Unfortunately the outcome is nearly always the same -- another Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) press statement declaring that good discussions took place but no breakthrough. This meeting was no exception: Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, met on the fringes of the OSCE Informal Ministerial Meeting in Almaty, Kazakhstan. There was no breakthrough. Indeed there was very little (if any) progress at all. There was not even a joint press statement. Each side blamed the other. Nalbandian called Mammadyarov’s approach destructive. Mammadyarov said he believed that Armenia has no desire to reach an agreement.The two leaderships need to reach an agreement on a set of “Basic Principles.” The basic principles were unveiled in June 2006 by the French, Russian and US co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group that is mediating a solution to the conflict. They were revised in late 2007 and late 2008, adopted one year ago on the sidelines of the G8 summit in L’Aquila and reaffirmed last month at the G8 meeting in Canada. The principles foresee the return to Azerbaijan of the seven territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh currently occupied by Armenia; interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh that provides guarantees of security and self-governance; a land corridor linking Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia; future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through “a legally binding expression of will”; the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence; and international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation.
Azerbaijan continues to say they have accepted the revised principles and that it is now up to the international community to put greater pressure on Armenia, citing that the longer Armenia continues to control Nagorno-Karabakh and occupy the seven surrounding Azerbaijani provinces, the harder it will be to change the status quo and achieve peace with this sovereign Azerbaijani territory remaining a vital bargaining chip for the Armenians in negotiations regarding the future status of Karabakh. Prolonging the status quo is only favorable to the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh regime and those that support it.
This lack of movement and continued occupation of its lands has resulted in Baku becoming increasingly fed up, which in turn has resulted in an increase of “war talk” from its leadership. War would blow the South Caucasus apart, spilling over into the entire region.
In Almaty the Minsk Group co-chairs, together with the French and Russian foreign ministers, stated that efforts made so far by the two parties have not been sufficient to overcome their differences and urged a greater spirit of compromise. Nice words, but that is all they are because they are not backed up with concrete actions and therefore seem to fall on deaf ears.
I am not optimistic -- rather the opposite. With the talks in stalemate it is not unlikely that tension on the ground will increase and there will be further violations of the cease-fire line, not less. So far this year 19 lives have been lost, the same number for the whole of 2009. The international community needs to do more but yet the apparent danger of the conflict still seems to be underestimated -- as it was almost two years ago in Georgia. It would seem that unless open war breaks out, Karabakh will continue to be low on the West’s priority list given there are a number of other actual or potential conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran) that are viewed as more important in the short to medium term. This was clearly demonstrated by the West’s response to the recent escalation in hostilities. The EU issued a statement calling on both parties to respect the cease-fire and sent EU Special Representative Peter Semneby to the region. Furthermore, coming in the aftermath of an announcement from the EU’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, that the role of the EU special representative may be scrapped, this is viewed in the region as symbolic of the EU’s interest. The US had a similar response. During US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s recent visit to Azerbaijan and Armenia, she went no further than repeating the standard lines of how the conflict should be resolved peacefully. No new steps were proposed, nor did she suggest the US beef up its role.
The West must abandon the silence of quiet diplomacy and instead start to make some noise, including having a regular and effective presence in the region. While is it reasonable to tell Azerbaijan that its continued talk of war is counterproductive, at the same time Armenia needs to be told that its continued occupation is unacceptable and unsustainable. It simply cannot go on forever. If nothing is done, nothing will change and a continued stalemate (or worse) will be the result.
