ARMENIA: FEW OBJECTIONS TO MEDIATORS’ KARABAKH STATEMENT
Haroutiun Khachatrian 7/10/06

EurasiaNet, NY
July 10 2006

Senior Armenian government officials and political leaders appear to
have reconciled themselves with a top American diplomat’s disclosure
of details of a draft peace agreement covering Nagorno-Karabakh.

In a June 22 interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, US
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Matthew Bryza revealed the existence of a framework agreement that
would resolve the 18-year conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The framework
envisages the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied
territories around Karabakh, as well as "a vote at some point in the
future" on Karabakh’s status, and a "normalization of Armenia’s ties"
that would allow an international peacekeeping presence and economic
assistance to the disputed region.

In a July 5 interview with the Haykakan Zhamanak daily newspaper,
Bryza explained that his comments were part of a new strategy
endorsed by the Minsk Group’s French and Russian co-chairs to promote
public discussion of the peace framework. "It is not my decision
to disclose the [framework agreement’s] principles," said Bryza,
recently appointed as US co-chairperson of the Minsk Group, the body
tasked by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
with moderating talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. "It was the
decision of the three co-chairs, taken even before I became co-chair."

In Armenia, initial government reaction to the interview was
emotional. Anger appeared targeted more at what was perceived to have
been left unsaid, than at what was actually disclosed about the draft
agreement. On June 26, the official newspaper Hayastani Hanrapetutiun
published a story on Bryza’s comments under the title "Provocation
or Pressure?" In the piece, the Armenian Foreign Ministry cited what
it perceived as the gaps in the information provided by Bryza. The
ministry stated that the regions connecting Armenia with Karabakh,
Lachin and Kelbajar, are expected to remain under Armenian control
until a referendum on the enclave’s status is held. During the period
preceding the vote, Karabakh, according to the ministry, would also
be given an internationally recognized status.

Following Bryza’s disclosures, President Robert Kocharian stated that
Armenia was ready to adopt the document as the basis for further
negotiations, whereas Azerbaijan appeared reluctant to endorse the
draft agreement. The Armenian side, however, has denied a July 3
report on the Azerbaijani news site Day.az, which quoted Azerbaijani
Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov as saying that Kocharian and
Aliyev would meet July 17 to discuss a Karabakh settlement.

Notably, no political party or public organization in Armenia has
objected to the proposed Armenian withdrawal from the seven occupied
territories, often termed "liberated" by Armenian organizations and
politicians. The prospect of such a swap has been called "reasonable"
by opposition leader Aram Sargsian, head of the Hanarpetutiun
(Republic) Party and brother of the late defense minister Vazgen
Sargsian, founder of the Yerkrapah organization of war veterans.

In Armenia, public debate on the issue has intensified amid speculation
about possible new disclosures about the peace negotiations. On June
26, presidential spokesperson Viktor Soghomonian told the Mediamax
news agency that Yerevan may make public all documents relating to
the peace talks over the last seven to eight years, including papers
covering the 2001 presidential summit in Key West, Florida. It was
at that meeting that Kocharian and the late Azerbaijani President
Heidar Aliyev reportedly agreed in principle on a peace deal, only
to see the supposed agreement unravel within weeks. [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Hayots Ashkharh, another pro-government daily, commented that by
disclosing such documents, Yerevan would "restrict the room for
maneuver" for Baku. The commentary went on to claim that Azerbaijan
is a frequent source of inaccurate information concerning the peace
talks. Despite the urgings of politicians and analysts, however,
the Armenian government has not yet released the documents.

In their absence, key questions about the proposed framework agreement
linger. In a July 6 editorial entitled "Let’s Discuss, But What?," the
daily newspaper Aravot wondered whether the referendum on Karabakh’s
status would be held among the enclave’s actual population, as proposed
by Armenia, or among the residents of Azerbaijan, as advocated by the
Azerbaijani government. The newspaper also queried whether Lachin and
Kelbajar would remain under the control of Armenian forces before
the referendum is held, or whether they would be demilitarized,
as proposed by Azerbaijan.

Analysts seem sharply divided about the known features of the
framework peace deal. For example, scientist Alexander Iskandarian
was quoted by the Hayots Ashkharh daily on July 6 as saying framework
agreement favors Armenia as never before. But others, including 168
Zham newspaper columnist Armen Baghdasarian, maintain that war with
Azerbaijan seems inevitable since Baku would not risk a legitimate
referendum on the enclave’s status.

Editor’s Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer
specializing in economic and political affairs.