THE ILLUSIVE ‘POSITIVE’ OUTCOME OF PEACE TALKS

Asbarez
Dec 2nd, 2009

Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian speaks to reporters at
the OSCE Ministerial summit in Athens on December 2, 2009.

Public statements made by foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan
at the OSCE Ministerial Council in Athens call into question the
"progress" that was touted Tuesday by that organization’s Minsk Group
Co-chairmen, who also pressed the sides to intensify negotiations to
resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

With the 17th meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council as a stage,
Azeri and Armenian foreign ministers Elmar Mammadyarov and Eduard
Nalbandian presented conflicting views on the process with Mammadyarov
characterizing Armenia as an aggressor, while Nalbandian condemning
the terse military rhetoric directed toward Armenia by Azerbaijan.

"The Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict still remains a
major source of instability and impediment to the economic development
and integration of the entire region of the South Caucasus into the
European and Euro-Atlantic architecture," said Mammadyarov.

"As a result of this conflict almost 20 percent of the territory
of Azerbaijan has been still occupied by Armenia, around 1 million
ethnically cleansed Azerbaijani population has become internally
displaced and refugees, thousands of Azerbaijani historical-cultural
heritage items on the occupied territories devastated and looted,"
the Azeri leader added.

Mammadyarov also said that "Providing self-governance for
Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan will be a just and durable solution,
as well as it can dramatically reduce tensions and challenges for
peace and stability in the region," and the "withdrawal of Armenian
troops in a fixed time framework from the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan will open a tremendous opportunity for the region.’

All of this came after Mammadyarov urged his international colleagues
to fully adhere to the Helsinki principles, based on which the OSCE
was founded in 1975.

"The pattern of non-compliance of one State, Azerbaijan, to the core
arms control regime, particularly by substantially exceeding maximum
levels of holdings in at least two categories of armaments set by the
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, combined with the war
rhetoric, raises concerns about that country’s real intentions.

Azerbaijan violates one of the basic principles of the OSCE – the
principle of non-use or threat of use of force," emphasized Nalbandian
in his remarks to the Council.

"We [Armenia] are convinced that in order to create an opportunity
for the progress in the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, the parties should commit to refrain from the steps that
could hamper the peace process, including the attempts, which have been
made here in the speech of the Azerbaijani minister, to misinterpret
the essence of the conflict and of the ongoing negotiations," added
Nalbandian, who also blasted efforts to use the Karabakh resolution
as a precondition for the Armenia-Turkey rapprochement process.

"Armenia is committed to a peaceful solution of the conflict, based
on the norms and principles of international law, particularly the
principles of non use or threat of use of force, self-determination
and territorial integrity, which were reflected yesterday in the
Joint Statement by the Heads of Delegation of the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chair countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan," emphasized Nalbandian.

And then there was Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu who told
the Council that Armenia-Turkey relations could not normalize without
a resolution to the Karabakh conflict. He also expressed the same
sentiment to Mammadyarov in a separate meeting, but, reportedly,
did not discuss Karabakh while meeting with Nalbandian.

Nalbandian’s comments at the OSCE Council were a mere slap on the wrist
for Azerbaijan, whose president Ilham Aliyev last week threatened war
again ahead of a presidential meeting, which, according to conventional
wisdom, should have never taken place in light of the threats.

Armenia’s position on the military threats has been soft, at best. If
Mammadyarov’s remarks are an indication, Azerbaijan is unwilling to
budge from its position and Turkey continues to insist that without
a Karabakh agreement there will be no ties with Armenia.

We can analyze ad nauseam about which minister was more forceful
in his diplomatic overture, but the truth remains that despite the
illusive inroads in the talks, the true harbinger of things to come
is the joint statement by the Co-chairmen, who unanimously call for
the intensification process. This can only mean one thing: a deal on
the conflict is imminent and Armenia, once again, will be cornered
to sign an agreement that will compromise its national security.