Tweet
SETTLEMENT IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE SETTLEMENT
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
14:29:41 - 18/11/2008
All through the settlement of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh there
were moments when the situation appeared crucial, deciding, when the
historical decision seemed close. For instance, a few years ago or
in 2000 or in 2001 when frank Matthew Bryza was not co-chair, and the
United States was represented by heavy Kerry Kavanaugh, and Russia was
represented by Nicolay Gribkov instead of Merzlyakov, the co-chairs
visited Artsakh, then took a place to the town of Spitak from where
they went to the Armenian-Turkish border to watch the railway. Everyone
had the feeling that the blockade of Armenia was about to be lifted,
the Karabakh issue was about to solve and so peace and stability was
about to be established to the point of becoming unbearable. As you
can see, however, several years have passed since that historical
activity, Key West, Paris, Prague, Rambouillet have passed.
Moscow will also pass, and many other cities and, when no more cities
will be left, villages will pass but the settlement of the Karabakh
issue will remain on the international agenda of politics.
Whenever the imminence of settlement is considered, a lot of answerless
questions occur which, having no clear answers, are evidence that the
settlement is not only far but practically does not exist. The point
is that too many interests clash in the region20of Karabakh. They
are so many that the owners of those interests may often take others'
interests for their own ones. This is a joke, of course, but obviously
the region of Karabakh is not only the geographic but also functional
center of the South Caucasus.
Therefore, it cannot be an object of an international consensus,
especially in the ongoing vital struggle of great powers for energy
sources and economic infrastructures. In this situation, when everyone
is trying to come into control of this center of the South Caucasus,
is settlement, a peace accord, an agreement possible? After all,
these things presuppose a number of subjective factors, violation
of the status quo. After all, besides Russia, the United States and
Europe, and a little Turkey, there is also Iran.
Besides, what does the so-called settlement of the Karabakh conflict
mean?
The general approach or perception is that the settlement involves
self-determination of Karabakh, the return of the liberated
territories. Or first return then self-determination. Presently,
it is not so important. The order is not important. The fact, the
consequence is important. Therefore, it is important to find out
what importance the return of the territories to Azerbaijan has for
the mediators, or what importance the peacekeepers have who will
be deployed, or independent Karabakh which is supposed to exist de
facto and have a de jure recognized status. Only a highly superficia
l judgment would conclude that the interests of the mediators and the
regional neighbors would be identical. Moreover, it is clear that even
the interests of the two key mediators, Russia and the United States,
are not similar. For them, the settlement of the Karabakh conflict is
an essential increase of their influence in the region. No doubt, after
the Georgian-Russian war, the solution of the problems of Ossetia and
Abkhazia, the only key, the code to the region is Karabakh. The one
who "decodes" Karabakh will have finally won the Georgian-Ossetian
events. In other words, now these events have an interim winner and
an interim loser. Many think Russia is the winner, but apparently
the United States is the winner. And perhaps this was the reason why
the Russians rushed regarding the Karabakh issue, realizing that in
reality they need a visible rather than an invisible victory. However,
the actually invisible declaration which was signed in Moscow made
it clear that the Russians were unable to attain the desired result
regarding the Karabakh issue, and the United States managed to ensure
the solution of the least problem: to prevent the Russians from
"scoring" fast. The visit of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the
region was evidence that the game has slowed down. Bryza thanked the
Russians that their "initiative" changed the moods of the presidents,
thereby considering the mission of=2 0the Russians complete. And
the presidents might have been in a bad mood because they might have
also believed that the settlement was close, and the United States
would not manage to hinder Russia. However, as Freddie Mercury said,
"the show must go on, gentlemen". The settlement is dead, long live
the settlement.
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
14:29:41 - 18/11/2008
All through the settlement of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh there
were moments when the situation appeared crucial, deciding, when the
historical decision seemed close. For instance, a few years ago or
in 2000 or in 2001 when frank Matthew Bryza was not co-chair, and the
United States was represented by heavy Kerry Kavanaugh, and Russia was
represented by Nicolay Gribkov instead of Merzlyakov, the co-chairs
visited Artsakh, then took a place to the town of Spitak from where
they went to the Armenian-Turkish border to watch the railway. Everyone
had the feeling that the blockade of Armenia was about to be lifted,
the Karabakh issue was about to solve and so peace and stability was
about to be established to the point of becoming unbearable. As you
can see, however, several years have passed since that historical
activity, Key West, Paris, Prague, Rambouillet have passed.
Moscow will also pass, and many other cities and, when no more cities
will be left, villages will pass but the settlement of the Karabakh
issue will remain on the international agenda of politics.
Whenever the imminence of settlement is considered, a lot of answerless
questions occur which, having no clear answers, are evidence that the
settlement is not only far but practically does not exist. The point
is that too many interests clash in the region20of Karabakh. They
are so many that the owners of those interests may often take others'
interests for their own ones. This is a joke, of course, but obviously
the region of Karabakh is not only the geographic but also functional
center of the South Caucasus.
Therefore, it cannot be an object of an international consensus,
especially in the ongoing vital struggle of great powers for energy
sources and economic infrastructures. In this situation, when everyone
is trying to come into control of this center of the South Caucasus,
is settlement, a peace accord, an agreement possible? After all,
these things presuppose a number of subjective factors, violation
of the status quo. After all, besides Russia, the United States and
Europe, and a little Turkey, there is also Iran.
Besides, what does the so-called settlement of the Karabakh conflict
mean?
The general approach or perception is that the settlement involves
self-determination of Karabakh, the return of the liberated
territories. Or first return then self-determination. Presently,
it is not so important. The order is not important. The fact, the
consequence is important. Therefore, it is important to find out
what importance the return of the territories to Azerbaijan has for
the mediators, or what importance the peacekeepers have who will
be deployed, or independent Karabakh which is supposed to exist de
facto and have a de jure recognized status. Only a highly superficia
l judgment would conclude that the interests of the mediators and the
regional neighbors would be identical. Moreover, it is clear that even
the interests of the two key mediators, Russia and the United States,
are not similar. For them, the settlement of the Karabakh conflict is
an essential increase of their influence in the region. No doubt, after
the Georgian-Russian war, the solution of the problems of Ossetia and
Abkhazia, the only key, the code to the region is Karabakh. The one
who "decodes" Karabakh will have finally won the Georgian-Ossetian
events. In other words, now these events have an interim winner and
an interim loser. Many think Russia is the winner, but apparently
the United States is the winner. And perhaps this was the reason why
the Russians rushed regarding the Karabakh issue, realizing that in
reality they need a visible rather than an invisible victory. However,
the actually invisible declaration which was signed in Moscow made
it clear that the Russians were unable to attain the desired result
regarding the Karabakh issue, and the United States managed to ensure
the solution of the least problem: to prevent the Russians from
"scoring" fast. The visit of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the
region was evidence that the game has slowed down. Bryza thanked the
Russians that their "initiative" changed the moods of the presidents,
thereby considering the mission of=2 0the Russians complete. And
the presidents might have been in a bad mood because they might have
also believed that the settlement was close, and the United States
would not manage to hinder Russia. However, as Freddie Mercury said,
"the show must go on, gentlemen". The settlement is dead, long live
the settlement.