Tweet
ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN AGAIN FAIL TO BREAK NK DEADLOCK
Emil Danielyan
EurasiaNet, NY
June 8 2006
Armenia and Azerbaijan appear to have lost the last realistic
chance for a near-term deal to end the bitter conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh. A face-to-face meeting of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents June 4-5 again failed to make any headway
toward a settlement. Although international mediators insist that a
breakthrough remains possible this year, observers see little prospect
of that happening before national elections scheduled to take place
in both South Caucasus states in 2007 and 2008.
Armenian Presidents Robert Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart
Ilham Aliyev held two days of intensive negotiations for a second time
in less than four months on the sidelines of a high-level forum of
Black Sea nations in Romania. American, French and Russian diplomats
spearheading the Karabakh peace process aimed to use the meeting to
finalize a framework agreement. But Kocharian and Aliyev apparently
refused to budge from their respective negotiating stances, despite
strong pressure from mediators.
The two leaders have so far declined to publicly comment on their
Bucharest talks, leaving it to their foreign ministers to acknowledge
that the talks ended in failure. Armenia's Vartan Oskanian told state
television on June 6 that "they did not succeed in registering progress
and giving a new impetus to resolving the Karabakh conflict." The same
day, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told reporters
in Baku: "I can't assert that we have a major movement forward in
the negotiating process."
The three mediators co-chairing the OSCE's Minsk Group on Karabakh
insisted that the signing of an Armenian-Azerbaijani peace accord this
year is "both imperative and achievable." "The Co-Chairs continue to
believe that the basic principles they have identified and proposed
to the parties for settlement of the conflict offer an equitable basis
for such a resolution," they said in a June 6 statement. "They regret
that the parties have not yet come to agreement on these principles."
These principles call for a gradual settlement of the dispute,
reportedly culminating in a referendum in Karabakh on the
Armenian-controlled territory's status. Leaks reported by Armenian and
Azerbaijani media over the past year indicate that the referendum would
take place at least 10 years after the start of an Armenian military
pullout from all but one of the seven Azerbaijani districts surrounding
Karabakh. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Hopes were high that Aliyev and Kocharian could cut a framework deal
along these lines when they met outside Paris in February. The
mediators, as well as a number of senior European officials,
made unusually upbeat statements in the weeks leading up to the
Armenian-Azerbaijani summit, suggesting that the conflicting parties
had already agreed on this peace formula in principle. However,
those talks collapsed because of what Armenian officials claim was
Aliyev's last-minute rejection of the referendum option. Commentators
in both Baku and Yerevan believe that the proposed vote in Karabakh
would almost certainly legitimize the disputed enclave's reunification
with Armenia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Since the February talks, Aliyev has repeatedly stated that he
will never agree to a de jure loss of any part of Azerbaijan's
internationally recognized territory. Given Aliyev's comments,
Kocharian said prior to going to Bucharest that he had "very modest"
expectations for his latest round of discussions, despite a flurry
of diplomatic activity by France, Russia and the United States. In
late May, US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, along with
high-ranking Russian and French diplomats, visited the Armenian
and Azerbaijani capitals in an effort to generate fresh negotiating
momentum. In a joint statement, the diplomats emphasized that "now
is the time for the sides to reach agreement on the basic principles
of a settlement." Also, Karabakh was high on the agenda of Aliyev's
talks with US President George W. Bush at the White House in April.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
According to Vahan Hovannisian, the pro-Kocharian deputy speaker of the
Armenian parliament, the Bucharest talks failed because Aliyev again
refused to agree on referendum terms for Karabakh. Oskanian was more
diplomatic, saying that the unspecified "issue which the presidents
had failed to solve at Rambouillet was also not solved at Bucharest."
"They (the Armenians) want Nagorno-Karabakh to gain independence,"
a top Aliyev foreign policy adviser, Novruz Mamedov, was quoted by
the Azerbaijani APA news agency as saying on June 6. "President Ilham
Aliyev categorically rejected this proposal by Robert Kocharian."
For his part, Vafa Guluzade, a former top aide to Aliyev's late father
and predecessor Heidar, complained about international pressure on
the Azerbaijani leadership to give up not only Karabakh but also some
of the Armenian-occupied lands in Azerbaijan proper.
"The West has a coward position on the Armenian occupation of
Azerbaijani lands," Guluzade told the Baku daily Zerkalo on June 7.
"Instead of condemning the aggression and evil, the West is demanding
certain concessions from Azerbaijan, the victim of the aggression."
Mediators have warned that failure to achieve Karabakh peace this year
would delay a settlement until at least 2009. They have pointed to
the fact that both Armenia and Azerbaijan plan to hold presidential
elections in 2008. Armenians will also be electing a new parliament
next year. Domestic political jockeying in both countries is likely
to tightly constrain Yerevan's and Baku's negotiating positions.
Armenian and Azerbaijani officials say Aliyev and Kocharian could
meet again before the end of this year in yet another attempt to break
the Karabakh deadlock. In their words, that depends on the outcome of
ongoing consultations between the mediators, and a possible meeting
of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers.
"We are now awaiting news from the co-chairs," said Mammadyarov.
It emerged this week that the Minsk Group's American co-chair,
Steven Mann, will step down to take up another position at the US
State Department. For some observers, this is a sign that Washington
has essentially lost hope of a speedy Karabakh settlement.
Aravot, an independent Armenian newspaper, editorialized on June 7
that a settlement remains elusive because Karabakh peace would make it
much harder for the ruling elites in Armenia and Azerbaijan to cling
to power, and thus retain control of lucrative sources of income,
including cash gained by corrupt means. The paper suggested that
governing politicians in both Yerevan and Baku must have let out a
big sigh of relief after the Bucharest summit. "They will prolong
their meaningless existence for a while," the editorial added. "To
the great detriment of their countries."
Editor's Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Emil Danielyan
EurasiaNet, NY
June 8 2006
Armenia and Azerbaijan appear to have lost the last realistic
chance for a near-term deal to end the bitter conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh. A face-to-face meeting of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents June 4-5 again failed to make any headway
toward a settlement. Although international mediators insist that a
breakthrough remains possible this year, observers see little prospect
of that happening before national elections scheduled to take place
in both South Caucasus states in 2007 and 2008.
Armenian Presidents Robert Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart
Ilham Aliyev held two days of intensive negotiations for a second time
in less than four months on the sidelines of a high-level forum of
Black Sea nations in Romania. American, French and Russian diplomats
spearheading the Karabakh peace process aimed to use the meeting to
finalize a framework agreement. But Kocharian and Aliyev apparently
refused to budge from their respective negotiating stances, despite
strong pressure from mediators.
The two leaders have so far declined to publicly comment on their
Bucharest talks, leaving it to their foreign ministers to acknowledge
that the talks ended in failure. Armenia's Vartan Oskanian told state
television on June 6 that "they did not succeed in registering progress
and giving a new impetus to resolving the Karabakh conflict." The same
day, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told reporters
in Baku: "I can't assert that we have a major movement forward in
the negotiating process."
The three mediators co-chairing the OSCE's Minsk Group on Karabakh
insisted that the signing of an Armenian-Azerbaijani peace accord this
year is "both imperative and achievable." "The Co-Chairs continue to
believe that the basic principles they have identified and proposed
to the parties for settlement of the conflict offer an equitable basis
for such a resolution," they said in a June 6 statement. "They regret
that the parties have not yet come to agreement on these principles."
These principles call for a gradual settlement of the dispute,
reportedly culminating in a referendum in Karabakh on the
Armenian-controlled territory's status. Leaks reported by Armenian and
Azerbaijani media over the past year indicate that the referendum would
take place at least 10 years after the start of an Armenian military
pullout from all but one of the seven Azerbaijani districts surrounding
Karabakh. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Hopes were high that Aliyev and Kocharian could cut a framework deal
along these lines when they met outside Paris in February. The
mediators, as well as a number of senior European officials,
made unusually upbeat statements in the weeks leading up to the
Armenian-Azerbaijani summit, suggesting that the conflicting parties
had already agreed on this peace formula in principle. However,
those talks collapsed because of what Armenian officials claim was
Aliyev's last-minute rejection of the referendum option. Commentators
in both Baku and Yerevan believe that the proposed vote in Karabakh
would almost certainly legitimize the disputed enclave's reunification
with Armenia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Since the February talks, Aliyev has repeatedly stated that he
will never agree to a de jure loss of any part of Azerbaijan's
internationally recognized territory. Given Aliyev's comments,
Kocharian said prior to going to Bucharest that he had "very modest"
expectations for his latest round of discussions, despite a flurry
of diplomatic activity by France, Russia and the United States. In
late May, US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, along with
high-ranking Russian and French diplomats, visited the Armenian
and Azerbaijani capitals in an effort to generate fresh negotiating
momentum. In a joint statement, the diplomats emphasized that "now
is the time for the sides to reach agreement on the basic principles
of a settlement." Also, Karabakh was high on the agenda of Aliyev's
talks with US President George W. Bush at the White House in April.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
According to Vahan Hovannisian, the pro-Kocharian deputy speaker of the
Armenian parliament, the Bucharest talks failed because Aliyev again
refused to agree on referendum terms for Karabakh. Oskanian was more
diplomatic, saying that the unspecified "issue which the presidents
had failed to solve at Rambouillet was also not solved at Bucharest."
"They (the Armenians) want Nagorno-Karabakh to gain independence,"
a top Aliyev foreign policy adviser, Novruz Mamedov, was quoted by
the Azerbaijani APA news agency as saying on June 6. "President Ilham
Aliyev categorically rejected this proposal by Robert Kocharian."
For his part, Vafa Guluzade, a former top aide to Aliyev's late father
and predecessor Heidar, complained about international pressure on
the Azerbaijani leadership to give up not only Karabakh but also some
of the Armenian-occupied lands in Azerbaijan proper.
"The West has a coward position on the Armenian occupation of
Azerbaijani lands," Guluzade told the Baku daily Zerkalo on June 7.
"Instead of condemning the aggression and evil, the West is demanding
certain concessions from Azerbaijan, the victim of the aggression."
Mediators have warned that failure to achieve Karabakh peace this year
would delay a settlement until at least 2009. They have pointed to
the fact that both Armenia and Azerbaijan plan to hold presidential
elections in 2008. Armenians will also be electing a new parliament
next year. Domestic political jockeying in both countries is likely
to tightly constrain Yerevan's and Baku's negotiating positions.
Armenian and Azerbaijani officials say Aliyev and Kocharian could
meet again before the end of this year in yet another attempt to break
the Karabakh deadlock. In their words, that depends on the outcome of
ongoing consultations between the mediators, and a possible meeting
of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers.
"We are now awaiting news from the co-chairs," said Mammadyarov.
It emerged this week that the Minsk Group's American co-chair,
Steven Mann, will step down to take up another position at the US
State Department. For some observers, this is a sign that Washington
has essentially lost hope of a speedy Karabakh settlement.
Aravot, an independent Armenian newspaper, editorialized on June 7
that a settlement remains elusive because Karabakh peace would make it
much harder for the ruling elites in Armenia and Azerbaijan to cling
to power, and thus retain control of lucrative sources of income,
including cash gained by corrupt means. The paper suggested that
governing politicians in both Yerevan and Baku must have let out a
big sigh of relief after the Bucharest summit. "They will prolong
their meaningless existence for a while," the editorial added. "To
the great detriment of their countries."
Editor's Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress