Armenia/Azerbaijan: Expectations Muted On Eve Of Karabakh Talks
By Liz Fuller
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Aug 19 2005
The foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan are scheduled to meet
in Moscow on 23 August to resume their talks on approaches to
resolving the Karabakh conflict. Days later, the two countries’
presidents, Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev, will meet in Kazan on
the sidelines of a CIS summit to address the same issue. But although
international mediators from the OSCE Minsk Group expressed cautious
optimism after visiting Baku, Stepanakert, and Yerevan in early July,
they and senior officials in Baku have warned in recent days that
there is little chance the two presidents will sign a major peace
accord in Kazan.
The Kazan talks will be the second between the two presidents in the
span of four months. The first took place in Warsaw in mid-May on the
sidelines of a Council of Europe summit and, according to an Armenian
Foreign Ministry statement released several days later, that meeting
constituted “yet another step forward in the resolution of the
Karabakh conflict,” RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reported. The statement
added that the Warsaw meeting “makes it possible to continue the
discussions” between the two countries’ foreign ministers that began
one year earlier. On 17 May, the French, Russian, and U.S.
co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group that is mediating the search for
a solution to the Karabakh conflict released a statement similarly
noting that the two presidents “confirmed their strong interest in
reaching a peaceful, negotiated solution of the conflict.”
Growing Expectations
In early July, Armenian officials told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that
Armenia and Azerbaijan had reached agreement on the key points of a
formal peace accord ending the Karabakh conflict, and that agreement
could be signed by the end of this year. Days later, the Minsk Group
co-chairmen likewise expressed cautious optimism. U.S. co-Chairman
Steven Mann told journalists in Yerevan on 14 July that “there is a
possibility of a Karabakh settlement in the course of this year,”
RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reported. Mann repeated that prognosis the
following day but qualified it, saying, “There are very difficult
issues that are still on the table and real gaps between the two
sides.” Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov, who is
President Aliyev’s special envoy for the Karabakh conflict, was even
more upbeat, telling journalists in Baku on 18 July that “we are
closer to peace than ever before,” according to the website day.az.
Citing the need for confidentiality, the Minsk Group co-chairmen have
consistently declined to divulge any details of specific issues under
discussion. But both Azerbaijani and Armenian officials have gone
public in recent months, identifying aspects of the hypothetical
peace agreement. In mid-May, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov claimed that Yerevan had agreed to, and the two sides
were already discussing the time frame for, the withdrawal of
Armenian forces from seven districts of Azerbaijan bordering on the
unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The Armenian Foreign
Ministry rejected Mammadyarov’s claim the following day.The timing of
the Kazan summit — two months before the 6 November parliamentary
elections in Azerbaijan — in itself makes it unlikely that the two
presidents would sign a formal peace deal that would require a major
concession from Baku, because any such concession could alienate many
voters. But Russian Minsk Group co-Chairman Yurii Merzlyakov was
quoted on 17 August by day.az as suggesting that the two presidents
might issue a joint statement hinting that a formal peace deal is
imminent.
Three weeks later, on 7 June, Mammadyarov told journalists in Baku
that the two sides were discussing between seven and nine issues
related to a peace settlement, and that those issues have to be
addressed in a specific order, with each made secure before the
following is added, “like pearls knotted on a silk thread.”
Mammadyarov said Azerbaijan insists on the liberation of the seven
districts currently occupied by Armenian forces, and that the two
sides are discussing which countries or organizations could provide
peacekeeping forces to be deployed on those territories after their
liberation, according to day.az. He also said that “after the
frontiers are opened we must revive trade links and transport.”
Echo-az.com quoted Mammadyarov as saying that the two sides are
discussing both the “phased” and the “package” approaches to
resolving the conflict. But a senior Armenian Foreign Ministry
official told this writer on 8 June on condition of anonymity that
the final agreement will be a package one, although its various
provisions might be implemented one after the other, rather than
simultaneously.
Then in early July, a senior Armenian official told RFE/RL’s Armenian
Service that under the anticipated peace deal, Armenia would return
to Azerbaijani control five of the seven districts adjacent to
Karabakh currently controlled by Karabakh Armenian forces, excluding
the strategic Lachin corridor. A peacekeeping force comprising troops
from countries that are not members of the OSCE Minsk Group would be
deployed in the conflict zone. Then, after 10-15 years, the
population of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic would be
required to vote in a referendum on whether the region should become
independent, become a part of Armenia, or revert to Azerbaijan. That
blueprint is very similar to one proposed in December by former
Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio and NATO Parliamentary Assembly
President Pierre Lellouche. But both Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign
Minister Azimov and NKR Foreign Minister Arman Melikian promptly
denied that the two sides were discussing a possible referendum.
Azimov made the point that the constitution of the Azerbaijan
Republic does not make provision for a referendum to be held only on
selected parts of Azerbaijan’s territory, or on issues related to the
country’s territorial integrity.
Pulling Back?
Since the beginning of August — when Mammadyarov visited Washington
— the upbeat statements by both the Minsk Group co-chairs and
officials from the Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministries have
given way to more guarded pronouncements. Commenting on 6 August on
Mammadyarov’s visit, U.S. Minsk Group co-Chairman Mann said the
Karabakh conflict was one of the issues Mammadyarov discussed with
his U.S. counterpart Condoleezza Rice, day.az reported. Mann added
that despite “certain progress” in the peace talks, the degree of
consensus reached to date is not sufficient to sign a peace treaty.
In an interview published on 17 August in the online daily
zerkalo.az, Mann similarly said that “it is still early to speak of a
specific document. It would be a mistake to affirm that we shall sign
some document right now.” At the same time, he stressed repeatedly
that the two sides “have achieved a great deal over the past 18
months,” and he predicted that the upcoming Kazan meeting between
Kocharian and Aliyev “will give an additional impulse to the talks.”
Armenian fighter near the the strategic highway that connects the
unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic with Armenia, known as the
Lachin corridor (file photo)
(AFP)
Also on 17 August, Mammadyarov echoed Mann almost word-for word,
telling day.az that “the negotiations have not yet reached the level
of signing a document.” Echoing his comments of 7 June, he said that
between seven and nine issues would be on the agenda at his 24 August
meeting with Oskanian, and “we shall try to reach agreement on
certain elements and inform the presidents, so that they can discuss
them in Kazan.”
The timing of the Kazan summit — two months before the 6 November
parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan — in itself makes it unlikely
that the two presidents would sign a formal peace deal that would
require a major concession from Baku, because any such concession
could alienate many voters. But Russian Minsk Group co-Chairman Yurii
Merzlyakov was quoted on 17 August by day.az as suggesting that the
two presidents might issue a joint statement hinting that a formal
peace deal is imminent. A 17 August EurasiaNet analysis similarly
quoted an unnamed Azerbaijani official as saying that the most that
can be hoped for from the Kazan meeting is “a statement by the
presidents in which they would order their foreign ministers to start
working on the text of a future agreement.” Such a joint statement
would serve to send the message to Azerbaijan’s electorate that peace
is finally within reach — provided its elects a parliament in which
Aliyev’s Yeni Azerbaycan Party has a comfortable majority.