Tweet
Nezavisimaya Gazeta website, Russia
June 16 2010
South Caucasus development needs Karabakh settlement - Russian expert
[Commentary by Professor Alla Yazkova, doctor of historical sciences
and director of the RAN [Russian Academy of Sciences] Centre for the
Study of Problems of the Mediterranean and Black Seas]
An alternative to rising tension could be direct talks between the
conflicting parties.
When assessing the current situation in the Black Sea-Caspian region,
one cannot help but point out the incompatibility of at least two
characteristics of its contemporary development: confirmation of its
role as a transport route for Caspian energy resources, on the one
hand, and the epicentre of a whole number of "frozen" ethnic-political
problems on the other. What this can lead to became clear during the
August 2008 "five-day war," when the safety of the energy transport
corridors Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum was in
question. In this connection it is worth recalling that after the
Abkhaz-Georgian conflict back in the mid-1990s, the Abkhaz politicians
of that time directly warned the management of the international oil
companies of the high political risks of building pipelines across the
territory of Georgia (see NG-Energiya for 10 February 2009). After
August 2008 there emerged proposals of the need for alternative energy
transport routes through the South Caucasus, this time crossing
Armenian territory. But to do this the Armenian-Azeri conflict over
Nagornyy Karabakh must be "unfrozen." And it is no accident that
already in August 2008 this problem appeared in the politics of the
regional and world powers.
Turkey, seeing a possibility of increasing its role in the affairs of
the South Caucasus, immediately took advantage of the situation that
had come about. Further negotiations to settle the conflict over the
NKR [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic] were based on the Madrid principles,
which were formulated by the Minsk group of the OSCE in November 2007
and updated in July 2009. The updated version put special stress on
the need to give the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic interim status; the
idea of holding a referendum was put on the back burner. At the same
time it was contemplated that the occupied regions of Azerbaijan
surrounding NKR territory would begin to be liberated by stages (in
different versions). Supplementing the Madrid principles, Turkey and
Armenia signed the Zurich protocols, but they were not ratified and
did not go into force because Armenia refused to tie the opening of
the border with Turkey to the beginning of settlement of the conflict
over Nagornyy Karabakh.
In late April 2010 after Armenia failed to ratify the Zurich protocols
within the set time, Iran offered its mediating services in resolving
the Karabakh conflict - Iran remains Armenia's principal trading
partner and after the August 2008 conflict practically its only land
route. But after the latest flare-up of the Iran problem and the UN
Security Council's adoption of a package of new sanctions in relation
to Iran's nuclear programme, the question faded away of its own.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the alternative to growing
tension over Nagornyy Karabakh could be direct talks between the
conflicting sides, supported by interested regional and world powers.
At this point it is unclear when this will become possible, but it
appears to be the only solution.
The most recent attempt to clarify the positions of the potential
international intermediaries was Resolution 2216, which was approved
by the European Parliament in early June and contains a demand that
"Armenian forces be withdrawn from all occupied regions of
Azerbaijan." At the same time during the meeting of Russian President
Dmitriy Medvedev and German Chancellor Angela Merkel a decision was
reached to search jointly for settlements to "frozen" conflicts. And
despite its high level of collaboration with Armenia, Russia's
position on settlement of the conflict over the NKR is worded in
conformity with the principles agreed upon by the Minsk group. The
main thing is that the process should continue on the basis of
observance of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and respect for
the other fundamental rules of international law, without the use of
force, according to the 24 May statement of the Russian MID [ Ministry
of Foreign Affairs], which was adopted the day after parliamentary
elections were held in the NKR.
As for the United States, in the estimation of many experts the
paramount importance of the missions of ending the armed conflicts in
Afghanistan and Iraq and a certain weakening of the American factor in
the South Caucasus have led to a regionalization of the Karabakh
problem. But of course, this does not mean that in case of an armed
conflict the Western, primarily American, monopolies who own billions
worth of energy projects in the South Caucasus will let their capital
be "carried away by the Caspian winds." Even NATO General Secretary
Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke recently of the need to avert armed
conflicts in the South Caucasus.
Everything that has been said illustrates that one way or another the
"problem of Nagornyy Karabakh" will have to be resolved. Therefore it
is already important today to think through versions of this
resolution and, equally important, prepare the prerequisites for it in
public opinion in the conflicting sides.
[translated from Russian]
From: A. Papazian
June 16 2010
South Caucasus development needs Karabakh settlement - Russian expert
[Commentary by Professor Alla Yazkova, doctor of historical sciences
and director of the RAN [Russian Academy of Sciences] Centre for the
Study of Problems of the Mediterranean and Black Seas]
An alternative to rising tension could be direct talks between the
conflicting parties.
When assessing the current situation in the Black Sea-Caspian region,
one cannot help but point out the incompatibility of at least two
characteristics of its contemporary development: confirmation of its
role as a transport route for Caspian energy resources, on the one
hand, and the epicentre of a whole number of "frozen" ethnic-political
problems on the other. What this can lead to became clear during the
August 2008 "five-day war," when the safety of the energy transport
corridors Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum was in
question. In this connection it is worth recalling that after the
Abkhaz-Georgian conflict back in the mid-1990s, the Abkhaz politicians
of that time directly warned the management of the international oil
companies of the high political risks of building pipelines across the
territory of Georgia (see NG-Energiya for 10 February 2009). After
August 2008 there emerged proposals of the need for alternative energy
transport routes through the South Caucasus, this time crossing
Armenian territory. But to do this the Armenian-Azeri conflict over
Nagornyy Karabakh must be "unfrozen." And it is no accident that
already in August 2008 this problem appeared in the politics of the
regional and world powers.
Turkey, seeing a possibility of increasing its role in the affairs of
the South Caucasus, immediately took advantage of the situation that
had come about. Further negotiations to settle the conflict over the
NKR [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic] were based on the Madrid principles,
which were formulated by the Minsk group of the OSCE in November 2007
and updated in July 2009. The updated version put special stress on
the need to give the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic interim status; the
idea of holding a referendum was put on the back burner. At the same
time it was contemplated that the occupied regions of Azerbaijan
surrounding NKR territory would begin to be liberated by stages (in
different versions). Supplementing the Madrid principles, Turkey and
Armenia signed the Zurich protocols, but they were not ratified and
did not go into force because Armenia refused to tie the opening of
the border with Turkey to the beginning of settlement of the conflict
over Nagornyy Karabakh.
In late April 2010 after Armenia failed to ratify the Zurich protocols
within the set time, Iran offered its mediating services in resolving
the Karabakh conflict - Iran remains Armenia's principal trading
partner and after the August 2008 conflict practically its only land
route. But after the latest flare-up of the Iran problem and the UN
Security Council's adoption of a package of new sanctions in relation
to Iran's nuclear programme, the question faded away of its own.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the alternative to growing
tension over Nagornyy Karabakh could be direct talks between the
conflicting sides, supported by interested regional and world powers.
At this point it is unclear when this will become possible, but it
appears to be the only solution.
The most recent attempt to clarify the positions of the potential
international intermediaries was Resolution 2216, which was approved
by the European Parliament in early June and contains a demand that
"Armenian forces be withdrawn from all occupied regions of
Azerbaijan." At the same time during the meeting of Russian President
Dmitriy Medvedev and German Chancellor Angela Merkel a decision was
reached to search jointly for settlements to "frozen" conflicts. And
despite its high level of collaboration with Armenia, Russia's
position on settlement of the conflict over the NKR is worded in
conformity with the principles agreed upon by the Minsk group. The
main thing is that the process should continue on the basis of
observance of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and respect for
the other fundamental rules of international law, without the use of
force, according to the 24 May statement of the Russian MID [ Ministry
of Foreign Affairs], which was adopted the day after parliamentary
elections were held in the NKR.
As for the United States, in the estimation of many experts the
paramount importance of the missions of ending the armed conflicts in
Afghanistan and Iraq and a certain weakening of the American factor in
the South Caucasus have led to a regionalization of the Karabakh
problem. But of course, this does not mean that in case of an armed
conflict the Western, primarily American, monopolies who own billions
worth of energy projects in the South Caucasus will let their capital
be "carried away by the Caspian winds." Even NATO General Secretary
Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke recently of the need to avert armed
conflicts in the South Caucasus.
Everything that has been said illustrates that one way or another the
"problem of Nagornyy Karabakh" will have to be resolved. Therefore it
is already important today to think through versions of this
resolution and, equally important, prepare the prerequisites for it in
public opinion in the conflicting sides.
[translated from Russian]
From: A. Papazian