How should we define peace?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared, while speaking before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict “has ended with the agreement I signed yesterday.” He was referencing the agreement signed on TRIPP, the Trump Route for International Peace, as conclusive evidence that the focus has shifted from conflict to opportunity. This is probably a true statement — from the U.S. perspective. Interested parties should always bear in mind that agreements and “deals” between nations are always about self-interest. One reason there are a variety of perspectives on multilateral agreements is that each party looks at them through the lens of their self-interest.  For the United States, the interests lie in the absence of military conflict which enables economic benefit and regional hegemony. The South Caucasus has emerged as a matter of self-interest because it represents a breach in Russia’s sandbox. Weakening Russian influence is in America’s current interest, and Armenia has become an element of opportunity. In that sense, the U.S. definition of peace is narrowly defined. Peace, to those affected on a daily basis, is much more than the absence of military aggression. The presence of the United States, for what is an economic and political prospect, has put Aliyev and his rogue nation in an awkward position. In the chess game of geopolitics, he has been reduced to rhetoric, unable to militarily attack Armenia. The financial investment projected by the United States in the TRIPP project is the de facto short-term security measure for Armenia. Aliyev has been temporarily neutralized because war is bad for business.  The most appropriate definition of peace can be discovered by the nations directly impacted — specifically those that have been victimized and have the least leverage. That party is Armenia, which has also emerged as a player rather than an observer forced to accept the results. When searching for the true definition of peace from an Armenian viewpoint, it is helpful to examine this issue from the perspective of Armenian citizens.  It is interesting to note that voters in both the United States and Armenia have consistently stated that security and the economy are the most important factors in their lives. In the United States, issues such as border security, preventing terror threats and crime rates are integral parts of security. The economy is always viewed from a personal-impact perspective, with employment, wages, discretionary income, inflation and debt all playing a role. It is similar in Armenia, with recent polling listing national security and the economy as the primary areas of focus. Obviously, the details of security are different for a country that has been blockaded by neighbors to the east and west for more than 30 years. At the end of the day, people, regardless of where they reside, simply want to feel safe and have an opportunity for a reasonable quality of life.  The people of Armenia have a right to the same hopes and dreams. This is why their definition of peace rightfully goes beyond the minimalist absence of active military conflict. Those with the most to lose and gain should carry significance in the definition of lasting peace. The people of Armenia live in a democratic society, and peace affects their ability to pursue the fruits of democracy. It is doubtful that citizens of Azerbaijan, living in a despotic dictatorship, will enjoy the same trickle-down effect.  The most appropriate definition of peace can be discovered by the nations directly impacted — specifically those that have been victimized and have the least leverage. The people of Armenia must emerge from this process with their dignity intact and hope for a bright future. They have already suffered incredibly in terms of human loss, territory and psychological trauma. Despite public perception, Armenia does have some leverage in this process.  Currently, there is no signed peace treaty. There are “frameworks” and “intentions,” but not a signed document that defines peace. Turkey and Azerbaijan have taken advantage of this extended delay period to declare their expected preconditions, primarily focused on meddling in Armenia’s internal affairs with demands for constitutional changes. The TRIPP program and continued Western partnerships have continued in parallel, increasing the expectations of a signed peace treaty.  With the Armenian parliamentary elections now concluded, the interplay had slowed during the campaign period but should accelerate over the summer months. Azerbaijan has been constrained to rhetoric on “Western Azerbaijan” and “returning Azerbaijani refugees.” This subdues the victimized Azerbaijani citizens by assuring them that their leaders have not softened as a result of a peace process. Armenia has repeatedly stated its willingness to sign the peace treaty and conclude the process. Azerbaijan and Turkey are engaged in an awkward attempt to slow the process while remaining publicly committed to it. Buying time creates the possibility for more advantageous geopolitical dynamics for Azerbaijan. This is an opportunity for Armenia to connect the peace agreement to issues that are more clearly aligned with true and lasting peace. It has been reasonably established that the peace framework lies within the areas of security and economics. The TRIPP program, as defined, addresses many concerns through the opportunities of prosperity from open borders and by creating an interdependency that minimizes the chances of military conflict. It will be increasingly difficult for Azerbaijan to attack Armenia as this campaign of partnerships and investment broadens. The Armenian people, however, should have higher expectations.  One of the major pillars of the peace agreement is the embrace of mutual recognition of territorial integrity. While participating in the snail-paced demarcation and delimitation process, Armenia already has internationally recognized sovereign territory of 29,743 square kilometers that has been long established in post-Soviet agreement. The borders are defined. This has also been agreed to by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan, as a result of a variety of border incursions, currently illegally occupies about 200 square kilometers of sovereign Armenian territory. The withdrawal of the Azerbaijani military and the territory’s return to Armenia must be part of the signed peace treaty.  What credibility does a peace treaty have when one party that has declared its commitment to territorial integrity and accepted the definition of Armenia refuses to withdraw from sovereign territory? This cannot be delayed for closure at an undetermined future time. The visibility and leverage exist today. Another factor in this hypocrisy is that these incursions on the eastern border occurred during the period when Azerbaijan was demanding a “corridor” through Syunik. With the TRIPP agreement, that demand is void, and any actions taken must be withdrawn. The people of Armenia, particularly those in the border provinces, will never enjoy the personal benefits of peace if violations such as this are left to be resolved in the future. Peace is not simply the absence of violence but the elimination of blatant territorial injustices. The absence of fear is the largest benefit to the citizens of Armenia. The matter of our hostages held illegally in Baku prisons is a highly emotional and painful experience for Armenians while increasingly evolving into a humanitarian crisis. There is no justification for holding any political or military figure, particularly after a peace agreement. Their incarceration makes a mockery of any relationship between justice and the Azerbaijani judicial system and defies any logic within a peace agreement. Whether the argument for their immediate release is based on international law, conventions on detainees from military conflicts or simply moral decency, Armenia should use its limited leverage before signing a peace agreement to ensure their release.  Armenia has always cooperated and should use its credibility as a good-faith partner to insist on their release within the definition of peace. The issue of dignity is an important variable in this equation. Our people have suffered terribly in this Artsakh experience. Once again, the horrific loss of life, territory and ethnic cleansing are fresh in the minds of a new generation. We need to bring our people home as one way to restore our dignity. True peace restores dignity and opens the door for a new chapter.  Opportunities to limit long-term trauma are essential. The Artsakh experience has delivered a wide range of emotions, from heroic joy to the pain of loss. Artsakh is a fresh wound, and the leaders in jail reflect our pain. If we are to heal, we must take advantage of what we can see before us. The Armenians in jail and the leverage of a peace agreement must be connected.  Despite the euphoria by some of the Western parties in the peace process, Azerbaijan continues to make official statements that not only lack a factual basis but are directly contrary to building a credible peace. References to “Western Azerbaijan” and the return of “Azerbaijani refugees” add no value to the peace process and only serve to erode the limited trust that exists. Azerbaijan must be directed by the third-party brokers to cease and desist. If Armenia were to act like Azerbaijan, it could claim all of Azerbaijan through historical reference to Tigran the Great, or perhaps we should discuss the 300,000 Armenians purged from Azerbaijan proper during the waning days of the Soviet Union.  Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan recently responded to Azerbaijani statements on “Western Azerbaijan” as a direct threat to Armenia’s territorial integrity. The United States and Europe must be convinced that this behavior by Azerbaijan is truly a threat to peace. For more than 30 years, Azerbaijan has developed institutionalized systems of anti-Armenian racism in its educational system and public society. Specific references to “Western Azerbaijan” are overtly inconsistent with any definition of territorial integrity, and suggestions of population transfers of Azerbaijanis into Armenia are absurd. Opportunities to limit long-term trauma are essential. Azerbaijan must decide whether it truly can embrace peace by shedding the racist, violent and aggressive behavior that has characterized its relations for more than 30 years. This must be a provision of the peace agreement. Including the resolution of these issues in the definition of peace will strengthen the probability of a lasting peace agreement. Signing a peace deal without withdrawing from sovereign territory and releasing illegally held officials limits the confidence people have in any agreement — confidence that is necessary to restore dignity and remove fear of the future. The term peace is often associated with a spiritual state where faith delivers an absence of fear. The people of Armenia will have peace when they no longer fear the present and can embrace the future. Let’s define it in a manner that gives the citizens of Armenia dignity, confidence and support for a brighter future. The post How should we define peace? appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.