MEDIATORS BOW OUT OF THE KARABAKH GAME;
Russia, Europe, and the United States ought to declare that war is unacceptable
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)
July 21, 2006 Friday
By Nicholas Whyte, Europe Program Director, Sabine Freizer, Caucasus
Project Director, International Crisis Group
An update on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; International mediators
have spent 12 years trying in vain to find a way of resolving
the bloody conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over control of
Nagorno-Karabakh. American, French, and Russian mediators have now had
to withdraw, and the opposing sides are preparing to resume their war.
Contrary to expectations, the G8 summit in St. Petersburg did not
include talks between President Robert Kocharian of Armenia and
President Ilkham Aliyev of Azerbaijan. International mediators
have spent 12 years trying in vain to find a way of resolving
the bloody conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over control of
Nagorno-Karabakh. American, French, and Russian mediators have now had
to withdraw, and the opposing sides are preparing to resume their war.
After the USSR collapsed, several armed conflicts broke out in the
Trans-Caucasus – but the largest and most vicious was the conflict
in Nagorno-Karabakh, a region of Azerbaijan with a predominantly
Armenian population. By the time a truce was signed in 1995, around
30,000 people had been killed and over a million people from both
sides had been subjected to forced resettlement. The armed forces
of Nagorno-Karabakh, supported by Armenia, are still holding on to
seven districts of Azerbaijan.
Over the past decade, the opposing sides haven’t managed to sign a
single agreement that might bring political regulation closer. The
high points of many years of effort by Minsk Group mediators were two
meetings between Robert Kocharian and Ilkham Aliyev, held in the first
half of 2006. But even these meetings didn’t produce any concrete steps
toward achieving a stable peace. In an unusually tough statement issued
in late June, the international mediators indicated that they don’t see
any point in continuing intensive shuttle diplomacy or organizing more
meetings at the presidential level. In a statement dated July 3, the
mediators confirmed that they are prepared to facilitate regulation,
while emphasizing that in practice, neither Baku nor Yerevan are
showing any political will to reach agreement.
The basic components of potential regulation are well-known. The
International Crisis Group identified them clearly in two reports
released in 2005. The statement issued by the mediators confirmed these
provisions: all sides must reject the use of force; Armenian troops
should leave the territory of Azerbaijan adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh;
both sides should undertake to hold a referendum on the ultimate
status of Nagorno-Karabakh, without any "forcible measures" being used;
Nagorno-Karabakh should have a temporary status during this period, and
the international community should provide substantial aid, including
a peacekeeping contingent – especially given that this is Europe’s only
"frozen conflict" where no international observers are present.
The stumbling blocks in the negotiations have been the future status
of two corridors linking Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, the conditions
for the proposed referendum, and the requirement to ensure the return
of refugees before the referendum is held. The mediators proposed
reaching agreement on other points first, unblocking the process
itself, and postponing discussion of the most difficult problems –
but this proposal was not accepted.
Armenia’s victory in the military action of 1992-94, when extensive
territories were occupied and their Azeri residents expelled, has
proved to be a Pyrrhic victory. Armenia was left isolated when Turkey
closed its borders. But the political arithmetic accepted in Yerevan
precludes the possibility of conclusive regulation: supporters of
President Kocharian, the former leader of Nagorno-Karabakh, would
never forgive him for making concessions to Azerbaijan.
Baku, kept afloat by its oil export earnings (set to triple
Azerbaijan’s revenues by 2009), seems to be harboring its own plans
for resolving the conflict. Azerbaijan’s defense spending for 2007
will be larger than Armenia’s entire state budget. In the last war,
Azerbaijan was defeated. Clearly, some people in Baku are in a
revanchist mood: Azeri officials, starting with President Aliyev,
are praising their country’s military might.
Although the mediators’ efforts haven’t produced results, the
international community cannot allow events to get out of control;
there is too much at stake. The time has come to revise relations
with both countries.
Armenia is receiving substantial aid from the outside world, some
of which was delivered recently from the United States as part of
the Millenium Challenges program. Azerbaijan is at the center of a
network of energy and security interests – including the gas and oil
pipelines connecting Caspian Sea fields with Turkey and the West.
Some representatives of Azerbaijan are hoping that geopolitical
interests will make the international community turn a blind eye if
Azerbaijan launches a military campaign to regain the territory it
lost in 1994. Russia, Europe, and the United States need to make their
stance on this issue absolutely clear, if that has not already been
done by the mediators’ latest statement. They should indicate that
any renewed use of armed force would negate all commitments regarding
economic and political assistance. If the international community
can’t manage to restore peace to the Trans-Caucasus, it should at least
make it unambiguously clear that resuming the war is unacceptable.
Source: Vremya Novostei, July 20, 2006, p. 5
Translated by Elena Leonova