WILL ILHAM ALIEV STAND THE PEACEFUL ATTACK OF MEDIATORS?

Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
27 April 2006

Recent developments regarding the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh
issue show that the international mediators, namely the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairs have launched a peaceful offensive. Hence, the
suggestions that the West would seek for stability in the region are
confirmed. After the failed talks of the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan in Rambouillet, France, the activity of the mediators
resembles a blitzkrieg. The activity of the co-chairs is gathering
momentum, and there is hardly any time left for the conflict parties
to think. Judge yourselves. Recovering from the shock after the
fruitless meeting of Ilham Aliev and Robert Kocharian in Rambouillet
on April 11, the co-chairs met in Washington on March 7 to assess the
results of the talks between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
and to work out an action plan for the current deadlocked
situation. Commenting on the Washington meeting of the co-chairs, the
US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Rino Harnish told news reporters in Baku
that arrangements on a peace settlement of the Karabakh issue are not
behind the mountains. In the meantime, Ilham Aliev, who is to blame
for the failure of the talks in Rambouillet, visited one of the
regions of Azerbaijan bordering with Nagorno Karabakh, and stated that
the talks in France failed due to the Armenian party, since Yerevan is
temporizing and therefore the Baku may review its approach towards the
settlement. Moreover, he accused Armenia more aggressively, stating
that the latter is conducting a policy of genocide against Azerbaijan,
perpetrating crimes against the humanity. `We are a party that lost
and this allows us to resolve the Karabakh problem by nay means.’ In
other words, Ilham Aliev continued to blackmail the international
community, threatening to start military actions. His plan is
extremely simple: the West does not want a new war in the region,
which is determined by the factor of oil, and will press Armenia. If
this fails to happen, let everything remain the same. In several
years, thinks Aliev Junior, weak Armenia will have to make concessions
to Azerbaijan, which will have become stronger. In the meantime, the
Aliev family will stuff their pockets with oil dollars from the
Baku-Tbilisi-Geihan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzrum pipelines. The Armenian
party naturally responded to the actions of the Azerbaijani
president. President Robert Kocharian and Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanian used aggressive speeches to respond to Aliev. The foreign
minister of Armenia made a statement that can be characterized as a
threat to strike the positions of the Azerbaijani army. For his part,
Robert Kocharian told news reporters in Yerevan that if Azerbaijan
rejected compromise, Armenia would recognize Nagorno Karabakh
Republic. In addition, official Yerevan notified to Azerbaijan that
Armenia had already made its compromise and now it was Azerbaijan’s
turn. However, let us consider the current plans of the international
mediators. They need to manage to reach an agreement based on
documents on the basic principles of settlement as soon as possible,
or at least signing of an agreement by the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan, reflecting their commitment to pursuing a peace settlement
of the Karabakh issue. Hence, the peaceful offensive of the Minsk
Group co-chairs after the talks in Rambouillet. After the meeting of
the co-chairs in Washington US Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried and
the American co-chair of the Minsk Group Stephen Mann visited the
region. On March 13 and 14 they negotiated with the leadership of
Azerbaijan. During the news conference of Daniel Fried and Stephen
Mann in Baku it became clear that the mediators had seriously
undertaken peaceful strictures against the presidents, particularly
Ilham Aliev. Hence, Stephen Mann conveyed that the resumption of
military actions would affect investments in Azerbaijan. Besides, the
American co-chair of the Minsk Group hinted at the threats, which are
directly related to the security and territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan in case it resumes military actions.

Later on March 15 and 16 the American envoys visited Armenia. It is
notable that on March 17, Daniel Fried left for Istanbul on March 20
to participate in another meeting of the co-chairs. During the meeting
of the PACE Ad-hoc Committee for the Settlement of the Conflict over
Karabakh in Paris Lord Russell Johnston, Chairman, called the parties
(read Azerbaijan) for a halt of hatred and preparation of the peoples
of Armenia and Azerbaijan for a peace settlement of the conflict. In
two days the EU also clarified its standpoint through its new
representative on the South Caucasus Peter Semneby, who also visited
the region. The EU Special Representative emphasized that a military
way of settling the conflict does not favor any of the parties,
therefore the standpoints of Azerbaijan and Armenia need to be brought
closer. Moreover, Mr.

Semneby announced that if he were not convinced of the existence of
possibilities of settlement of the Karabakh conflict, he would not
accept the position of a special representative on the South
Caucasus. Already on March 20 the Minsk Group co-chairs, as it had
been planned, met in Istanbul, this time without Yuri Merzlyakov, who
was ill; another official of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
replaced him. After the top-secret meeting in Istanbul Stephan Mann
gave an interview to Radio Liberty, and stated that the parties should
reach an agreement in 2006, and they would have to finish the
important work they had started to arrive somewhere. The next day the
report on the role of the EU in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue was presented in Brussels, which had been prepared by the
International Crisis Group. In her speech the director of the
Caucasian Bureau of the International Crisis Group Sabine Freizer said
the final political and legal status of Nagorno Karabakh must be
decided in 15-20 years through a referendum. By that time the Armenian
forces must be withdrawn from the Azerbaijani territories adjacent to
Nagorno Karabakh, controlled by the Armenian troops, that must be
followed by stationing of international peacemaking forces, return of
refugees and lifting of the blockade of transport routes. Hence,
Sabine Freizer revealed the essence of the plan of settlement,
proposed by the co-chairs, which, in fact, establishes the right of
the people of Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination, thus upsetting
Azerbaijan. What is the difference, they say in Baku, between losing
Karabakh today or in 15-20 years. In the meantime, in early April the
foreign minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mamedyarov met with Condoleezza
Rice. During the talk Ms. Rice hinted that the United States would not
have a destabilization in the theatre of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
and confirmed the invitation of an official visit to the United States
sent by the White House to the president of Azerbaijan Ilham
Aliev. Some time later the president of the PACE Rene van der Linden
announced that the country which would use force to settle the
Karabakh conflict would be discharged from the Council of Europe. He
also invited the parties to give up militaristic statements and admit
that the conflict defies any other settlement except the peace
settlement. After the talks in Rambouillet NATO was not indifferent
towards the process of settlement either. Robert Simons, the
representative of the Secretary General of NATO, said NATO supported a
peace settlement of the conflict. Then the French co-chair Bernard
Fassier and his American counterpart Stephan Mann supported the high
rates of the peace attack of the mediators. While in Baku, Bernard
Fassier said those who call for a war, call for new victims, new
destruction, new refugees. Azerbaijan should remember, said the French
co-chair, that wars threaten developing economies. In addition, he
advised Azerbaijan not to look back, to go forward, for one may have
an accident if they go forward but look back. Terry Davis, Secretary
General of the Council of Europe, gave recommendations to Azerbaijan
too. He told the Azerbaijani agency APA he believed Azerbaijan would
discharge its commitments or it would be facing troubles. These are
the commitments Azerbaijan assumed before the Council of Europe in his
presence, namely a peace settlement of the Karabakh issue. Considering
the peaceful blitzkrieg of the mediators, we should not overlook
another important fact, namely the visit of the president of Turkey
Ahmed Nedjad Sezari to Baku. It is notable that the head of state of
Turkey had planned to visit Azerbaijan two months before. However, the
visit was cancelled due to bad weather. And during his April visit the
Turkish president even endorsed a peace settlement.

It should also be mentioned that after the meeting of Ilham Aliev and
Robert Kocharian in Rambouillet the foreign minister of Armenia Vardan
Oskanian visited the United States and Russia. New meetings and
statements are coming up in the framework of the peaceful
defensive. The new round of consultations of the Minsk Group co-chairs
will take place in Moscow. In the capital of Russia the co-chairs
will discuss the agenda of their next visit, scheduled in early
May. By that time the outcome of the visit of the Azerbaijani
president to the United States will have become known. In Moscow the
mediators will consider the possibility of the meeting of the foreign
ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan in a third country. All these
activities are aimed to organize another meeting of Ilham Aliev and
Robert Kocharian, and this time there can be no failure. Otherwise,
there is no point in holding another meeting. The statements of the
Azerbaijan president are becoming less militaristic, whereas his
subjects are not. Ali Hasanov, an official of Aliev administration
announced in an outburst of emotions: `We are hopeful that the problem
will be settled through talks, we are conscious of the disasters and
destruction that war would bring about, and we do not want this to
happen. We aspire to spend oil revenues on development,
infrastructures, construction of roads, airports, reconstruction of
seaports, regional prosperity. We are thinking of development and not
war. At the same time, we cannot accept the occupation of our
territories. Therefore, if necessary, we will spend all the wealth of
our country for the liberation of our territory.’ Here is a `peace
loving aggression.’ We do not think, however, that Ali Hasanov did not
have the permission of the Azerbaijani president when he was uttering
these words. Nothing of the like happens in Azerbaijan. Even if it
happens, the daredevil would appear out of office.

Consequently, Ilham Aliev is presently saying one thing but implying
another thing. The powerful of the world made him to do it. How long
will he behave that way? We will probably get the answer to this
question after his official visit to Washington in late
April. However, we do not think that George Bush invited Aliev to
assure him that the United States will return Nagorno Karabakh to
Azerbaijan. It will be the opposite rather. Ilham Aliev will have to
listen to George Bush attentively what his actions regarding the peace
settlement should be. Will the Azerbaijani president stand such an
intensive peace loving attack of the West? , Anyway, there is little
time to wait.

ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN.
26-04-2006