Tweet
RICHARD KIRAKOSYAN: NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE MINSK GROUP AS A MEDIATOR FOR THE KARABAKH CONFLICT
armradio.am
11.02.2009 18:47
Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) Director
Richard Giragosian issued a statement today commenting on a recent
report in the Turkish daily newspaper Hurriyet claiming that a new
"partial agreement" has been reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan
over Nagorno Karabakh, brokered by Turkish Foreign Minister Ali
Babacan. The report alleged that Armenia and Azerbaijan reached a
new agreement on four key points of a draft peace plan, including
the reopening of road and rail links between Azerbaijan and Armenia
and the deployment of an undefined international peacekeeping force
to the region.
"While today's report in the Turkish media remains unsubstantiated by
any Armenian, Azerbaijani or Turkish officials, the rather sensational
claims of a sudden breakthrough over the unresolved Karabakh conflict
raises several concerns. Most notably, the unconfirmed report reveals
the danger posed by the overall lack of transparency and inadequate
public awareness of the status of the peace process.
By its very nature, the closed and secretive process of mediation by
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) Minsk
Group only fosters misunderstandings and misinformation, especially
as neither the Armenian nor the Azerbaijani governments are doing
enough to prepare their consti tuencies for a possible peace deal.
At the same time, however, there is no viable alternative to the
OSCE Minsk Group as a mediator for the Karabakh conflict. The Minsk
Group is the sole international body empowered to manage the mediation
effort aimed at resolving the Nagorno Karabagh conflict and has been
long engaged in conducting delicate diplomacy toward that end.
But the OSCE Minsk Group format is also structurally flawed by the
absence of the democratically-elected representatives of the Nagorno
Karabagh Republic (NKR) which, as a party to the conflict, must be
afforded a more direct and formal role in the peace process.
Moreover, the failure to incorporate Karabagh in the peace talks as
a party of equal standing only questions the viability of reaching
a negotiated resolution capable of meeting the minimum standards of
security and sustainability.
The recognition of the vital and primary role of the OSCE Minsk Group
as the mediator for the Karabagh also means that Turkey can have no
direct role in the peace process. By virtue of its close strategic
relationship with Azerbaijan, and in terms of Turkey's open diplomatic,
economic and military support for Azerbaijan, including its ongoing
blockade of Armenia, Turkey can not been accepted as a neutral broker
or mediator of the Karabagh conflict.
On a broader level, the lack of information concerning the peace
process only leads to misinformation, endangering th e already fragile
and delicate peace talks. For Armenia, the lack of information only
fuels misunderstanding and fosters a deeper sense of apathy among the
population. The Armenian government must do much more to educate and
involve its citizens in the peace process.
Equally important, Azerbaijan has also failed to properly prepare its
public for any possible progress in the peace talks. In addition,
the secrecy surrounding the peace talks has only strengthened the
militant rhetoric of its leadership and has radicalized the discourse
within Azerbaijani society.
Although the August 2008 war in Georgia only reaffirmed the danger of
a sudden outbreak of hostilities in the region, Azerbaijani leaders
continue to dangerously promote an irresponsible language of aggression
and threat, tending to exacerbate regional insecurity.
Therefore, the recent revelations of the Turkish media suggesting a
secret peace deal over Karabagh only serves to complicate efforts to
forge a fair and lasting peace. Most crucially, the lack of information
and transparency encourages a dangerous trend of misinformation and
disinformation that entrenches stereotypes and emboldens more extreme
views. Thus, the failure of all sides to prepare and engage their
publics in the peace process only reveals the deficit of prudent
statesmanship and proper leadership."
armradio.am
11.02.2009 18:47
Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) Director
Richard Giragosian issued a statement today commenting on a recent
report in the Turkish daily newspaper Hurriyet claiming that a new
"partial agreement" has been reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan
over Nagorno Karabakh, brokered by Turkish Foreign Minister Ali
Babacan. The report alleged that Armenia and Azerbaijan reached a
new agreement on four key points of a draft peace plan, including
the reopening of road and rail links between Azerbaijan and Armenia
and the deployment of an undefined international peacekeeping force
to the region.
"While today's report in the Turkish media remains unsubstantiated by
any Armenian, Azerbaijani or Turkish officials, the rather sensational
claims of a sudden breakthrough over the unresolved Karabakh conflict
raises several concerns. Most notably, the unconfirmed report reveals
the danger posed by the overall lack of transparency and inadequate
public awareness of the status of the peace process.
By its very nature, the closed and secretive process of mediation by
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) Minsk
Group only fosters misunderstandings and misinformation, especially
as neither the Armenian nor the Azerbaijani governments are doing
enough to prepare their consti tuencies for a possible peace deal.
At the same time, however, there is no viable alternative to the
OSCE Minsk Group as a mediator for the Karabakh conflict. The Minsk
Group is the sole international body empowered to manage the mediation
effort aimed at resolving the Nagorno Karabagh conflict and has been
long engaged in conducting delicate diplomacy toward that end.
But the OSCE Minsk Group format is also structurally flawed by the
absence of the democratically-elected representatives of the Nagorno
Karabagh Republic (NKR) which, as a party to the conflict, must be
afforded a more direct and formal role in the peace process.
Moreover, the failure to incorporate Karabagh in the peace talks as
a party of equal standing only questions the viability of reaching
a negotiated resolution capable of meeting the minimum standards of
security and sustainability.
The recognition of the vital and primary role of the OSCE Minsk Group
as the mediator for the Karabagh also means that Turkey can have no
direct role in the peace process. By virtue of its close strategic
relationship with Azerbaijan, and in terms of Turkey's open diplomatic,
economic and military support for Azerbaijan, including its ongoing
blockade of Armenia, Turkey can not been accepted as a neutral broker
or mediator of the Karabagh conflict.
On a broader level, the lack of information concerning the peace
process only leads to misinformation, endangering th e already fragile
and delicate peace talks. For Armenia, the lack of information only
fuels misunderstanding and fosters a deeper sense of apathy among the
population. The Armenian government must do much more to educate and
involve its citizens in the peace process.
Equally important, Azerbaijan has also failed to properly prepare its
public for any possible progress in the peace talks. In addition,
the secrecy surrounding the peace talks has only strengthened the
militant rhetoric of its leadership and has radicalized the discourse
within Azerbaijani society.
Although the August 2008 war in Georgia only reaffirmed the danger of
a sudden outbreak of hostilities in the region, Azerbaijani leaders
continue to dangerously promote an irresponsible language of aggression
and threat, tending to exacerbate regional insecurity.
Therefore, the recent revelations of the Turkish media suggesting a
secret peace deal over Karabagh only serves to complicate efforts to
forge a fair and lasting peace. Most crucially, the lack of information
and transparency encourages a dangerous trend of misinformation and
disinformation that entrenches stereotypes and emboldens more extreme
views. Thus, the failure of all sides to prepare and engage their
publics in the peace process only reveals the deficit of prudent
statesmanship and proper leadership."