WHAT DOES KARABAGH HAVE TO DO WITH THIS?
By Gayane Movsessian

Yerkir.am
July 01, 2006

The statements made by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Mathew Bryza
can be aimed at anything but the settlement of Karabagh conflict.

Had the State Department representative been working towards the
settlement of the conflict he would have hardly publicized such
fragmented information about the principal provisions of the so-called
‘framework agreement’.

In fact, the American co-chair succeeded in causing another wave of
militaristic hysteria in Azerbaijan. The Azeri President Ilham Aliyev
stated at a meeting with representatives of the Azeri military,
"Azerbaijan has lost its hope for international mechanisms of
conflict settlement. In this situation Azerbaijan must modify its
foreign policy."

Head of the Azeri President’s administration Novruz Mamedov was
even more explicit in his statement, "If Armenia does not accept
the highest degree of autonomy for Karabagh offered by Azerbaijan,
we will have to liberate our territories with armed forces."

If, as Washington’s official and unofficial representatives assure
us, US’s priority in the region is stability and security, it is very
difficult to understand why the framework agreement does not contain
such vital provisions that would guarantee the peaceful settlement of
the conflict, in other words why aren’t there any provisions committing
the sides to exclude the possibility of resorting to force? This
question is addressed to the Minsk Group and OSCE in general. The
inconsistency of the mediators on this issue allows Azerbaijan to
act like a bully threatening the peaceful settlement process.

At the same time, the mediators’ behavior leads to the conclusion that
such manipulations are in their interests because they create the
necessary environment for their maneuvers. The American co-chair’s
attempt to tie the Karabagh settlement with the normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations is even stranger.

Such statements, if they reflect Washington’s official position,
arouse suspicions as to whether US is really exerting efforts to
convince Turkey to open the border with Armenia with no preconditions
for the benefit of regional cooperation.

One gets an impression that Yerevan’s readiness for mutual concessions
is perceived not only in Ankara and Baku but also in the White House
as an expression of the Armenian side’s weakness while Azerbaijan’s
and Turkey’s exaggerated ambitions are perceived as appropriate.

However, we should pay attention to the fact that Mathew Bryza’s
statement was made on the same day when the meeting of leaders of
the CIS Collective Treaty and Eurasian Economic Cooperation member
states was taking place in Minsk. The statement was made on the eve
of the G-8 summit for which USA and Russia are heading with a number
of unsettled issues.

It’s not a coincidence that only three weeks before the summit the
Russian President Vladimir Putin started speaking about arms control,
conflicts in the region and their settlement, Russia’s relations with
Japan and USA, as well as its relations with the CIS. Russia will
not support the ultimatum against Iran. It will participate in peace
building mission in the Caucasus. Russia sees itself as a mediator
in the dialog of civilizations. These were the main messages sent by
the Russian President.

The principles for conflict settlement must be universal and must be
based on the norms of international law and the principle of respect
for the interests of all sides engaged in the conflict, Putin stated
stressing that isolation of any state is unacceptable and citing the
examples of Kosovo, Cyprus, South Caucasus and Transdniestre.

The Russian President further stated that Russia is directly
involved in settlement of a number of conflicts and will continue
its involvement deriving from a position it considers appropriate
for itself. "I would like to stress that we will continue our peace
building mission despite the obvious provocations that we have to
counter so often," Putin stated.

Commenting on Russia’s relations with the CIS Putin noted, "I
believe the time has come to accept the principles that prevail
in international economy and trade, principles based on sober
calculation. We do not question the CIS countries’ right to act
independently both domestically and internationally.

However, this means that we also have the right to determine our
own road".

The issue of Russia’s relations with USA was raised in a very explicit
manner. President Putin spoke about "containment", "Cold War" and even
"clash of civilizations"

According to Putin, Russia is worried by the unpredictability of global
development at a time of "modernization of the entire architecture
of global security". This is why the goal of Russia’s foreign policy
to "break the dangerous tendencies" and not to allow "an inertia of
past approaches".

Russia’s position is that it does not need any confrontations. This is
why Russia will not participate in any alliances and will support all
initiatives aimed at development of inter-civilizational dialog. It
is obvious that this statement was addressed to all participants of
the G-8 summit in Saint Petersburg.

Against this background we have Washington’s gesture towards Baku,
" Azerbaijan is the leading force and the guarantor of the security
in the region".

Such statement indicate not Washington’s appreciation of the success
of democratic reforms in Azerbaijan but a confirmation of the fact
that Azerbaijan is fully included into US’s geopolitical spectrum
whose strategic interests in the Caucasus, according to Bryza, lie
in three directions: energy, security and democratic reforms.

Everything seems to be clear regarding the issue of energy: Kazakhstan
has already joined Baku-Tbilisi-Jeyhan pipeline and now US hopes
to expedite oil export from the Azeri Caspian to the international
market since the "European gas market is facing a crisis. One cubic
meter of gas costs up to 45 dollars and the gas imported from Ukraine
and Russia is not sufficient."

The situation with democratic reforms is more complicated: because
of lack of progress in this respect the Azeri delegation’s mandate
to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was questioned
these days.

Therefore, Mr. Bryza’s attempt to diminish Armenia’s accomplishments
in the sphere of democracy cannot have any results. He stated, "We
hope to see a chain of democratic reforms in Armenia like the one we
hope we are witnessing in Azerbaijan." This obviously has nothing to
do with democracy. Washington is openly hinting that US wants to see
Armenia in the domain of American, and not only American interests
and plans. It is not a coincidence that many political leaders in
Armenia noted that the present developments are very similar to the
situation in February 1998.

As to security issues, Washington’s position that "all conflicts
must be settled based on the territorial integrity of the countries
in the region" is wrong since it means settlement of the conflicts
based on the interests of just one side of the conflict. This can by
no means ensure peace and stability in any region, especially in the
South Caucasus. We have already gone through such an experience.

Presidents of CIS states will also participate in the G-8 summit in
Saint Petersburg. Will President Kocharian meet his Azeri counterpart
during the summit? This will become clear only after Mathew Bryza’s
visit to the region and the meeting of Armenian and Azeri foreign
ministers. These meetings will most likely take place in the coming
two weeks.