Tweet
KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS ENTERING NEW PHASE
Leyla Tagiyeva
news.az
dec 3 2009
Azerbaijan
Dennis Sammut News.Az interviews Dennis Sammut, executive director of
LINKS, the London Information Network on Conflicts and State-Building.
You participated in the round table discussion on the topic "The
Corfu Process, European Security and the Resolution of Conflicts in
the South Caucasus" in Athens. How do you think the Corfu Process
might influence the Karabakh settlement?
The war between Georgia and Russia last year reminded people that many
problems on the European continent remain unresolved. During the Greek
Chairmanship of the OSCE this year a new initiative was launched. It
is called the "Corfu Process" because it was launched at a meeting
on the island in June. This process enables the governments of the
56 member states to discuss and hopefully come to a decision on many
issues important for the future peace and security of our continent.
I have always argued that the Karabakh conflict is best solved in
the context of a wider security framework in the Caucasus region. The
Corfu Process has the potential to offer this context. However this
is a long and difficult process. The OSCE Ministerial Meeting which
has just ended in Athens has taken some important steps so we can
say that the journey has started.
What was the purpose of the Karabakh report published by LINKS on
1 December?
LINKS decided that this was the right time to issue a report on
Karabakh that would help inform both where we are with the efforts
to resolve the conflict, but also more importantly what we feel are
the major steps that need to be taken. The timing is very important
because we feel that there is now both an opportunity which must not
be missed, and a danger that if this opportunity is not taken than
it may not reappear for a long time.
Could you briefly tell us about the main points of the report?
The process to resolve the Karabakh conflict is entering a new phase.
2009 has seen six meetings between the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan and even usually sceptical diplomats are now expressing
cautious optimism. With an agreement apparently almost within reach
the two sides, with the help of the international community, need to
find the courage and political will to overcome the remaining sticking
points - including a formula on how to deal with defining the eventual,
final status of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, in the report we also have a word of caution. An agreement
in the next weeks will not be the end of the story. There is a lot of
work to be done by both governments, and by the international community
for an agreement on paper to be turned into a proper peace process,
not least to help ensure that the ownership of such an agreement does
not remain a monopoly of a tiny political elite but is shared within
the wider community on both sides.
So the report makes practical suggestions: to the sides in the
conflict the report recommends the intensification of the domestic
debate in order to allow a national consensus in favour of a peaceful
resolution to the conflict to emerge. Some say that there is already
a national consensus in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but in truth this
is a consensus based on slogans and unattainable maximalist positions.
We are very far away from having a consensus for peace. Here
politicians of all parties and leaders of society must assume their
responsibility.
To the international community we say that it must do more to help
the sides resolve the conflict. Crucially we say that support for the
work of the Minsk Group should not be an excuse for doing nothing else!
Whilst the first responsibility for solving the Karabakh conflict is
with the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan the international
community has responsibilities too and it needs to show a new
commitment to this end.
President Aliev stated before the meeting with President Sargsyan that
there was a possibility of a new war for Karabakh if the negotiations
in Munich fail. What should be done to prevent a new war?
War will not be a solution. It will just make the problem worse. It
is now time for the international community to speak with one voice
and in more robust tones to both sides. Some messages that have been
transmitted before, but in cautious diplomatic language need to be
repeated in clearer terms and without ambiguity in such a way that not
only the leaderships, but also the populations of the two countries,
will understand clearly. Armenia needs to be told that the continued
occupation of the Azerbaijani territories around Nagorno-Karabakh
is neither acceptable nor sustainable. Azerbaijan must be told that
any attempt or talk of regaining these territories by force without
a UN Security Council resolution will bring Azerbaijan into direct
confrontation with the international community. Both sides must be
reminded of the right of all refugees and IDPs to return to their
homes in safe and dignified conditions.
The international community has throughout the whole period when the
search for a solution to the Karabakh problem was ongoing, largely
held Armenia and Azerbaijan responsible for finding a solution to it.
In doing so it has opened itself to criticism and cynicism amongst
both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani communities who see this as
a means through which the international community was abrogating
its responsibility.
In this important moment in the negotiations the international
community must show that it also is willing to carry responsibility by
engaging more, by showing that a Karabakh solution is a priority and
by offering new frameworks from which a mutually acceptable solution
can emerge. This will be particularly important when in the future we
reach the point where the final status of Karabakh is being discussed.
It is not realistic to expect Armenia and Azerbaijan on their
own to reconcile the principles of territorial integrity and
of self determination, which some argue are contradictory. This
will need an international effort. Whilst that is being done the
international community must also find ways in which to ensure that
key stakeholders, such as the de facto authorities in Nagorno Karabakh
and representatives of the displaced, are engaged with properly.
And finally, what are the perspectives for an early settlement of
the Karabakh problem?
The process to resolve the Karabakh conflict is entering a new phase.
The continuation of the process in the present mode is no longer
sustainable. We have reached the end of the beginning. If the present
negotiating process within the framework of the OSCE Minsk process
collapses, it will take years for an alternative to emerge and to
reach the point where we are today. This scenario must be avoided at
all costs. The alternative, however, is not stalemate but progress.
The last steps are needed to move the process to a qualitatively
improved level, enabling changes on the ground to take place and
opening the way for a final solution. This objective is now within
reach and this opportunity must not be squandered.
Leyla Tagiyeva
news.az
dec 3 2009
Azerbaijan
Dennis Sammut News.Az interviews Dennis Sammut, executive director of
LINKS, the London Information Network on Conflicts and State-Building.
You participated in the round table discussion on the topic "The
Corfu Process, European Security and the Resolution of Conflicts in
the South Caucasus" in Athens. How do you think the Corfu Process
might influence the Karabakh settlement?
The war between Georgia and Russia last year reminded people that many
problems on the European continent remain unresolved. During the Greek
Chairmanship of the OSCE this year a new initiative was launched. It
is called the "Corfu Process" because it was launched at a meeting
on the island in June. This process enables the governments of the
56 member states to discuss and hopefully come to a decision on many
issues important for the future peace and security of our continent.
I have always argued that the Karabakh conflict is best solved in
the context of a wider security framework in the Caucasus region. The
Corfu Process has the potential to offer this context. However this
is a long and difficult process. The OSCE Ministerial Meeting which
has just ended in Athens has taken some important steps so we can
say that the journey has started.
What was the purpose of the Karabakh report published by LINKS on
1 December?
LINKS decided that this was the right time to issue a report on
Karabakh that would help inform both where we are with the efforts
to resolve the conflict, but also more importantly what we feel are
the major steps that need to be taken. The timing is very important
because we feel that there is now both an opportunity which must not
be missed, and a danger that if this opportunity is not taken than
it may not reappear for a long time.
Could you briefly tell us about the main points of the report?
The process to resolve the Karabakh conflict is entering a new phase.
2009 has seen six meetings between the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan and even usually sceptical diplomats are now expressing
cautious optimism. With an agreement apparently almost within reach
the two sides, with the help of the international community, need to
find the courage and political will to overcome the remaining sticking
points - including a formula on how to deal with defining the eventual,
final status of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, in the report we also have a word of caution. An agreement
in the next weeks will not be the end of the story. There is a lot of
work to be done by both governments, and by the international community
for an agreement on paper to be turned into a proper peace process,
not least to help ensure that the ownership of such an agreement does
not remain a monopoly of a tiny political elite but is shared within
the wider community on both sides.
So the report makes practical suggestions: to the sides in the
conflict the report recommends the intensification of the domestic
debate in order to allow a national consensus in favour of a peaceful
resolution to the conflict to emerge. Some say that there is already
a national consensus in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but in truth this
is a consensus based on slogans and unattainable maximalist positions.
We are very far away from having a consensus for peace. Here
politicians of all parties and leaders of society must assume their
responsibility.
To the international community we say that it must do more to help
the sides resolve the conflict. Crucially we say that support for the
work of the Minsk Group should not be an excuse for doing nothing else!
Whilst the first responsibility for solving the Karabakh conflict is
with the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan the international
community has responsibilities too and it needs to show a new
commitment to this end.
President Aliev stated before the meeting with President Sargsyan that
there was a possibility of a new war for Karabakh if the negotiations
in Munich fail. What should be done to prevent a new war?
War will not be a solution. It will just make the problem worse. It
is now time for the international community to speak with one voice
and in more robust tones to both sides. Some messages that have been
transmitted before, but in cautious diplomatic language need to be
repeated in clearer terms and without ambiguity in such a way that not
only the leaderships, but also the populations of the two countries,
will understand clearly. Armenia needs to be told that the continued
occupation of the Azerbaijani territories around Nagorno-Karabakh
is neither acceptable nor sustainable. Azerbaijan must be told that
any attempt or talk of regaining these territories by force without
a UN Security Council resolution will bring Azerbaijan into direct
confrontation with the international community. Both sides must be
reminded of the right of all refugees and IDPs to return to their
homes in safe and dignified conditions.
The international community has throughout the whole period when the
search for a solution to the Karabakh problem was ongoing, largely
held Armenia and Azerbaijan responsible for finding a solution to it.
In doing so it has opened itself to criticism and cynicism amongst
both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani communities who see this as
a means through which the international community was abrogating
its responsibility.
In this important moment in the negotiations the international
community must show that it also is willing to carry responsibility by
engaging more, by showing that a Karabakh solution is a priority and
by offering new frameworks from which a mutually acceptable solution
can emerge. This will be particularly important when in the future we
reach the point where the final status of Karabakh is being discussed.
It is not realistic to expect Armenia and Azerbaijan on their
own to reconcile the principles of territorial integrity and
of self determination, which some argue are contradictory. This
will need an international effort. Whilst that is being done the
international community must also find ways in which to ensure that
key stakeholders, such as the de facto authorities in Nagorno Karabakh
and representatives of the displaced, are engaged with properly.
And finally, what are the perspectives for an early settlement of
the Karabakh problem?
The process to resolve the Karabakh conflict is entering a new phase.
The continuation of the process in the present mode is no longer
sustainable. We have reached the end of the beginning. If the present
negotiating process within the framework of the OSCE Minsk process
collapses, it will take years for an alternative to emerge and to
reach the point where we are today. This scenario must be avoided at
all costs. The alternative, however, is not stalemate but progress.
The last steps are needed to move the process to a qualitatively
improved level, enabling changes on the ground to take place and
opening the way for a final solution. This objective is now within
reach and this opportunity must not be squandered.