OSCE MINSK GROUP: MEDIATOR OR SIDE? – ANALYSIS
Azeri Press Agency
March 17 2008
Azerbaijan
The most unexpected point of the UN vote on Occupied Territories of
Azerbaijan is certainly that OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs – US, Russia
and France, which are directly involved in the problem, voted against
the document.
In fact the document demolished illusions around the solution of
Nagorno Karabakh conflict and clarified the issue. The question is
that OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs directly involved in the regulation
of Nagorno Karabakh conflict voted against the resolution, which
is recognizing territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanding
solution of the conflict on the basis of this principle. It provokes
a fair question: "If OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs votes against the
resolution, which recognizes territorial integrity of Azerbaijan,
how objective mediators can they be?" One of the interesting moments
is that the co-chair countries did not only vote against, but also
actively campaigned against the adoption of this document. This
situation clarifies two important results:
1) OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are not neutral mediators, they are
concrete SIDES. Their position coincides with the position of occupier
Armenia, but not Azerbaijan, whose rights have been violated as a
result of the conflict.
2) Solution models proposed by the co-chairs cannot be based on the
principle of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Their position shows
that co-chairs are trying to solve the conflict not on the basis of
territorial integrity, but on the principle of self-determination,
or mixed formula of both principles.
Both results show that OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs will lose confidence
of Azerbaijani community. Even without that, the community has no
simple attitude to the Minsk Group, which couldn’t achieve any result
toward the solution of the conflict over the years. However the Minsk
Group Co-Chairs lost sight of one factor- their position in the UN
General Assembly has complicated not the situation of Azerbaijan,
but OSCE Minsk Group.
Certainly one of the decisive moments of regulation process, not
depending on the results, will be preparation of both communities for
the compromises. The Co-chairs have made statements on this issue for
many times and underlined the importance of public communities in
Azerbaijan and Armenia for the compromises. In current situation,
the co-chairs are restricting Azerbaijan’s opportunity to make
a compromise and not giving a chance to the community to accept
existing compromises.
Logic is simple – if the mediators do not recognize Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity, avoid the settlement of the conflict basing on
this principle, the society will reject any proposal of the co-chair
countries, thinking that their proposals meet Armenia’s interests.
Thus, the co-chairs, with their position in UN General Assembly expose
the society’s confidence to risk.
Can Azerbaijan refuse mediation mission of OSCE Minsk Group? It does
not seem real after the adoption of the resolution in UN. Even the
resolution supports the activity of OSCE Minsk Group and Deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov said Azerbaijan was interested in continuing
the process of negotiations with mediation of OSCE Minsk Group. But
assessing both the resolution and official statements, we come to the
conclusion that Azerbaijan wants important changes in the negotiations.
However, if Azerbaijan really wants to achieve progress in the
process of negotiations and make use of the essence of the resolution
adopted in the UN General Assembly, then it should lay down a concrete
condition before the co-chair countries – settlement of the conflict
within the framework of the countries’ territorial integrity should
be determined and the negotiations should be carried out basing on
this concrete principle. The resolution adopted in the UN General
Assembly enables to lay down such a condition. The further stage
of the negotiations on the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict
depends on the acceptance of this condition by the co-chairs. It is
not convincing that the result of the negotiations, which do not base
on the principle of the countries’ territorial integrity, will differ
from the hitherto results.