Tweet
OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS HAIL MOSCOW KARABAKH TALKS
Jean-Christophe Peuch
EurasiaNet
Nov 7 2008
NY
International mediators are encouraged by the outcome of the recent
Russian-sponsored Armenian-Azerbaijani talks in Moscow, saying it
allows for "cautious optimism" with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh
peace process.
"We would like to acknowledge and thank the Russian Federation,
President [Dmitry] Medvedev, and Foreign Minister [Sergei] Lavrov
for their significant contribution last weekend, on November 2,
by organizing hopefully what appears to be a groundbreaking meeting
between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan," Matthew Bryza,
the US State Department's point man in the Southern Caucasus, told
a November 6 news conference at the Vienna headquarters of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
Bryza is the US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, which has been
mediating between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 1992. Also present at
the news briefing were the other two co-chairs, Bernard Fassier of
France and Yury Merzlyakov of Russia.
The three diplomats, who earlier in the day had briefed the OSCE
Permanent Council on the negotiation process, noted that both "personal
and objective" factors had made the Moscow meeting possible, thus
giving them reasons for some "cautious, or realistic optimism." First
among them, they said, is the "constructive relationship" that has
been developing between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his
Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan, since their first meeting in
St Petersburg on June 6.
Mediators believe the recent Russian-Georgian crisis and the warming
of Turkish-Armenian ties were no less instrumental in paving the
way for the Moscow summit. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. Finally, they argue that the set of peace proposals that was
presented to the parties at last year's OSCE ministerial council in the
Spanish capital -- known as the Madrid principles -- helped maintain
the talks on track despite presidential ballots being held this year
in both countries. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
In Fassier's words, unlike what happened in previous election years
when the negotiation process remained stalled for months, peace talks
could resume immediately after the recent Armenian and Azerbaijani
ballots "on a more or less precisely identified basis." In addition to
the "strong booster" of the Moscow summit, "this is creating a momentum
that we have to sustain and develop further," the French diplomat said.
The Moscow meeting resulted in an unprecedented joint declaration,
by which the two Caucasus leaders and their Russian host committed
themselves to seeking a political solution to the Karabakh conflict,
and reiterated their support to the OSCE mediation efforts. They
also instructed their respective foreign ministers to activate the
negotiation process in coordination with the Minsk Group co-chairs.
Independent political analysts and opposition leaders in both
Armenia and Azerbaijan have downplayed the significance of the Moscow
declaration, arguing that it contains no specifics that could possibly
help foster the peace talks. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. The Minsk Group co-chairs counter that the importance of
the joint declaration should not be underestimated.
"Behind apparently general formulations, the substance [of this
document] is very heavy," Fassier argued. For one thing, he said,
by referring twice to a political settlement of the conflict, the
joint declaration clearly states that "war is not an option."
In sharp contrast to his pre-election threats to initiate a policy
of "total offensive" against Armenia, Aliyev said in Ankara on
November 5 that the Moscow declaration opens "new prospects" for a
step-by-step peace settlement. His Armenian counterpart sounds equally
upbeat. Addressing representatives of the Armenian Diaspora in Brussels
on November 6, Sargsyan said that the tripartite statement heralds a
"new, more active phase" of the negotiation process.
Yet, the reality behind those statements is that the sides remain
separated by seemingly irreconcilable differences.
According to information obtained by EurasiaNet, the presentation
the Minsk Group co-chairs made before the OSCE Permanent Council on
November 6 was followed by a lively exchange between the representative
of Yerevan, who defended the principle of self-determination for
Karabakh, and that of Baku, who pleaded for a solution based on the
restoration of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Both capitals
have still to agree on the Madrid principles which, in Bryza's words,
"embrace both self-determination and territorial integrity, as well
as the non-use of force."
Those principles, which have not been made public, reportedly envisage
the progressive withdrawal of Armenian forces from seven Azerbaijani
administrative districts bordering on Karabakh that Armenia has
occupied since 1992-93. They also call for the demilitarization of the
conflict zone, the deployment of an international peacekeeping force,
the repatriation of Armenian settlers from occupied territories and
the return of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons. Karabakh's
future status would be determined later, possibly through a referendum.
Among the outstanding differences that remain to be solved is the
scope and modalities of the possible withdrawal from Azerbaijan's
occupied Kalbacar and Lachin districts, which are sandwiched between
Karabakh and Armenia. Yerevan views those two districts as being of
vital importance to Karabakh's future security, and has in the past
conditioned their liberation on stringent requirements.
The practicalities of any future referendum are another sticking
point. The Minsk Group co-chairs earlier suggested that, pending a
vote, Karabakh be given an interim status that would be recognized
by both sides.
In remarks printed in Russia's "Rossiiskaya Gazeta" daily on October 6,
Lavrov said that "there remain two or three unresolved issues which
need to be agreed upon at the next meetings of the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan." The Russian foreign minister added that,
in his view, an agreement on Lachin was "perfectly realistic." He
did not elaborate on the other stumbling blocks.
Asked whether any progress was made on those or other issues at the
Moscow meeting, the Minsk Group co-chairs remained customarily elusive,
citing an arrangement which forbids them to divulge details of the
negotiation process without the consent of the parties.
Yet Merzlyakov said that, in his opinion, the number of major
differences between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been "probably" reduced
to one by now. "This is a very serious issue on which there is not
yet any mutual understanding between the sides.
Editor's Note: Jean-Christophe Peuch is a Vienna-based freelance
correspondent, who specializes in Caucasus- and Central Asia-related
developments.
Jean-Christophe Peuch
EurasiaNet
Nov 7 2008
NY
International mediators are encouraged by the outcome of the recent
Russian-sponsored Armenian-Azerbaijani talks in Moscow, saying it
allows for "cautious optimism" with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh
peace process.
"We would like to acknowledge and thank the Russian Federation,
President [Dmitry] Medvedev, and Foreign Minister [Sergei] Lavrov
for their significant contribution last weekend, on November 2,
by organizing hopefully what appears to be a groundbreaking meeting
between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan," Matthew Bryza,
the US State Department's point man in the Southern Caucasus, told
a November 6 news conference at the Vienna headquarters of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
Bryza is the US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, which has been
mediating between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 1992. Also present at
the news briefing were the other two co-chairs, Bernard Fassier of
France and Yury Merzlyakov of Russia.
The three diplomats, who earlier in the day had briefed the OSCE
Permanent Council on the negotiation process, noted that both "personal
and objective" factors had made the Moscow meeting possible, thus
giving them reasons for some "cautious, or realistic optimism." First
among them, they said, is the "constructive relationship" that has
been developing between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his
Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan, since their first meeting in
St Petersburg on June 6.
Mediators believe the recent Russian-Georgian crisis and the warming
of Turkish-Armenian ties were no less instrumental in paving the
way for the Moscow summit. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. Finally, they argue that the set of peace proposals that was
presented to the parties at last year's OSCE ministerial council in the
Spanish capital -- known as the Madrid principles -- helped maintain
the talks on track despite presidential ballots being held this year
in both countries. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
In Fassier's words, unlike what happened in previous election years
when the negotiation process remained stalled for months, peace talks
could resume immediately after the recent Armenian and Azerbaijani
ballots "on a more or less precisely identified basis." In addition to
the "strong booster" of the Moscow summit, "this is creating a momentum
that we have to sustain and develop further," the French diplomat said.
The Moscow meeting resulted in an unprecedented joint declaration,
by which the two Caucasus leaders and their Russian host committed
themselves to seeking a political solution to the Karabakh conflict,
and reiterated their support to the OSCE mediation efforts. They
also instructed their respective foreign ministers to activate the
negotiation process in coordination with the Minsk Group co-chairs.
Independent political analysts and opposition leaders in both
Armenia and Azerbaijan have downplayed the significance of the Moscow
declaration, arguing that it contains no specifics that could possibly
help foster the peace talks. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. The Minsk Group co-chairs counter that the importance of
the joint declaration should not be underestimated.
"Behind apparently general formulations, the substance [of this
document] is very heavy," Fassier argued. For one thing, he said,
by referring twice to a political settlement of the conflict, the
joint declaration clearly states that "war is not an option."
In sharp contrast to his pre-election threats to initiate a policy
of "total offensive" against Armenia, Aliyev said in Ankara on
November 5 that the Moscow declaration opens "new prospects" for a
step-by-step peace settlement. His Armenian counterpart sounds equally
upbeat. Addressing representatives of the Armenian Diaspora in Brussels
on November 6, Sargsyan said that the tripartite statement heralds a
"new, more active phase" of the negotiation process.
Yet, the reality behind those statements is that the sides remain
separated by seemingly irreconcilable differences.
According to information obtained by EurasiaNet, the presentation
the Minsk Group co-chairs made before the OSCE Permanent Council on
November 6 was followed by a lively exchange between the representative
of Yerevan, who defended the principle of self-determination for
Karabakh, and that of Baku, who pleaded for a solution based on the
restoration of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Both capitals
have still to agree on the Madrid principles which, in Bryza's words,
"embrace both self-determination and territorial integrity, as well
as the non-use of force."
Those principles, which have not been made public, reportedly envisage
the progressive withdrawal of Armenian forces from seven Azerbaijani
administrative districts bordering on Karabakh that Armenia has
occupied since 1992-93. They also call for the demilitarization of the
conflict zone, the deployment of an international peacekeeping force,
the repatriation of Armenian settlers from occupied territories and
the return of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons. Karabakh's
future status would be determined later, possibly through a referendum.
Among the outstanding differences that remain to be solved is the
scope and modalities of the possible withdrawal from Azerbaijan's
occupied Kalbacar and Lachin districts, which are sandwiched between
Karabakh and Armenia. Yerevan views those two districts as being of
vital importance to Karabakh's future security, and has in the past
conditioned their liberation on stringent requirements.
The practicalities of any future referendum are another sticking
point. The Minsk Group co-chairs earlier suggested that, pending a
vote, Karabakh be given an interim status that would be recognized
by both sides.
In remarks printed in Russia's "Rossiiskaya Gazeta" daily on October 6,
Lavrov said that "there remain two or three unresolved issues which
need to be agreed upon at the next meetings of the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan." The Russian foreign minister added that,
in his view, an agreement on Lachin was "perfectly realistic." He
did not elaborate on the other stumbling blocks.
Asked whether any progress was made on those or other issues at the
Moscow meeting, the Minsk Group co-chairs remained customarily elusive,
citing an arrangement which forbids them to divulge details of the
negotiation process without the consent of the parties.
Yet Merzlyakov said that, in his opinion, the number of major
differences between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been "probably" reduced
to one by now. "This is a very serious issue on which there is not
yet any mutual understanding between the sides.
Editor's Note: Jean-Christophe Peuch is a Vienna-based freelance
correspondent, who specializes in Caucasus- and Central Asia-related
developments.