interview with David Babayan, 30 June 2011, in Stepanakert.

9. A glimpse into the realities of life in the Lachin corridor in the late 2000s can be seen in the short film ‘Swept Away by Life’, produced in the framework of the Armenian-Azerbaijani film-making project Dialogue Through Film, supported by Conciliation Resources and available at www.vimeo.com/channels/dtf

10. Their website is http://www.raa-am.com/

11. For example, in late 2005 videos emerged of Azerbaijani troops attacking the UNESCO-protected Armenian gravestones in an ancient Armenian cemetery near Djulfa in Nakhichevan. These actions elicited condemnation from the European Parliament.