WPS Agency, Russia
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
August 17, 2009 Monday

NAGORNO KARABAKH: IF TOMORROW BRINGS WAR

by Stanislav Tarasov

DOES AZERBAIJAN’S BELLIGERENT RHETORIC AIM AT ELEVATING KARABAKH TO A
FULL-PLEDGED PLAYER STATUS?; A discussion of Azeri-Armenian exchange
with regard to Karabakh

After Azerbaijan and Armenia signed, with Moscow’s mediation, the
Meindorf declaration on November 2, 2008, many thought the
belligerents made serious peaceful steps toward each other. The
declaration charges both sides to refrain from using force in regards
of each other to settle the Karabakh conflict.

A feeling persisted the participants would settle some minor issues
soon, and sign a peace agreement. It appears they are back to square
one. In all appearances Azerbaijan is back to their MO of the
pre-Caucasus crisis period. Why?

One, under the pressure from them a decision was made to replace
co-chairmen of the OCSE Minks group, which in essence paralyzed
it. Second, pugnacious notes have sounded in Azeri president Ilkham
Aliev’s speeches. Soon after the Aliev-Sargsyan summit in Moscow,
Aliev said the following at the expanded session of the Azeri
government in July 2009: "Territorial integrity of Azerbaijan must be
restored, and all occupied territories cleared of the aggressors. I
hope the Armenian side takes this into account, so the issue might be
resolved shortly".

Azeri ambassador in Russia Polad Bul-bul ogly introduced a new term
that is unique in its political overtones when he threatened to have
the Nagorno-Karabakh returned through "compelling Armenia for
peace". The ambassador explained that was a possible course of events
in case Russia’s effort to settle the situation turned out "utterly
fruitless", and the negotiation stalled.

Russia is not the only country to provide mediation in the Karabakh
settlement. The U.S., France and Turkey are also active
participants. Ankara made an attempt to work out the situation in
their own way, but Baku opposed Turkey’s initiatives.

Azerbaijan wants to take advantage of the efforts by President
Medvedev to mediate in the conflict in order to use them as a pretext
to start military confrontation with Armenia. Then the turn of the
events will be as the CSTO general-secretary had predicted: "When
speaking of war, it should be understood that CSTO is a collective
security organization, and that Article 4 of the treaty says an
aggression against one member country shall be construed as aggression
against all of them. That is the starting point. Everything else is
essentially words that are mainly capable of doing harm in a complex
situation like the Karabakh settlement". Still, Bordzhyuta expressed
hope renewed Azeri-Armenian dialogue would allow to finally resolve
the issue in a peaceful manner.

A source within the Azeri defense ministry was quick to respond to
this statenent by Bordzhyuta, saying "Zerbajian, unlike Armenia, never
had any incursion plans against the sovereignty and the integrity of
her neighbors. So there will be no military aggression by Azerbaijan
that would allow Yerevan to drag the CSTO countries into the conflict,
and then hide behind their backs. In case of necessity, and should
negotiations to have Armenia voluntarily liberate the Nagorno-Karabakh
region of Azerbaijan it now illegally occupies, provide futile, our
army will further the task of restoring the sovereignty of the
temporarily uncontrollable twenty per cent of our country’s own
territory".

That is exactly the repetition of the "Caucasus crisis" scenario,
which resulted in Tskhinval and Sukhum, not recognized by either
Tbilisi or Moscow previously, becoming subjects of the international
law as more than participants in the conflict settlement issues. So it
appears the desire to make Karabakh a full-fledged participant in the
settlement is the core of the belligerent rhetoric by Azerbaijan.

That is exactly what the U.S. co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk group
Matthew Bryza suggested when he said it was not possible to settle the
Karabakh issue without Karabakh, as it all revolved around the will of
its people. Then it might become possible to agree with a viewpoint by
some of the observers, who said Azerbaijan was attempting to turn the
bilateral Azeri-Armenian talks into something different, and moving on
to a multi-staged political combination, possible involving military
action somewhere in between.

In case there is a military flareup in Karabakh, it is unlikely the
West, having a number of pending projects in the energy networks of
the area, will let Azerbaijan blow it to the wind. Action will ensue,
and that may be what analyst Makhir Kainak, formerly of Turkey
intelligence, hinted at, when he said that "no settlement in the
Karabakh issue was an obstacle in Turkey’s policies in the Caucasus".

A for Moscow, prime minister Putin said during a recent visit of
Ankara they did not want "any conflict at all in the Southern
Caucasus". That says a lot.

All that is left is to wait and see, whether Baku will dare to sweep
the express desires by Moscow, Ankara and Washington under a rug. If
they don’t words of a possible military solution to the conflict will
largely remain words.

Source: Rossiyskie vesti, 1 30, August 14 – 20, 2009, EV