Armenialiberty.org
Aug 8 2009
Armenia, Azerbaijan `Coming Closer’ To Peace
08.08.2009
Emil Danielyan
A top U.S. official insisted on Saturday that Armenia and Azerbaijan
are inching closer to a framework agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh and
downplayed the significance of changes made in the international
mediators’ existing peace proposals.
Ending a two-day visit to Yerevan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Matthew Bryza also laughed off suggestions that the newly modified
version of the proposed basic principles of a Karabakh settlement is
less favorable to the Armenian side than the original document
formally put forward by the OSCE Minsk Group in Madrid in November
2007.
Bryza and fellow Minsk Group co-chairs from Russia and France met in
Krakow, Poland late last month to prepare what they call an `updated
version’ of the peace plan and thereby try to facilitate its
acceptance by the conflicting parties. He discussed the proposed
changes with President Serzh Sarkisian on Friday and is scheduled to
hold similar talks with Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev next Wednesday.
`The fundamental formulations that are in the Madrid document remain,
and what has changed is a few slight technical points that are
important, of course, but they are technical and in no way
disadvantage either side,’ Bryza told RFE/RL in an interview.
`What we did [in Krakow] was try to offer our best ideas and
suggestions on how to bridge the remaining differences between the
presidents based on all of the discussions that have taken place since
the Madrid document was first presented back in November 2007,’ he
said. `President Sarkisian has strong views, President [Robert]
Kocharian had strong views after Madrid, President Aliyev has strong
views. Discussions have gone up and back for almost two years, and we
took all of those ideas that were put on the table and tried to bring
them together with the co-chairs’ best effort to make both sides as
satisfied as possible.’
Some opposition politicians in Armenia have speculated that the
updated peace proposals call for more Armenian concessions to
Azerbaijan on key issues such as the holding of a future referendum on
self-determination in Nagorno-Karabakh, security guarantees for the
Armenian-controlled territory and the return of refugees. They claim
that there are important differences between the mediating powers’
recent and past statements on Karabakh.
Bryza dismissed those claims as `ridiculous’ and `empty.’ `Certainly
those who are claiming that the update of the Madrid document, based
on what we did in Krakow, somehow disadvantages Armenia ¦ are
operating out of sheer ignorance,’ he said.
The Minsk Group plan was amended after Aliyev’s and Sarkisian’s
failure to iron out their remaining differences during talks held in
Moscow on July 17-18. The mediators hope that the two leaders will
finally achieve a breakthrough when they meet again in late September
or early October.
Bryza maintained that the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders agree on
the `fundamental concept’ behind the compromise settlement favored by
the United States, Russia and France. `But it’s a long distance from
agreeing on the basic concept to actually agreeing or to having a
finalized document,’ he cautioned.
`An analogy would be that they have agreed on the menu for a meal,’ he
said. `They know what dishes they want to cook, maybe they’ve even
started cooking some of them, but none of those dishes are prepared
yet. They’re still cooking. We don’t know what they will finally look
like until the cooking process is finished.’
Significantly, the U.S. envoy indicated that Baku and Yerevan are
close to agreeing a timetable for the liberation of seven districts in
Azerbaijan proper that were partly or fully occupied by Armenian
forces during the 1991-1994 war. According to some Armenian sources,
that was the main stumbling block in Aliyev’s negotiations with
Kocharian.
Sarkisian’s predecessor is said to have insisted that two of those
districts, which are wedged between Armenia and Karabakh, be returned
to Azerbaijan only after the Karabakh referendum. Aliyev rejected that
condition. In a recent televised interview, he said that the Kelbajar
and Lachin districts would be placed back under Azerbaijani control
five years after the start of Armenian pullout from the other occupied
territories.
`I think they are getting close to and maybe they do generally agree
on the timing [of Armenian troop withdrawal,] but there are very
important details that still have to be agreed and can not be agreed
until other associated questions, other elements of the basic
principles are resolved,’ Bryza said. `So I would not say that they
agree on any of these things, but they are coming closer.’
Other major sticking points include the status of a land corridor
between Armenia and Karabakh as well as international security
guarantees that the disputed enclave would enjoy until the
clarification of its legal status. The Madrid document reportedly
envisages that Karabakh would remain under Armenian control during
that time.
Renewed hopes for Karabakh peace, which were stoked by Aliyev’s and
Sarkisian’s previous face-to-face meetings held in June and May, have
sparked an uproar from Armenian nationalist groups that are opposed to
territorial concessions to Azerbaijan. Also attacking Sarkisian’s
Karabakh policy is the opposition Armenian National Congress (HAK) of
former President Levon Ter-Petrosian, who has long championed mutual
compromise with Azerbaijan.
Bryza claimed he is not worried that the outcry could discourage
Sarkisian from pressing ahead with a compromise settlement. `It
doesn’t worry me too much,’ he said. `It’s domestic politics. These
critics either helped design the basic principles ¦, or they were
members of the government that negotiated the basic principles, or
they proposed ideas in the past that are very similar to what’s being
negotiated now. So all of them made their contributions to getting
where we are today, which is good.’
He appeared to refer to Ter-Petrosian’s HAK, the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) and some members of the
Kocharian administration such as former Foreign Minister Vartan
Oskanian, who has expressed concern about recent developments in the
Karabakh peace process. Dashnaktsutyun was represented in Kocharian’s
government throughout his decade-long rule, while Ter-Petrosian had
strongly advocated in 1997-1998 a peace deal similar to the Madrid
document.
article/1795207.html