Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Jan 20 2005

Analysis: Moscow Sheds Light On Karabakh Talks
By Liz Fuller

In order not to risk jeopardizing any rapprochement that has been
achieved, the participants in what has come to be known as the
“Prague process” of ministerial level talks under the aegis of the
OSCE Minsk Group on approaches to resolving the Karabakh conflict
have until now abided by a gentlemen’s agreement not to divulge to
the press the specific topics under discussion.

In line with that agreement, neither Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan
Oskanian nor his Azerbaijani counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov have
divulged any details of their most recent talks in Prague on 10-11
January. But four days after those talks, the Russian Foreign
Ministry issued a press release
()
listing specific issues under discussion, adding that on some of
those issues the two sides’ positions have become closer.

Speaking to RFE/RL’s Armenian Service after meeting with Mammadyarov
on 11 January, Oskanian characterized the mood of the talks as
“positive.” He said that “full agreement” has not yet been reached on
the principles of a settlement, but that “there is a general
framework of issues, but as this meeting showed, they need to be
consolidated.” He added that “it is still too early to disclose any
details.” Briefing journalists in Yerevan the following day, Oskanian
predicted that settlement talks this year will be “quite intensive,”
thus marking a qualitative shift to a new, more serious phase of
discussions. Noyan Tapan quoted him as saying that “all elements”
related to a peaceful solution of the conflict are on the table,
without listing those elements.

Oskanian further noted that Azerbaijani media frequently misrepresent
the nature and focus of the talks, and that “everyone” — presumably
meaning both Mammadyarov and the U.S., Russian, and French
co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group — agree that “officials should
be more circumspect when making statements.”

On 13 January, Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov
similarly briefed journalists in Baku on the Prague talks. Azimov
said that while Baku insists that any solution to the conflict must
preserve Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, the restoration of
territorial integrity alone will not solve all problems: in that
context he mentioned specifically the future peaceful coexistence of
the Armenian population of Karabakh and those Azerbaijanis who fled
the region over a decade ago when the conflict first turned violent
and hope to return there.

Azimov also listed issues that could form part of a hypothetical
solution to the conflict. He said that if Armenian troops are
withdrawn from Azerbaijani territory, Azerbaijan would be ready to
restore economic and other relations with Armenia. He was quoted by
zerkalo.az as saying that “a little later, the question of the return
to the region of the Azerbaijani population and the coexistence of
the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in Nagorno-Karabakh must be
addressed. Once interregional ties and ties between Nagorno-Karabakh
and Armenia [on the one hand] and the government of Azerbaijan are
established, it will be possible to achieve a normalization of the
situation and set about seeking a solution to other political
questions.” Whether Oskanian and Mammadyarov have discussed that
specific sequence of events is not clear, however.

Azimov dismissed as “speculation” reports that the liberation of
three of the seven districts of Azerbaijan currently under Armenian
control is under discussion: he said that “in the course of the
Prague process the question of liberating all seven districts
surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh at the first stage is being discussed.”
According to echo-az.com, Azimov likewise denied that the possibility
of holding a referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh on the region’s future
status was addressed in Prague, and he expressed regret that such
“unreliable information” finds its way into the press. In an article
published in “Le Figaro” last month, former Spanish Foreign Minister
Ana Palacio and Pierre Lellouche, who is NATO Parliamentary Assembly
president, argued that the Karabakh conflict differs fundamentally
from those in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transdniester, and that
“the Europeans, Americans, and Russians should jointly defend a
compromise [settlement] that would give Armenia temporary control of
Karabakh in exchange for the withdrawal of Armenian forces from
Azerbaijani territory, [with] the final status of Karabakh to be
decided by its inhabitants in a referendum in five or 10 years’
time.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry press release listed among the
“contentious issues” under discussion: the withdrawal of [Armenian]
troops, demilitarization of the previously occupied territories,
international security guarantees for the Armenian population of
Karabakh, and the unrecognized republic’s future status vis-a-vis
Azerbaijan. The press release reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to
contribute, together with the other two Minsk Group co-chairs, to
“deepening the mutual understanding between Armenia and Azerbaijan”
with a view to bringing about a peaceful solution to the conflict.