Tweet
"THE US AND RUSSIA RIVALING FOR THE LAURELS OF PEACEMAKER IN THE KARABAKH CONFLICT": NAGORNO-KARABAKH PRESS DIGEST
Regnum, Russia
May 10 2006
Consultations of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
PanARMENIAN.Net reports the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Yuri Merzlyakov
(Russia), Steven Mann (US) and Bernard Fassier (France) to hold
consultations in Moscow on May 2-3. Russian Deputy FM Grigory Karasin
met with the co-chairs and the personal representative of the OSCE
chairman-in-office Andrzej Kasprzyk May 2. The sides discussed the
current issues for the Karabakh conflict settlement, reports the
press service of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
OSCE MG Russian Co-Chair Yuri Merzlyakov says that it is the first
time the co-chairs are consulting behind closed doors. He says
that they will consider how to settle the conflict and how to bring
the sides closer to agreement. The co-chairs will also discuss new
proposals, will try to reach a consensus over the moot points and will
present this formula to the sides during their upcoming visit to the
region. 525th Daily (Baku) says that the failure of the Rambouillet
meeting and the following inaction in the peace process show that
the sides are not willing to concede. This is also proved by the last
statements of the co-chairs. What they are saying implies that they
have no more new proposals to keep the process moving. The daily
reports that during the Azeri president's Washington meeting last
week US Co-Chair Steven Mann said that they were beginning to see some
effective basis for compromise. He did not specify what basis he was
talking about but just said that they were planning not full and final
resolution, but stage-by-stage settlement of some moot points. The
daily says that, in principle, this is in line with Azerbaijan's
stage-by-stage scenario, but, with the present differences between
the sides, it is not clear how much practicable this "stage-by-stage
resolution" is.
APA news agency (Baku) reports that on May 3, after the OSCE MG
co-chairs' Moscow consultations with the personal representative of
the OSCE chairman-in-office Andrzej Kasprzyk, French Co-Chair Bernard
Fassier went to Yerevan and then to Baku. APA says that in Moscow
the mediators specified some details, which they have to formulate
and present to the conflicting sides.
Asked "what proposals has OSCE MG French Co-Chair Bernard Fassier
brought to Yerevan and how good will they be for the Karabakh peace
process?" Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan says: "Very much will depend on
the political will of Azerbaijan. I don't want to link this all with
Azerbaijan, but Armenia has already taken definite steps, and, if we
want success in the matter, Azerbaijan should take them too." A1+
reports Oskanyan to say that after their individual visits to the
region the OSCE MG co-chairs have come to a conclusion that the
presidents should meet once again, but they have not yet decided
where and when.
Commenting on Bernard Fassier's "one more tour of the region" 525th
Daily says that the fact that he came alone proves that the MG have
not yet found a new optimal formula of how to resume the peace process
and need some more consultations with the sides. The daily says that
after Fassier's visit to the region the MG will meet again - in either
Washington or Paris - to finalize the formula and to present it to
the sides. For this purpose, they will organize a new meeting of the
Azeri and Armenian presidents in June-July.
Fassier's consultations with the Azeri leadership will mostly probably
held Mar 5 or May 6, says Zerkalo daily (Baku). The co-chairs have,
in fact, stopped visiting the region together. Even though they
all said quite recently that after the Moscow consultations they
will jointly visit Baku and Yerevan, what we see now is, in fact,
a shuttle diplomacy by two ally-co-chairs - the US and France. After
their individual visits to the region, the US and French co-chairs -
who seem to have formed a perfect tandem - just inform their Russian
colleague about the results. It seems that the Russian co-chair has -
at least temporarily - moved away - or has been removed from the peace
talks, says the daily. The latter is quite possible - for, as far
as the daily knows, the decision to stop joint visits to the region
was made not in Moscow by the co-chairs themselves but in Washington
by the Department of States. The daily says that before the Moscow
consultations the US DS bureau representative for Europe and Eurasia
Terry Davidson said that there would be no joint visit right after the
consultations, while just a day before Russian Co-Chair Yuri Merzlyakov
stressed that he was not planning to visit the region alone without
his colleagues. The daily also reminds that before the Rambouillet
meeting it was Merzyakov who was the most talkative of the three.
The US, together with the other two co-chairs of the OSCE MG,
continues its efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict. It gives
high importance to its cooperation with Russia and hopes that that
country will play a positive role in the matter, 525th Daily reports
US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried
as saying during debates at the Brookings Institution (Washington). He
said that the establishment of peace and stability and the resolution
of conflicts in the South Caucasus is the priority of the US' regional
policy, and Russia is also interested in this. Fried said that in
this sphere the US and Russia cooperate mostly in the Karabakh peace
process, and, despite pessimism by some analysts and media, there is
no reason for US-Russian tensions in this region.
Still, the US and Russia are taking no practical steps to resolve
the conflict, says the daily. Both stress that the sides must resolve
their conflict themselves and expect relevant initiatives from them.
On the other hand, however ardently they may deny this, the two
super powers are actually rivaling for the laurels of peacemaker in
the conflict, which makes the possibility of their joint mediation
rather disputable.
The failure in Rambouillet was natural. The same failure awaits any
new attempt to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict according to
the scheme "territories/security zone in exchange for NK status,"
the political reviewer of the Noyan Tapan information-analytical
center David Petrossyan said at the Apr 28 Caucasus 2005 international
conference. This scheme - saying that the Armenian side should withdraw
its troops from the security zone around Nagorno-Karabakh and then
Azerbaijan should agree to hold a referendum on NK's status - is
unacceptable for either side. This scheme was most appropriate in 1994,
after the conclusion of the cease fire agreement - when after their
military collapse the Azeris were ready to agree that Karabakh was lost
for them for ever, and Armenia did not yet have a doctrine that the
territories controlled by the Armenians or the "zone of security" must
in no way be given back to the Azeris. But in the next two post-war
years, while Russia and the OSCE were sorting out their relations,
the two societies had developed two quite opposite doctrines: in Baku
- the doctrine of "postponed revenge," in Yerevan - the doctrine of
"security zone," says Petrossyan. He says that the present Armenian
and Azeri leaders will not agree to the "territories/security zone
against status" scheme as this agreement runs contrary to the above
two doctrines and may lose Kocharyan and Aliyev their offices. The
idea of international peacekeeping is not popular either. So, today
the mediators have no alternative to the above doctrines. There is a
serious crisis of ideas in the negotiating process, and there is an
urgent need for new ones.
Azg daily publishes the principles of the Republican Party of Armenia
(RPA), proclaimed by its leader, Armenian Prime Minister Andranik
Margaryan. He says: "The Rambouillet talks did not fail - simply, the
sides failed to reach agreement on some key issues. Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic must not be part of Azerbaijan, the NKR population must be
given security guarantees, NKR and Armenia must have common border,
the NKR problem must not be solved at the expense of Armenia's
borders and NKR must be a party to the negotiating process. That's
RPA's position on the Karabakh conflict settlement."
Zerkalo daily calls "a sensation" the statement of OSCE MG US
Co-Chair Steven Mann that an effective basis for compromise has
been found. One important principle is that the MG has given up
its attempts to resolve all the problems once and for all. Now the
approach is opposite: moving forward step by step and leaving some
complex issues for the future. In fact, Mann has made public the MG's
mechanism of the Karabakh conflict settlement. The daily links Mann's
words with the "new settlement proposals" mentioned by Azeri FM Elmar
Mamedyarov for the first time after his meeting with US Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, and with the fact that the selfsame "new
proposals" were presented by Rice to Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan in
Washington. The daily reports both sides to approve of them.
The daily's reviewer Rauf Mirkadyrov concludes that the question is
about the proposal made by the co-chairs of the Dartmouth Conference
workgroup on regional conflicts Harold Saunders (ex deputy of
Henry Kissinger) and Vitaly Naumkin (well-known Russian diplomat,
orientalist) during their recent visit to the region. That is, the
question is about "a framework agreement" on peaceful settlement
of the Armenian-Azeri conflict - a framework that will include a
whole series of "intermediate agreements" on withdrawal of troops,
return of refugees, provision of security. Nagorno-Karabakh is given
"an intermediate status" to be finalized at the concluding stage of
the conflict settlement. The whole point is in Nagorno-Karabakh's
"intermediate status," which, though not internationally legalized,
makes the NK Armenians a party to the negotiating process and no longer
isolated and allows foreign states and international organizations
to establish "legal" relations with them. "The sheep is safe, the
wolves satisfied" - at least, for some time: Baku can parade its no
responsibility for NK's future status, Yerevan can calm down its
public that the "intermediate status" makes Arkady Gukasyan "the
recognized leader of an unrecognized state." But let's not forget
that there is nothing more permanent than something temporary.
Besides, we have already witnessed something of the kind in Kosovo.
There too "unrecognized authorities" have been given "an intermediate
status." And what has come of it - we all know.
The director of the Caucasian Institute of Mass Media, political
scientist Alexander Iskandaryan says than in the Karabakh peace
process the conflicting sides continue their efforts to freeze the
conflict. Karabakh is just something to talk about. Everybody says
that when a political decision is made, the process will get more
specific. But all the parties concerned perfectly know that no
political decision will be made, says Iskandaryan.
The research worker of the Institute of World Economy and International
Relations of the Academy of Sciences of Russia Alexander Krylov says
that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is like the Israeli-Palestinian
or Taiwan conflicts, which have stayed unresolved for many decades
already. "I would call them slack conflicts, conflicts that will not be
resolved in the near future. The talks are underway, then they stop,
then everything takes its normal course," says Krylov. He does not
think that the US-Azeri relations over Iran will have an impact on
the Karabakh peace process.
There are more common than different points between the
Israeli-Palestinian and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, the director of
the Tel Aviv Institute of Eastern Europe and the CIS, Knesset member
Alexander Tsinker says to PanARMENIAN.Net. "Geographically, Israel
and Nagorno-Karabakh cannot 'go away' from Arabs and Azerbaijan,
respectively. Besides, this is a conflict of civilizations: Israel
conflicts with Arabs, Christians with Islam."
At that Tsinker notes that Israel is already trying to resolve its
problem by demarcating its border. "In due time the international
community will recognize this border. The same thing may expect
Karabakh."
Azeri political expert Oktay Atakhan says that all this activity in
the Karabakh problem comes from the interests of the US who wants
to deal a strike on Iran. "And today as never before the US wants
Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach whatever agreement so it can use
their territories as outposts for its strikes on Iran. The objective
of this new political game is to bring Armenia and Azerbaijan to
agreement and to return five districts. For example, they will start
from Fizuli, then Jebrail, then Agdam. The co-chair-states want to do
this stage by stage, with each stage taking one month. For example:
in a month one district, say, Fizuli, is liberated and protected by
international peacekeepers. But the key point is that the US will
use this one month for arranging its outposts in that district and
in 1-2 months to do what it wants to do against Iran." (Echo)
Citing RFE/RL, Haykakan Zhamanak daily reports NATO Parliamentary
Assembly President Pierre Lellouche to invite the Armenian and Azeri
presidents to take part in the PA meeting in Paris in late May. "I
have been myself, just before I was president of the Assembly, to see
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Azeri President Ilham Aliyev.
We are trying to help in finding a solution. The Caucasus needs
stability. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia need to do something else other
than just building weapons and being in this state of cold war,"
Lellouche said in a talk with RFE/RL Azeri correspondent. "I have
been in the trenches in Nagorno-Karabakh and I know how difficult
it is for the two nations. So, I have invited Kocharyan and Aliyev
to Paris because I'm hoping that the two presidents will work it out
through negotiations and the war is not a solution."
Aliyev's visit to the US
Commenting on the results of his talks with US President George Bush,
Azeri President Ilham Aliyev says that he has told Bush that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be resolved exclusively in line with
the international law. "Azerbaijan's occupied lands must be given
back, the refugees must be allowed to go back to their homes and
security guarantees must be provided. There are no changes in our
positions. And President Bush said that the US wants the problem to
be solved peacefully," says Aliyev. (Day.Az)
Azeri FM Elmar Mamedyarov calls Aliyev's Washington talks "very
useful." He says that the sides have discussed "global and regional
problems." Special attention was given to the Karabakh conflict and
the situation over Iran. Azerbaijan advocates peaceful stage-by-stage
resolution of the conflict in the framework of the "Prague Process."
This means that the Armenian troops must be withdrawn from
Nagorno-Karabakh and nearby districts, the territory demined,
refugees taken back to their homes and only then the status of NK
be determined. Mamedyarov says that NK's status must be considered
jointly with the region's Armenian and Azeri communities, i.e. with
the Azeris who lived in the region before the conflict. (525th Daily)
US Congressmen Joe Knollenberg, Frank Pallone, George Radanovich and
Adam Shiff have urged US President George Bush to condemn Azerbaijan's
actions against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. They say that Azerbaijan
is waging a "cold war" against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azeri
authorities are threatening with war and cultivating anti-Armenian
moods. Azerbaijan's actions are breaking stability in the South
Caucasus. In defiance of international criticism, Azeri President
Ilham Aliyev is reiterating that Azerbaijan may start a new military
attack on Karabakh. The congressmen also remind Bush that in Dec
2005 Azeri soldiers destroyed Armenian cultural monuments in Old Juga
(Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan) (ARKA)
Haykakan Zhamanak daily calls "a sensation" the statement of Azeri
President Ilham Aliyev before his meeting with US President George
Bush that Azerbaijan will not support the US if it starts hostilities
against Iran. This statement was contrary to the general unanimity that
Aliyev was invited to the US exactly and exclusively for discussing
Azerbaijan's involvement in the anti-Iranian program.
Thereby, Aliyev has spoiled the US' plans. Commenting on Aliyev's
statement, political expert Agasi Arshakyan says that the US wants
to deploy its troops all along the Azeri-Iranian border so that the
Iranian opposition be sure that Iran's territorial integrity will
not be broken. That is, America needs this to prevent the possible
attempts by the Northern Iranian Azeris to reunify with their
"mother-Azerbaijan." This is certainly not what Azerbaijan and,
possibly, Turkey want, says Arshakyan.
Azeri independent analyst Ilgar Mamedov says that for the first time
Azerbaijan has got a chance to speak about Karabakh in the context
of the Iranian problem, and this may open up new prospects in the
Karabakh conflict settlement. (RL)
Aravot daily gives several remarkable statements on Karabakh from
Azeri President Ilham Aliyev's speech in the Carnegie Fund Foreign
Affairs Council. "We hope that, as a super power and OSCE MG co-chair,
the US will help to resolve the Karabakh conflict and to finally
establish peace in the region." "Today the Karabakh problem is
the key obstacle to Azerbaijan's development. In everything else
we are doing brilliantly: our budget is growing, energy programs
are enlarging." Asked what concessions the winner Armenia can make,
Aliyev says: "First of all, in my opinion, Armenia has not won the
war. Everybody knows that without Russians Armenians would never be
able to occupy our territories. Besides, the war is not over yet. I
think it's time for the Armenian authorities to make a decision and
to try to imagine what will become of Armenia in 10-15 years if the
problem stays unresolved." "Azerbaijan's future is easy to predict:
it will become a strong, prospering country with strong economy
and society, a country one better be a neighbor with." Aliyev says
that peace is good for all the sides. In exchange for concessions,
Armenia will get communications, links with Russia, which "is very
important for it," access to regional programs. The Nagorno-Karabakh
people will be allowed to live in peace. "Our firm position is that
the problem must be solved in the context of Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity," says Aliyev and suggests his settlement scenario: "The
Karabakh Armenians will be given high autonomy in the framework of
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity in analogy with many European
countries. They must be given strong political guarantees that peace
in region will be irreversible." Aliyev made these statements in
Washington on the eve of his meeting with Bush. So Aravot assumes
that he might have been encouraged for this.
Azeri political expert Rasim Musabekov gives an interview to Day.Az
(abridged - REGNUM):
"What an effect will Ilham Aliyev's visit to the US have on the
Karabakh conflict settlement?"
Obviously, it is exactly the US who is trying to give the Karabakh
peace process a new impulse in the context of the so-called Prague
process. And, if not Bush personally, then the deputy secretary of
state and the US co-chair of the OSCE MG, have expressed optimism in
the matter. They say that the positive result is very much possible.
The co-sponsorship of a strong power like the US may prove decisive
for the process. Furthermore, the US is acting in close constructive
cooperation with the EU and Russia. Aliyev says that he has told
Bush about our concerns and that we can't concede beyond the limits
of the international law. I think that this time our arguments and
expectations might well be given more understanding.
When will Armenian President Robert Kocharyan visit the US and what
an effect will his visit have?
I can't say anything specific, but, according to the Armenian media,
Kocharyan is getting ready and will visit the US soon. In economy
and energy, Armenia is of no interest for the US. As Moscow's loyal
ally, Yerevan can't be helpful in the regional problems either. So,
the only reason why the US has invited Kocharyan is to push through
its settlement proposals and to show balance in its relations with
the conflicting sides.
Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan says that all the three OSCE MG co-chairs
will visit the region in May and that the Armenian and Azeri presidents
may meet in June. Is there any sense in the presidents' meeting if
the sides are not ready for concessions?
If we take the package resolution, no progress is possible because of
incompatibility of positions, but in the context of the stage-by-stage
resolution (exactly what the co-chairs are proposing), there seemingly
are some formulas that can set the process afoot. And dodgy and
stubborn as they are, the Armenians will hardly succeed this time in
the face of the joint will of the US, Russia and the EU.
PACE President Rene van der Linden says that the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict must be resolved, first of all, for the sake of the younger
generation. Whole generations of Armenians and Azeri have already
grown up without seeing each other. How can one hope that the Karabakh
problem can be solved on this basis?
This factor is certainly present. But more important is the
understanding that Azerbaijan's growing economic power with the
continuing occupation of its lands will inevitably lead to a new war.
None of the great and regional powers wants this. That's why they are
trying to help the process out of deadlock. Indeed, there still are
people in Azerbaijan and Armenia who have the experience of peaceful
co-existence, and until it is too late we must use this potential
for building and restoring bridges of confidence.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Regnum, Russia
May 10 2006
Consultations of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
PanARMENIAN.Net reports the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Yuri Merzlyakov
(Russia), Steven Mann (US) and Bernard Fassier (France) to hold
consultations in Moscow on May 2-3. Russian Deputy FM Grigory Karasin
met with the co-chairs and the personal representative of the OSCE
chairman-in-office Andrzej Kasprzyk May 2. The sides discussed the
current issues for the Karabakh conflict settlement, reports the
press service of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
OSCE MG Russian Co-Chair Yuri Merzlyakov says that it is the first
time the co-chairs are consulting behind closed doors. He says
that they will consider how to settle the conflict and how to bring
the sides closer to agreement. The co-chairs will also discuss new
proposals, will try to reach a consensus over the moot points and will
present this formula to the sides during their upcoming visit to the
region. 525th Daily (Baku) says that the failure of the Rambouillet
meeting and the following inaction in the peace process show that
the sides are not willing to concede. This is also proved by the last
statements of the co-chairs. What they are saying implies that they
have no more new proposals to keep the process moving. The daily
reports that during the Azeri president's Washington meeting last
week US Co-Chair Steven Mann said that they were beginning to see some
effective basis for compromise. He did not specify what basis he was
talking about but just said that they were planning not full and final
resolution, but stage-by-stage settlement of some moot points. The
daily says that, in principle, this is in line with Azerbaijan's
stage-by-stage scenario, but, with the present differences between
the sides, it is not clear how much practicable this "stage-by-stage
resolution" is.
APA news agency (Baku) reports that on May 3, after the OSCE MG
co-chairs' Moscow consultations with the personal representative of
the OSCE chairman-in-office Andrzej Kasprzyk, French Co-Chair Bernard
Fassier went to Yerevan and then to Baku. APA says that in Moscow
the mediators specified some details, which they have to formulate
and present to the conflicting sides.
Asked "what proposals has OSCE MG French Co-Chair Bernard Fassier
brought to Yerevan and how good will they be for the Karabakh peace
process?" Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan says: "Very much will depend on
the political will of Azerbaijan. I don't want to link this all with
Azerbaijan, but Armenia has already taken definite steps, and, if we
want success in the matter, Azerbaijan should take them too." A1+
reports Oskanyan to say that after their individual visits to the
region the OSCE MG co-chairs have come to a conclusion that the
presidents should meet once again, but they have not yet decided
where and when.
Commenting on Bernard Fassier's "one more tour of the region" 525th
Daily says that the fact that he came alone proves that the MG have
not yet found a new optimal formula of how to resume the peace process
and need some more consultations with the sides. The daily says that
after Fassier's visit to the region the MG will meet again - in either
Washington or Paris - to finalize the formula and to present it to
the sides. For this purpose, they will organize a new meeting of the
Azeri and Armenian presidents in June-July.
Fassier's consultations with the Azeri leadership will mostly probably
held Mar 5 or May 6, says Zerkalo daily (Baku). The co-chairs have,
in fact, stopped visiting the region together. Even though they
all said quite recently that after the Moscow consultations they
will jointly visit Baku and Yerevan, what we see now is, in fact,
a shuttle diplomacy by two ally-co-chairs - the US and France. After
their individual visits to the region, the US and French co-chairs -
who seem to have formed a perfect tandem - just inform their Russian
colleague about the results. It seems that the Russian co-chair has -
at least temporarily - moved away - or has been removed from the peace
talks, says the daily. The latter is quite possible - for, as far
as the daily knows, the decision to stop joint visits to the region
was made not in Moscow by the co-chairs themselves but in Washington
by the Department of States. The daily says that before the Moscow
consultations the US DS bureau representative for Europe and Eurasia
Terry Davidson said that there would be no joint visit right after the
consultations, while just a day before Russian Co-Chair Yuri Merzlyakov
stressed that he was not planning to visit the region alone without
his colleagues. The daily also reminds that before the Rambouillet
meeting it was Merzyakov who was the most talkative of the three.
The US, together with the other two co-chairs of the OSCE MG,
continues its efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict. It gives
high importance to its cooperation with Russia and hopes that that
country will play a positive role in the matter, 525th Daily reports
US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried
as saying during debates at the Brookings Institution (Washington). He
said that the establishment of peace and stability and the resolution
of conflicts in the South Caucasus is the priority of the US' regional
policy, and Russia is also interested in this. Fried said that in
this sphere the US and Russia cooperate mostly in the Karabakh peace
process, and, despite pessimism by some analysts and media, there is
no reason for US-Russian tensions in this region.
Still, the US and Russia are taking no practical steps to resolve
the conflict, says the daily. Both stress that the sides must resolve
their conflict themselves and expect relevant initiatives from them.
On the other hand, however ardently they may deny this, the two
super powers are actually rivaling for the laurels of peacemaker in
the conflict, which makes the possibility of their joint mediation
rather disputable.
The failure in Rambouillet was natural. The same failure awaits any
new attempt to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict according to
the scheme "territories/security zone in exchange for NK status,"
the political reviewer of the Noyan Tapan information-analytical
center David Petrossyan said at the Apr 28 Caucasus 2005 international
conference. This scheme - saying that the Armenian side should withdraw
its troops from the security zone around Nagorno-Karabakh and then
Azerbaijan should agree to hold a referendum on NK's status - is
unacceptable for either side. This scheme was most appropriate in 1994,
after the conclusion of the cease fire agreement - when after their
military collapse the Azeris were ready to agree that Karabakh was lost
for them for ever, and Armenia did not yet have a doctrine that the
territories controlled by the Armenians or the "zone of security" must
in no way be given back to the Azeris. But in the next two post-war
years, while Russia and the OSCE were sorting out their relations,
the two societies had developed two quite opposite doctrines: in Baku
- the doctrine of "postponed revenge," in Yerevan - the doctrine of
"security zone," says Petrossyan. He says that the present Armenian
and Azeri leaders will not agree to the "territories/security zone
against status" scheme as this agreement runs contrary to the above
two doctrines and may lose Kocharyan and Aliyev their offices. The
idea of international peacekeeping is not popular either. So, today
the mediators have no alternative to the above doctrines. There is a
serious crisis of ideas in the negotiating process, and there is an
urgent need for new ones.
Azg daily publishes the principles of the Republican Party of Armenia
(RPA), proclaimed by its leader, Armenian Prime Minister Andranik
Margaryan. He says: "The Rambouillet talks did not fail - simply, the
sides failed to reach agreement on some key issues. Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic must not be part of Azerbaijan, the NKR population must be
given security guarantees, NKR and Armenia must have common border,
the NKR problem must not be solved at the expense of Armenia's
borders and NKR must be a party to the negotiating process. That's
RPA's position on the Karabakh conflict settlement."
Zerkalo daily calls "a sensation" the statement of OSCE MG US
Co-Chair Steven Mann that an effective basis for compromise has
been found. One important principle is that the MG has given up
its attempts to resolve all the problems once and for all. Now the
approach is opposite: moving forward step by step and leaving some
complex issues for the future. In fact, Mann has made public the MG's
mechanism of the Karabakh conflict settlement. The daily links Mann's
words with the "new settlement proposals" mentioned by Azeri FM Elmar
Mamedyarov for the first time after his meeting with US Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, and with the fact that the selfsame "new
proposals" were presented by Rice to Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan in
Washington. The daily reports both sides to approve of them.
The daily's reviewer Rauf Mirkadyrov concludes that the question is
about the proposal made by the co-chairs of the Dartmouth Conference
workgroup on regional conflicts Harold Saunders (ex deputy of
Henry Kissinger) and Vitaly Naumkin (well-known Russian diplomat,
orientalist) during their recent visit to the region. That is, the
question is about "a framework agreement" on peaceful settlement
of the Armenian-Azeri conflict - a framework that will include a
whole series of "intermediate agreements" on withdrawal of troops,
return of refugees, provision of security. Nagorno-Karabakh is given
"an intermediate status" to be finalized at the concluding stage of
the conflict settlement. The whole point is in Nagorno-Karabakh's
"intermediate status," which, though not internationally legalized,
makes the NK Armenians a party to the negotiating process and no longer
isolated and allows foreign states and international organizations
to establish "legal" relations with them. "The sheep is safe, the
wolves satisfied" - at least, for some time: Baku can parade its no
responsibility for NK's future status, Yerevan can calm down its
public that the "intermediate status" makes Arkady Gukasyan "the
recognized leader of an unrecognized state." But let's not forget
that there is nothing more permanent than something temporary.
Besides, we have already witnessed something of the kind in Kosovo.
There too "unrecognized authorities" have been given "an intermediate
status." And what has come of it - we all know.
The director of the Caucasian Institute of Mass Media, political
scientist Alexander Iskandaryan says than in the Karabakh peace
process the conflicting sides continue their efforts to freeze the
conflict. Karabakh is just something to talk about. Everybody says
that when a political decision is made, the process will get more
specific. But all the parties concerned perfectly know that no
political decision will be made, says Iskandaryan.
The research worker of the Institute of World Economy and International
Relations of the Academy of Sciences of Russia Alexander Krylov says
that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is like the Israeli-Palestinian
or Taiwan conflicts, which have stayed unresolved for many decades
already. "I would call them slack conflicts, conflicts that will not be
resolved in the near future. The talks are underway, then they stop,
then everything takes its normal course," says Krylov. He does not
think that the US-Azeri relations over Iran will have an impact on
the Karabakh peace process.
There are more common than different points between the
Israeli-Palestinian and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, the director of
the Tel Aviv Institute of Eastern Europe and the CIS, Knesset member
Alexander Tsinker says to PanARMENIAN.Net. "Geographically, Israel
and Nagorno-Karabakh cannot 'go away' from Arabs and Azerbaijan,
respectively. Besides, this is a conflict of civilizations: Israel
conflicts with Arabs, Christians with Islam."
At that Tsinker notes that Israel is already trying to resolve its
problem by demarcating its border. "In due time the international
community will recognize this border. The same thing may expect
Karabakh."
Azeri political expert Oktay Atakhan says that all this activity in
the Karabakh problem comes from the interests of the US who wants
to deal a strike on Iran. "And today as never before the US wants
Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach whatever agreement so it can use
their territories as outposts for its strikes on Iran. The objective
of this new political game is to bring Armenia and Azerbaijan to
agreement and to return five districts. For example, they will start
from Fizuli, then Jebrail, then Agdam. The co-chair-states want to do
this stage by stage, with each stage taking one month. For example:
in a month one district, say, Fizuli, is liberated and protected by
international peacekeepers. But the key point is that the US will
use this one month for arranging its outposts in that district and
in 1-2 months to do what it wants to do against Iran." (Echo)
Citing RFE/RL, Haykakan Zhamanak daily reports NATO Parliamentary
Assembly President Pierre Lellouche to invite the Armenian and Azeri
presidents to take part in the PA meeting in Paris in late May. "I
have been myself, just before I was president of the Assembly, to see
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Azeri President Ilham Aliyev.
We are trying to help in finding a solution. The Caucasus needs
stability. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia need to do something else other
than just building weapons and being in this state of cold war,"
Lellouche said in a talk with RFE/RL Azeri correspondent. "I have
been in the trenches in Nagorno-Karabakh and I know how difficult
it is for the two nations. So, I have invited Kocharyan and Aliyev
to Paris because I'm hoping that the two presidents will work it out
through negotiations and the war is not a solution."
Aliyev's visit to the US
Commenting on the results of his talks with US President George Bush,
Azeri President Ilham Aliyev says that he has told Bush that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be resolved exclusively in line with
the international law. "Azerbaijan's occupied lands must be given
back, the refugees must be allowed to go back to their homes and
security guarantees must be provided. There are no changes in our
positions. And President Bush said that the US wants the problem to
be solved peacefully," says Aliyev. (Day.Az)
Azeri FM Elmar Mamedyarov calls Aliyev's Washington talks "very
useful." He says that the sides have discussed "global and regional
problems." Special attention was given to the Karabakh conflict and
the situation over Iran. Azerbaijan advocates peaceful stage-by-stage
resolution of the conflict in the framework of the "Prague Process."
This means that the Armenian troops must be withdrawn from
Nagorno-Karabakh and nearby districts, the territory demined,
refugees taken back to their homes and only then the status of NK
be determined. Mamedyarov says that NK's status must be considered
jointly with the region's Armenian and Azeri communities, i.e. with
the Azeris who lived in the region before the conflict. (525th Daily)
US Congressmen Joe Knollenberg, Frank Pallone, George Radanovich and
Adam Shiff have urged US President George Bush to condemn Azerbaijan's
actions against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. They say that Azerbaijan
is waging a "cold war" against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azeri
authorities are threatening with war and cultivating anti-Armenian
moods. Azerbaijan's actions are breaking stability in the South
Caucasus. In defiance of international criticism, Azeri President
Ilham Aliyev is reiterating that Azerbaijan may start a new military
attack on Karabakh. The congressmen also remind Bush that in Dec
2005 Azeri soldiers destroyed Armenian cultural monuments in Old Juga
(Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan) (ARKA)
Haykakan Zhamanak daily calls "a sensation" the statement of Azeri
President Ilham Aliyev before his meeting with US President George
Bush that Azerbaijan will not support the US if it starts hostilities
against Iran. This statement was contrary to the general unanimity that
Aliyev was invited to the US exactly and exclusively for discussing
Azerbaijan's involvement in the anti-Iranian program.
Thereby, Aliyev has spoiled the US' plans. Commenting on Aliyev's
statement, political expert Agasi Arshakyan says that the US wants
to deploy its troops all along the Azeri-Iranian border so that the
Iranian opposition be sure that Iran's territorial integrity will
not be broken. That is, America needs this to prevent the possible
attempts by the Northern Iranian Azeris to reunify with their
"mother-Azerbaijan." This is certainly not what Azerbaijan and,
possibly, Turkey want, says Arshakyan.
Azeri independent analyst Ilgar Mamedov says that for the first time
Azerbaijan has got a chance to speak about Karabakh in the context
of the Iranian problem, and this may open up new prospects in the
Karabakh conflict settlement. (RL)
Aravot daily gives several remarkable statements on Karabakh from
Azeri President Ilham Aliyev's speech in the Carnegie Fund Foreign
Affairs Council. "We hope that, as a super power and OSCE MG co-chair,
the US will help to resolve the Karabakh conflict and to finally
establish peace in the region." "Today the Karabakh problem is
the key obstacle to Azerbaijan's development. In everything else
we are doing brilliantly: our budget is growing, energy programs
are enlarging." Asked what concessions the winner Armenia can make,
Aliyev says: "First of all, in my opinion, Armenia has not won the
war. Everybody knows that without Russians Armenians would never be
able to occupy our territories. Besides, the war is not over yet. I
think it's time for the Armenian authorities to make a decision and
to try to imagine what will become of Armenia in 10-15 years if the
problem stays unresolved." "Azerbaijan's future is easy to predict:
it will become a strong, prospering country with strong economy
and society, a country one better be a neighbor with." Aliyev says
that peace is good for all the sides. In exchange for concessions,
Armenia will get communications, links with Russia, which "is very
important for it," access to regional programs. The Nagorno-Karabakh
people will be allowed to live in peace. "Our firm position is that
the problem must be solved in the context of Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity," says Aliyev and suggests his settlement scenario: "The
Karabakh Armenians will be given high autonomy in the framework of
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity in analogy with many European
countries. They must be given strong political guarantees that peace
in region will be irreversible." Aliyev made these statements in
Washington on the eve of his meeting with Bush. So Aravot assumes
that he might have been encouraged for this.
Azeri political expert Rasim Musabekov gives an interview to Day.Az
(abridged - REGNUM):
"What an effect will Ilham Aliyev's visit to the US have on the
Karabakh conflict settlement?"
Obviously, it is exactly the US who is trying to give the Karabakh
peace process a new impulse in the context of the so-called Prague
process. And, if not Bush personally, then the deputy secretary of
state and the US co-chair of the OSCE MG, have expressed optimism in
the matter. They say that the positive result is very much possible.
The co-sponsorship of a strong power like the US may prove decisive
for the process. Furthermore, the US is acting in close constructive
cooperation with the EU and Russia. Aliyev says that he has told
Bush about our concerns and that we can't concede beyond the limits
of the international law. I think that this time our arguments and
expectations might well be given more understanding.
When will Armenian President Robert Kocharyan visit the US and what
an effect will his visit have?
I can't say anything specific, but, according to the Armenian media,
Kocharyan is getting ready and will visit the US soon. In economy
and energy, Armenia is of no interest for the US. As Moscow's loyal
ally, Yerevan can't be helpful in the regional problems either. So,
the only reason why the US has invited Kocharyan is to push through
its settlement proposals and to show balance in its relations with
the conflicting sides.
Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan says that all the three OSCE MG co-chairs
will visit the region in May and that the Armenian and Azeri presidents
may meet in June. Is there any sense in the presidents' meeting if
the sides are not ready for concessions?
If we take the package resolution, no progress is possible because of
incompatibility of positions, but in the context of the stage-by-stage
resolution (exactly what the co-chairs are proposing), there seemingly
are some formulas that can set the process afoot. And dodgy and
stubborn as they are, the Armenians will hardly succeed this time in
the face of the joint will of the US, Russia and the EU.
PACE President Rene van der Linden says that the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict must be resolved, first of all, for the sake of the younger
generation. Whole generations of Armenians and Azeri have already
grown up without seeing each other. How can one hope that the Karabakh
problem can be solved on this basis?
This factor is certainly present. But more important is the
understanding that Azerbaijan's growing economic power with the
continuing occupation of its lands will inevitably lead to a new war.
None of the great and regional powers wants this. That's why they are
trying to help the process out of deadlock. Indeed, there still are
people in Azerbaijan and Armenia who have the experience of peaceful
co-existence, and until it is too late we must use this potential
for building and restoring bridges of confidence.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress