The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Armenia, On Its Own?
The West's indifference so far results from hypocrisy, cynicism, and shortsightedness about its own interests
Last week, a dictatorship—Azerbaijan—invaded the territory of an aspiring democracy—Armenia. Hundreds of Armenians were killed in a matter of hours, and Azerbaijan infiltrated deep inside Armenian territory. Although the two countries fought two years ago over the disputed region of Nagorno Karabakh—Armenian in population but within the borders of Azerbaijan—this invasion was qualitatively different. Resolving the Karabakh conflict was not the aim. Azerbaijan seeks large swaths of territory inside Armenia to create a land bridge to Turkey, thus establishing a pan-Turkic union from Europe to Central Asia, long the goal of Azerbaijan's patron, Turkey. Armenians stand in the way of this project, as they did 100 years ago, at the time of the Armenian Genocide.
Given the Western reaction to the recent invasion of another aspiring democracy—Ukraine—by a different dictatorship—Russia—you might have expected the West to rush to Armenia's support. The West's initial reaction, though, was rather different: half-hearted expressions of concern, coupled with calls for both sides, the aggressor and the victim, to stop fighting. Why?
In Compact Magazine this week, I explain that the West's indifference to Armenia results from a combination of hypocrisy, cynicism, and shortsightedness. The West's concern for democracy is highly selective, operative only where the West sees its interests at stake. Here, the West apparently has concluded that its interest lies in appeasing Azerbaijan, which can help supply gas to Europe and check Russia and Iran in the South Caucasus.
Hypocrisy in the pursuit of national interest is one thing: not admirable, but not uncommon and at least comprehensible. Here, though, the West is acting hypocritically in a way that goes against its interests. Azerbaijan can offer little to the European Union in terms of gas exports. And abandoning Armenia to its fate will do little to contain Russia or Iran. In the end, it will only lessen Western influence in the region:
In reality, Azerbaijan lacks sufficient gas to meet EU expectations, and the "critical infrastructure" for extracting and transporting Azeri gas is owned by the Russian petroleum giant, Lukoil. The deal will thus do little to end Russian dominance over Europe's energy supplies, and may even line Russian pockets.
Or consider the canard that Armenia is "Russia's satellite and Iran's ally." By contrast, the argument goes, the West can rely on Azerbaijan to check those two nations and advance Western interests. This is false. Russia has a military base in Armenia, but Russia has very strong ties with Azerbaijan, as well. Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine, Aliyev traveled to Moscow to sign a cooperation agreement with Moscow—an agreement, the Azeri strongman boasted, "that brings our relations to the level of an alliance." For its part, Armenia has resisted supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, despite Kremlin pressure.
Russia has studiously maintained neutrality in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Indeed, in the current crisis, it has refused Armenia's request for military assistance, even though it has a treaty obligation to protect Armenia if invaded. While Azerbaijan was attacking Armenia this week, Putin, Aliyev, and Erdogan were photographed sharing a friendly moment at the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Samarkand.
Regarding Iran, the situation is similarly complicated. Armenia has historical ties to Iran that go back millennia, and the Islamic Republic insists it won't tolerate a change in Armenia's borders now. But so far, Tehran has not offered Armenia real assistance. On the contrary, Iranian authorities vocally supported Azerbaijan's 2020 action, cheering Aliyev's "liberation" of Karabakh. And this month, Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan signed a joint declaration on developing a trilateral north-south transport corridor to link the three countries economically—and, of course, to cut out the West in the important South Caucasus hub. Supporting Azerbaijan against Armenia won't isolate Iran.
Thankfully, it looks like the West, or at least the US, may be beginning to see the light. The US has stepped up its involvement, green lighting a visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Armenia this past weekend and hosting a quick meeting with the belligerents in New York. The US doesn't need to commit military resources. But it can stop supplying millions of dollars of military assistance to Azerbaijan, as it does every year, and can impose sanctions on the family of Azeri strongman Ilham Aliyev until Azerbaijan withdraws its troops from Armenian territory. For its part, the European Union can stop trying to make deals with a dictator whose conduct is scarcely different from Putin's. And both Washington and Brussels can increase financial support for Armenia.
You can read my whole essay in Compact here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The West is used to letting Russia keep the peace in former Soviet states. The peacekeepers were withdrawn to fight in Ukraine.
"Letting" is an odd word usage. It's not like Russia gave the West a choice.
I burst into my neighbors' houses each time they have conflicts because I am responsible for their lives and no harm can arise from my altruism.
If one neighbor is a mass murderer and the other Bil Keane's Family Circus, you are god damned wrong. Free people have every right to get involved in helping others remain free.
We might choose not to, to not risk our own lives, or treasure. But morally? All systems go!
You've literally used my reductio ad absurdum likening dictatorships to giant bank hostage situations, and come to the opposite conclusion.
Seen libertarian types for that matter, talking heads, who say "none of our business!"
Send not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Why would a Volokh Conspirator -- and Compact, the "antiliberal" magazine -- care about this dispute, which has simmered for at least three decades (and could be seen to have been precipitated, at least recently, by Armenian seizure of its neighbor's territory)?
The answer might be found in the fourth paragraph:
" the world’s first Christian nation "
That should appeal to Edwin Aponte, one of three cofounders of Compact and a "Marxist populist."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/arts/compact-magazine-conservatives-marxists.html
I'm not really into Marxism myself, but surely the Marxists are among the forces of progress, not among the forces of rural religious clinger right-wingery.
You should like the Marxists - not only are they not conservative, but they have plenty of experience stomping people into submission and forcing progress down throats.
Compact appears to be a publication for everyone who dislikes the liberal-libertarian mainstream, at which varied misfits and culture war casualties (Marxists, right-wingers, white nationalists, Christian Dominionists, MAGA and QAnon fans, etc.) huddle together for warmth and mutter about all of this damnable progress.
You're getting so close! The correct axis for political analysis isn't left-right, but freedom vs. dictatorship. "Socialism", "Nazis and fascism", "Communism", these are all patter to get the masses behind you so you can seize power and be the Kleptocrat-in-Chief.
This is the first time you've referred to Marxists as culture-war casualties. It's a toss-off line for you when you inconveniently find your narrative disrupted.
Why not refer to Marxists as culture war casualties? They have been as irrelevant as bigoted right-wingers during the most recently half-century or so of American progress.
Whether relevant or not, they haven't exactly been in your crosshairs, have they? You're able to work up indignation against them when they join with "bigoted right-wingers," but if Marxists avoid right-wing alliances your political analysis doesn't involve denouncing them.
You are a Marxist.
Marxists are largely irrelevant in modern America -- as they should be, in my judgment -- although they seem to enjoy a rich life in the minds of certain delusional right-wing misfits.
Aren't "right-wing misfits" irrelevant, too, in your view?
Of the two groups, which do you spend the most time talking about?
Right-wingers. Probably because of the bigotry. And the superstition (people should believe as they wish, but superstition has no legitimate role in reasoned debate among competent adults, particularly with respect to public affairs). And the belligerent ignorance (disdain for science and legitimate education).
Mostly the bigotry.
It's certainly a good thing that Marxists are free from bigotry and superstition. Otherwise your attitude might look somewhat selective.
But when Marxists kill large numbers of people, it's not based on bigotry against "counterrevolutionaries," "kulaks," etc. And it's not based on a superstitious adherence to Marxist theories at the expense of the reality-based world.
Instead, they're progressives determined to shove progress down the throats of the recalcitrant, and to stomp them into submission.
And they're devoted to science, because Marxism is a science, they say so themselves.
As the Biden white house is a pinnacle of morality and effectiveness, I'm sure they'll get right on it. After all, Samantha Power, who got famous writing a book about the Armenian Genocide, runs an entire foreign policy agency within the administration!
We all know that Biden's involvement in Ukraine was the result of careful planning and a principled stance against dictators, not stumbling into a war due to looking weak and a pudding brain president inviting Putin to make a small incursion and then trying to make the best of it to look tough following a disastrous pullout from another central Asian nation and approval ratings hitting new lows every week.
It's probably just as well for Armenia. So far, Joe Biden's foreign policy is a coinflip on whether he gives you weapons or orders a drone strike on a house full of children.
Armenia's patron state is Russia. As the OP notes, Russia has two military bases within Armenia. The US and EU are currently at odds with Russia and fighting a proxy war. So the OP is wondering why the US doesn't extend itself to propping up a pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine nation during the current conflict?
Here's the nut graf:
"There is a better way. The West doesn’t need to commit military resources in the South Caucasus. But the United States, for example, can stop supplying millions of dollars of military assistance to Azerbaijan, as it does every year, and can impose sanctions on the Aliyev family until Azerbaijan withdraws its troops from Armenian territory. The European Union can stop trying to make deals with a dictator whose conduct is scarcely different from Putin’s. And both Washington and Brussels can increase financial support for Armenia."
The stuff about not helping Azerbaijan seems fair. The stuff about aiding Armenia sounds like interventionism. Is there a security treaty between the U. S. and Armenia? No? Well, stop taking on new debt to throw our weight around abroad.
We don't have to choose between neocon intervention in favor of Azerbaijan and postliberal intervention in favor of Armenia.
On the subject of who we like, there is a substantial Armenian population in my area. Enough to have influence on teaching genocide in school, for example. I have seen Armenian writing in the wild. To the extent we have ties to either country, I would think Armenia would have more influence.
In your neighborhood maybe, but overall there are roughly twice as many Americans of Ukrainian ancestry than of Armenian.
I meant to compare Armenia to Azerbaijan, not Armenia to Ukraine.
I have been told that Watertown has the second highest proportion of Armenian residents of any city in the US.
So your sample is pretty biased.
Watertown, Massachusetts, that is. You should know that not all of the commentariat are Massholes.
What's wrong with Massachusetts?
Too many educated, successful, modern residents?
Not enough rattlesnake-juggling exhibitions and NASCAR events?
Too many legitimate, highly ranked, reason-based teaching and research institutions?
Not enough Confederate flags, handmaidens, goofy red hats, and people who speak in tongues?-
Yes. Watertown, MA.
John has mentioned a few times that he lives in the Boston area, so I sort of assumed that it was clear which Watertown I was talking about.
Sorry if I confused you.
Bernard, you did not confuse me as I am a Masshole who has dear friends from Watertown. Some of them are Armenian.
I have lived in three municipalities that border Watertown, Massachusetts.
"I would think Armenia would have more influence."
Yes, lots of rich and/or famous Armenians [Kardashian family, Dave Saville of Chipmunk fame, many others you've heard of]. Compare wikipedia lists, the Azerbaijan list is much smaller and very obscure.
Its largely why the Armenian Genocide gets publicity and Congress's interest.
Bob from Ohio: And Mark Movsesian
Western Armenians (the ones who tend to be dispersed around the globe) don't like Eastern Armenians (the ones who stayed behind).
(1) The Western Armenians used to live in the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), which explains why so many of the survivors are scattered around the World.
(2) The Eastern Armenians were shared between Iran and the Russian Empire. Many of them moved to Russia, which explains why Russia is relatively friendly. They also tried to cultivate a friendly relationship with Iran, but were disappointed by Iran's neutrality during Azerbaijan's 2020 attack..
(3) Western Armenians are sympathetic to Eastern Armenians, particularly against the Turks.
Sadly, that's correct. Cambodia, Rwanda, Myanmar, and other neglected cases stand in stark contrast with Ukraine. It's not clear to me who is leading and who is following, governments, the people, or the media.
Of those, only Myanmar was even barely a democracy and the ethnic conflict sadly intensified under democracy. The clearest difference between these conflicts and the current Ukrainian conflict is that we are backing a democratically elected government defending from foreign invasion. Your examples are products of internal stability and civil war, and we didn't back Ukraine much when that had been the case.
"The West's concern for democracy is highly selective, operative only where the West sees its interests at stake."
Welcome to reality. Nations have interests which they act on. Sometimes idealistic countries like the US act anyways but I wouldn't count on it.
My response to the quote.....
Well yes, and why exactly is this problematic?
I think "The West", that monolithic hive-mind, is indifferent to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict mostly because it doesn't know about it.
A quick check of the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN show a half dozen or so articles each in the past 4-6 months, half of which are in reference to the Ukraine conflict.
I bet if you asked the majority of Congress what their thoughts on Nagorno Karabakh or the Azerbaijani invasion were, and they'd be unable to respond.
Trying to ascribe deep motives <i.to anyone in this case seems way out of line.
So many foreign correspondents got laid off to cut costs.
When Russia and Germany invaded Poland in 1939, France and England jointly declared war. If it wasnt for the fast response of those democracies to mobilize their armies and throw out the invaders, saving Poland and their Jewish population from being annihilated, WWII would have lasted much longer and killed millions of people.
Hold all calls, please - we have a Godwin!
Azerbaijan and Armenia are not major powers like "Russia and Germany" were in 1939. Small, obscure nations often get outside interventions.
I don't think you guys read John W's counterfactual carefully enough.
The one problem with this scenario is that World War II probably still would have lasted "much longer" and killed "millions of people". It's just that the invasion of Poland wouldn't be part of "World War II". The Polish Incident would have been to WWII as the Balkan Wars were to WWI.
The latest the WWII would start would be early 1942. Japan had only three choices at the end of 1941: war with the US, UK, and Netherlands (and probably France as well), ending their war with China, or fighting a modern war with zero oil. And they weren't going to go with #2.
You can add yourself to the list: please re-read John's post and you might discover something called sarc.
Yes, John W was talking about a counterfactual where England and France intervened against Germany (and possibly Russia) and so World War II was nipped in the bud. Of course England and France did intervene (against Germany only) and World War II happened, with all the parade of actual horribles that it involved.
My second paragraph was just pointing out that if the counterfactual were history, then the Polish Incident would not have been World War II. It would just have been a minor conflict. But World War II would still have happened. Off topic.
Yes, intervention sometimes fails spectacularly. I just am more interested in the question of what would happen in the counterfactual presented than whether England and France failing to save Poland in 1939 means anything about a potential intervention by the US (or Russia) in Armenia would be successful.
Incidentally, if France had invaded Germany in October, 1939, there is very little Germany could have done, with all their tanks, all their modern aircraft, and most of their infantry in Poland. So intervention if properly done might have worked in that specific case.
It's also important to remember that none of the democracies could have intervened in Poland in 1939, it just wasn't physically possible. Armenia sits like Poland did. Are we supposed to intervene in Armenia through Turkey? Iran? Georgia?
None of the steps Prof. No Sedona is calling for would appear to require anyone to be physically present in Armenia (or Azerbaijan).
Our troops should be protecting our borders along Mexico to protect us from foreign enemies and then they should encircle DC to protect us against domestic ones.
Armenia is part of the CSTO (former-USSR's NATO) and theoretically has six allies that they've now called upon. If the CSTO claims it's not a real invasion (again) then we can consider "doing something." If we do something, though, we'll come to the point where Armenians are more interested in hurting Azerbaijanis than in concluding the conflict.
Since Armenia has been providing arms to Russia for use against Ukraine, the US has an immediate interest in ensuring that Armenia reserve any other arms it has to defend itself, and a long term interest in seeing Armenia suffer consequences for aiding Russia's aggression.
"Since Armenia has been providing arms to Russia for use against Ukraine" Evidence? Typically Russia supplies arms to Armenia. Armenia doesn't exactly have a massive arms Industry.
On a larger note, Armenia is in a bit of a bind geopolitically. They are bordered by countries (Azerbaijan, Turkey) which don't exactly like it. Russia acts as a counterweight to that, while not directly bordering Armenia. A bit of "real-politik" is needed here on Armenia's part.
Armenia is basically a vassal state of Russia. They have two military bases in Armenia and are a member of Russia's version of NATO
They are also occupying part of Azerbaijan, admittedly where a lot of Armenians are, but it's literally the same playbook Russia follows
Azerbaijan attacked because Russia has been exposed
It's not quite the same situation...
The Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast has a long...long...history. For more than 100 years actually, it's been a point of contention between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It's 80-90% ethnic Armenian. And there's a reason it's the "autonomous" Oblast...because of historical Azerbaijani discrimination against the Oblast.
So, Nancy Pelosi is going over to set up an 'arrangement' for kickbacks presumably? Must need a change from using Ukraine for corrupt transactions.