Azeri paper says new “geopolitical master” emerges in region

Zerkalo, Baku
3 Nov 04

Text of A. Rasidoglu’s report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 3
November headlined “Merzlyakov diverts world attention” and subheaded
“By that the Minsk Group co-chairman gives way to resumption of
military operations in Karabakh”.

It was noted already that the situation with Azerbaijan’s occupied
territories will be discussed at a session of the UN General
Assembly. From the very beginning, Zerkalo predicted that the OSCE
Minsk Group would again take a dim view of the “Karabakh issue” being
included in the agenda of the session of this respectable
organization. And the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairman from Russia, Yuriy
Merzlyakov, has recently said that the UN discussion of the situation
in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan will seriously hurt the
peace process.

Merzlyakov told [Azerbaijani] ATV channel that Baku’s initiative to
put the issue on the agenda of the 59th session of the UN General
Assembly was in no way necessary. Touching upon the French
negotiator’s remarks that the issue should not have been put on the
agenda of the General Assembly, Merzlyakov said that the French
diplomat expressed the position not only of his own government, but
also of Moscow and Washington.

“There was no need for this initiative today when we are all waiting
for the peace process to resume. On the other hand, the UN is not an
organization to discuss the Karabakh issue because this problem is
being tackled by the OSCE. Therefore, the French negotiator spoke
against that after consultations with his counterparts from the USA
and Russia. The discussion of this issue at the UN will be not to the
peace negotiations’ benefit, but to the detriment.”

The Russian co-chairman said that Azerbaijan’s initiative is
ineffective in legal terms, too. “The resolutions by the UN General
Assembly should not be confused with the resolutions by the UN
Security Council. The [resolutions] by the former can only serve as
recommendation.”

“The initiative to consider the item about ‘the situation in
Azerbaijan’s occupied lands’ not only by the OSCE but also by the UN
General Assembly can hardly have a favourable effect on the
negotiations process,” said a commentary by the department for
information and press of the Russian Foreign Ministry on Moscow’s
position on the voting at the UN General Assembly on this issue
(Turan).

The commentary says that Russia abstained from voting like other OSCE
Minsk Group co-chairmen. “By the way, the outcome of the voting has
illustrated that most members of the world community are of the same
position,” the document says. “As to the negotiations on a Nagornyy
Karabakh settlement, Russia is known to be interested in the
resolution of this issue as soon as possible and fully facilitates it
either on a bilateral basis or as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group. We think that the format of the given group allows us to
resolve any problems related to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict and
achieve peace. Besides, we believe that the recent meeting between the
Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents has outlined prospects for
resuming negotiations in search of an acceptable solution,” the
commentary said.

In principle, Merzlyakov is right, because even if the “Karabakh
issue” becomes a topic for discussion by the UN General Assembly, any
decision passed will not be mandatory. But in any case if the
Azerbaijani side prepares better and puts emphasis not on the
settlement of the conflict, the task which the UN has assigned to the
OSCE, but on the consideration of the situation in the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan, the international community may demand that
Armenia reject its policy aimed at changing the course of history.

One may wonder at Baku’s recent upbeat statements. And putting the
“Karabakh issue” on the agenda of the UN General Assembly will only
make the confrontation stronger. Experts say that by this move Baku
may bury the aspirations of the super powers to compel our leadership
to sign a “peace treaty under unfavourable conditions”.

As was expected, the OSCE Minsk Group has been against discussing this
issue within the UN framework. However, quite a reasonable question
emerges: “Does the Minsk Group itself has any ideas?” Armenia often
refers to certain “Key West” principles. Was there any agreement under
them? There are no answers to these questions now, nor have there ever
been. Baku is most concerned about the continuing occupation of
Azerbaijani lands by Armenia.

There is an impression that the authorities are starting a new game in
the region and that a new geopolitical master, in the person of the
European Union [EU], is emerging in the region. It has its own
objectives which don’t always coincide with the interests of the
geopolitical old-timers of the South Caucasus – Russia and the
USA. Yet, it should be taken into account that the EU may side with
the USA on one issue and with Russia on the other. That means that the
countries in the South Caucasus would have more space for manoeuvring
if, of course, they manage to coordinate their foreign policies,
albeit partially.

Besides, trying to incorporate the South Caucasus into “Enlarged
Europe”, but without Russia in the end, the EU is interested in the
resolution of regional conflicts as soon as possible. Moreover, the EU
has powerful levers of influence in the shape of various political and
financial institutions. As to Armenia, it continues to speak the
language of threats, which will inevitably bring about the resumption
of military operations.