A few lessons of the Lebanon crisis in the context of Karabagh
Yerkir.am
July 21, 2006
By Gayane Movsessian
The tragic developments in Lebanon obviously show the helplessness
of international organizations and the international community in
general in countering global crises including those that arise in
the course of regional conflicts.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union a situation emerged whereby
international mechanisms were distorted and no new system had been
formed. In this situation a number of regional conflicts reached a
deadlock, as experts note. This does not refer only to the Middle
East. It refers to Iraq, Iran, China and a number of other countries.
There are varying opinions as to who is to blame for the war
in Lebanon. And no one knows what to do about it. Therefore,
the statements made by the international community are rather
declarative. The aggravation of the situation in the Middle East showed
to what attempts of distorting solution of conflicts and unbalanced
approach to such solutions can lead.
Particularly, Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in
2005 and from the Southern territories of Lebanon in 2000 did not
lead to the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict but to a new
phase in the confrontation, which as experts estimate, can push back
the situation in the Middle East for twenty years.
When observing the developments in the Middle East one cannot help
drawing parallels with the Karabagh conflict, more specifically, with
the scheme of the settlement recently publicized by the international
mediators.
The situation in Lebanon confirms our repeatedly voiced concern over
the proposal of withdrawal of Armenian troops from the territories
adjacent to Nagorno Karabagh and postponement of determination of
Nagorno Karabagh’s legal status.
The mediators do not want to see these concerns and are again trying
to distort the settlement process. The leaders of 9 countries stressed
the necessity of "speedy agreement over the main principles of peaceful
settlement of the Karabagh conflict this year". They called on Armenia
and Azerbaijan to exert political will to reach an agreement and
prepare their peoples for peace rather than for war.
This has been repeated for many times over many years. What is
the result? Are the people in Azerbaijan being prepared for
peace? Meanwhile, the governments in Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh
Republic consistently convince their populations of the necessity for
a compromise. It should be noted that we are talking about mutual
compromise. However, no one wants to notice this difference in the
behavior of Yerevan and Baku.
The mediators prefer to stick to the balanced approach: in any
situation both sides are either right or wrong. In such a situation,
why would the Armenian public trust the fair approach of the
international mediators and the possibility of implementation of a
peace agreement? The public in Karabagh cannot even be mentioned since
the three "co-judges" of the OSCE Minsk Group seem to have completely
forgotten about one of the true and internationally recognized sides
of the conflict – Nagorno Karabagh.
Meanwhile, it was Karabagh that suffered most because of Azerbaijan’s
aggression in 1991-1994. It is Karabagh that is the least interested
in restarting the war as opposed to Azerbaijan.
It is Karabagh that is ready to support any of the mediators’
initiatives aimed at consolidation of the ceasefire regime and
conflict settlement. " Nagorno Karabagh has always supported the
peaceful settlement of the conflict and is ready to exert all efforts
to reach an arrangement for sustainable peace in the region.
Unfortunately, not everything depends on the mediators. Taking into
consideration Azerbaijan’s destructive position that denies any contact
with Nagorno Karabagh, an acceptable and fair settlement seems to
be very hard to achieve. The President of the Russian Federation
correctly pointed out that Russia is not planning to impose any
settlement on the conflicting sides and that compromise should be
achieved by the peoples.
Taking into consideration the Russian Federation’s readiness to be a
guarantor for the implementation of the reached agreement we would
like to remind once again that only with participation of legally
elected authorities of Nagorno Karabagh Republic, the main party
of the conflict that suffered most, is achievement of a settlement
related to the future of our people possible," Foreign Minister of
Nagorno Karabagh Republic Georgi Petrossian stated commenting on the
statement made by G-9 leaders.
Azerbaijan was alerted by the statement of the G-9 leaders stressing
the importance of preparing peoples for peace rather than for war. "If
the statements that other solutions to the conflict are possible are
referred to by this call, it is necessary to take into consideration
the peculiarities of Azerbaijan’s situation.
We are not in a position to afford conducting negotiations for the sake
of it," Head of the Information Department of Azerbaijan’s Foreign
Ministry Tair Tagizade stated. Having rejected any settlement based
on mutual consensus Baku is still hoping to get everything with the
assistance of the mediators.
Azerbaijan’s hopes lie with the new American Co-Chair Mathew Bryza. The
latter, according to the Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov,
is planning to visit Yerevan and Baku on July 31 – August 1 with the
purpose to discuss " some new elements" of the Karabagh settlement.
According to Mamedyarov, if the Azeri side sees an opportunity for
progress in Bryza’s proposals it might agree for a meeting of the
Armenian and Azeri foreign ministers.
Meanwhile, the Armenian President Robert Kocharian and his Azeri
counterpart Ilham Aliyev will have an opportunity to meet the Russian
President Vladimir Putin in the framework of the informal CIS summit.
One can hardly expect that Russia will come up with any new initiatives
on Karabagh settlement during this meeting. However, we believe that
the Russian president sends some messages to the Armenian and Azeri
presidents, messages that are not intended for publicity.
The problem is that Azerbaijan’s denial of Nagorno Karabagh’s right for
self-determination as well as the continuing anti-Armenian propaganda
make it impossible to for such meetings and messages to achieve any
progress in the settlement process.