Tweet
POTENTIAL FOR KARABAKH PEACE 'NOT EXHAUSTED'
news.az
Nov 1 2010
Azerbaijan
Tabib Huseynov News.Az interviews Tabib Huseynov, Caucasus analyst
at the International Crisis Group. How do you assess the results
of the Russian-mediated meeting of the presidents of Azerbaijan and
Armenia in Astrakhan?
This meeting is important in terms of preparation for the 1-2 December
OSCE summit in Astana, Kazakhstan. Although the joint statement of
the three presidents, issued following the meeting, emphasized the
humanitarian aspects - the exchange of human remains and of prisoners
- the main, immediate goal of the negotiations remains the same:
agreeing on a document of basic principles, which would provide a
solid basis for starting talks on a comprehensive peace agreement.
Since we do not know the details of the confidential talks, we can
only speculate at this point whether the meeting was successful. It
will be possible to make a judgment on the effectiveness of this
meeting based on the outcomes of the Astana summit.
What can you say about the agreement on the immediate exchange
of prisoners of war and human remains? Will the sides follow the
agreement or violate it, as they do with the ceasefire?
The Armenian refusal to return to Azerbaijan the body of Mubariz
Ibrahimov, who was posthumously declared a National Hero, and later
the death in captivity of Manvel Saribekyan, have stirred up lots of
negative emotion in Azerbaijani and Armenian society. These negative
emotions certainly do not help move the negotiations forward. So, from
this perspective, the exchange of human remains and of prisoners is a
timely and constructive confidence-building measure. It is aimed at
reducing tension and facilitating a better climate for peace talks,
particularly now as the presidents have instructed their foreign
ministers to intensify efforts to agree on the text of the basic
principles document.
However, for me it is unclear what the Azerbaijani and Armenian
governments will do with their respective conscripts who deliberately
crossed into each other's territory to escape harsh conditions
in the army. For example, in Azerbaijan there are several Armenian
conscripts,who are not prisoners, but could more accurately be termed
asylum-seekers. While we should avoid politicizing and misusing
such issues, the relevant international bodies - primarily, the
International Committee of the Red Cross and UN High Commissioner
for Refugees - should make sure that both governments respect
the non-refoulement principle and do not hand over asylum-seeking
conscripts against their will.
Do you think Azerbaijan and Armenia have become closer to peace after
that meeting?
It is difficult to answer one way or another. Every high-level meeting
is an opportunity to press ahead with the peace talks, but we should
bear in mind that the direction of the peace process is determined
not only by the high-level meetings between the presidents. As I
said above, the tense situation on the front-line and increasing
casualties on both sides stir up negative emotions and complicate
the peace process. Much also depends on domestic circumstances in
both Armenia and Azerbaijan, particularly now, when in Armenia
there are some radical calls to reject the Madrid proposals as
a basis for talks. The Armenian leadership needs to do more, as
the Azerbaijani leadership did, to explain to its public that the
proposals that are being discussed are not fundamentally detrimental
to Armenian interests and provide for the future, secure co-existence
of Armenians and Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh. And last but not least,
the international community needs to keep up its concerted efforts,
and encourage, including at the Astana summit, both Armenia and
Azerbaijan to sign the basic principles agreement.
What do you think about Russia's heightened role as a mediator and
the passivity of the other two mediators in the background? Does this
meet Azerbaijan's interests?
Azerbaijan's major interest lies in peaceful transformation of the
status quo and as long as there is an international partner genuinely
willing to help move forward, we should use this opportunity.
It is true that currently Russia is leading the mediation efforts.
Against the background of elevated Russian mediation, the other
two mediators - the US and France - may seem less active, but I
would not call them "passive", as the mediators from all three
co-chair countries continue their work as before. The current level
of cooperation on Nagorno-Karabakh among the Russian, US and French
governments is actually quite high and they reiterated their shared
vision for a peaceful resolution in the joint statement in Muskoka,
Canada in June.
That the Russian president Dmitriy Medvedev is personally involved
and has so far mediated seven meetings between the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents is a very positive fact and should be welcomed.
His personal involvement brings greater weight to the negotiation
process, but also raises expectations that the process should reach
its logical outcome - the signing of an agreement on basic principles.
Do you think the potential for a peaceful resolution of the conflict
has been exhausted? If not, what direction should future negotiations
take?
The potential for a peaceful resolution has certainly not been
exhausted. The last five years of talks have produced a set of
proposals, which combine elements of a step-by-step and package
methodology, preferred respectively by Azerbaijan and Armenia, and
which allow for peaceful transformation of the current dangerous
status quo in a manner which is fundamentally acceptable to both
Armenian and Azerbaijani society. The essence of these proposals was
largely revealed in the June 2010 Muskoka and July 2009 L'Aquila
statements of the presidents of the countries co-chairing the Minsk
Group. The points revealed in these statements are the sine qua non
for all subsequent talks. They will form the core of the imminent
basic principles document that the sides are currently negotiating.
However, contrary to some misperceptions and even deliberate
misrepresentations, the agreement on basic principles will not bear
any concrete results on the ground, that is, this agreement will not
be followed by Armenian withdrawal from the occupied territories. Such
a general agreement will only pave the way for a more substantial
and difficult stage in the talks - working out a comprehensive peace
agreement, which will detail the modalities and exact timelines of the
actions outlined in the basic principles. To move in this direction,
we need strong political will in Armenia and Azerbaijan and concerted
international efforts to explain to both the leaderships and the
societies, particularly in Armenia, that the gains to be achieved
from a peaceful and gradual change in the status quo outweigh any
perceived advantages of clinging to the status quo.
From: A. Papazian
news.az
Nov 1 2010
Azerbaijan
Tabib Huseynov News.Az interviews Tabib Huseynov, Caucasus analyst
at the International Crisis Group. How do you assess the results
of the Russian-mediated meeting of the presidents of Azerbaijan and
Armenia in Astrakhan?
This meeting is important in terms of preparation for the 1-2 December
OSCE summit in Astana, Kazakhstan. Although the joint statement of
the three presidents, issued following the meeting, emphasized the
humanitarian aspects - the exchange of human remains and of prisoners
- the main, immediate goal of the negotiations remains the same:
agreeing on a document of basic principles, which would provide a
solid basis for starting talks on a comprehensive peace agreement.
Since we do not know the details of the confidential talks, we can
only speculate at this point whether the meeting was successful. It
will be possible to make a judgment on the effectiveness of this
meeting based on the outcomes of the Astana summit.
What can you say about the agreement on the immediate exchange
of prisoners of war and human remains? Will the sides follow the
agreement or violate it, as they do with the ceasefire?
The Armenian refusal to return to Azerbaijan the body of Mubariz
Ibrahimov, who was posthumously declared a National Hero, and later
the death in captivity of Manvel Saribekyan, have stirred up lots of
negative emotion in Azerbaijani and Armenian society. These negative
emotions certainly do not help move the negotiations forward. So, from
this perspective, the exchange of human remains and of prisoners is a
timely and constructive confidence-building measure. It is aimed at
reducing tension and facilitating a better climate for peace talks,
particularly now as the presidents have instructed their foreign
ministers to intensify efforts to agree on the text of the basic
principles document.
However, for me it is unclear what the Azerbaijani and Armenian
governments will do with their respective conscripts who deliberately
crossed into each other's territory to escape harsh conditions
in the army. For example, in Azerbaijan there are several Armenian
conscripts,who are not prisoners, but could more accurately be termed
asylum-seekers. While we should avoid politicizing and misusing
such issues, the relevant international bodies - primarily, the
International Committee of the Red Cross and UN High Commissioner
for Refugees - should make sure that both governments respect
the non-refoulement principle and do not hand over asylum-seeking
conscripts against their will.
Do you think Azerbaijan and Armenia have become closer to peace after
that meeting?
It is difficult to answer one way or another. Every high-level meeting
is an opportunity to press ahead with the peace talks, but we should
bear in mind that the direction of the peace process is determined
not only by the high-level meetings between the presidents. As I
said above, the tense situation on the front-line and increasing
casualties on both sides stir up negative emotions and complicate
the peace process. Much also depends on domestic circumstances in
both Armenia and Azerbaijan, particularly now, when in Armenia
there are some radical calls to reject the Madrid proposals as
a basis for talks. The Armenian leadership needs to do more, as
the Azerbaijani leadership did, to explain to its public that the
proposals that are being discussed are not fundamentally detrimental
to Armenian interests and provide for the future, secure co-existence
of Armenians and Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh. And last but not least,
the international community needs to keep up its concerted efforts,
and encourage, including at the Astana summit, both Armenia and
Azerbaijan to sign the basic principles agreement.
What do you think about Russia's heightened role as a mediator and
the passivity of the other two mediators in the background? Does this
meet Azerbaijan's interests?
Azerbaijan's major interest lies in peaceful transformation of the
status quo and as long as there is an international partner genuinely
willing to help move forward, we should use this opportunity.
It is true that currently Russia is leading the mediation efforts.
Against the background of elevated Russian mediation, the other
two mediators - the US and France - may seem less active, but I
would not call them "passive", as the mediators from all three
co-chair countries continue their work as before. The current level
of cooperation on Nagorno-Karabakh among the Russian, US and French
governments is actually quite high and they reiterated their shared
vision for a peaceful resolution in the joint statement in Muskoka,
Canada in June.
That the Russian president Dmitriy Medvedev is personally involved
and has so far mediated seven meetings between the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents is a very positive fact and should be welcomed.
His personal involvement brings greater weight to the negotiation
process, but also raises expectations that the process should reach
its logical outcome - the signing of an agreement on basic principles.
Do you think the potential for a peaceful resolution of the conflict
has been exhausted? If not, what direction should future negotiations
take?
The potential for a peaceful resolution has certainly not been
exhausted. The last five years of talks have produced a set of
proposals, which combine elements of a step-by-step and package
methodology, preferred respectively by Azerbaijan and Armenia, and
which allow for peaceful transformation of the current dangerous
status quo in a manner which is fundamentally acceptable to both
Armenian and Azerbaijani society. The essence of these proposals was
largely revealed in the June 2010 Muskoka and July 2009 L'Aquila
statements of the presidents of the countries co-chairing the Minsk
Group. The points revealed in these statements are the sine qua non
for all subsequent talks. They will form the core of the imminent
basic principles document that the sides are currently negotiating.
However, contrary to some misperceptions and even deliberate
misrepresentations, the agreement on basic principles will not bear
any concrete results on the ground, that is, this agreement will not
be followed by Armenian withdrawal from the occupied territories. Such
a general agreement will only pave the way for a more substantial
and difficult stage in the talks - working out a comprehensive peace
agreement, which will detail the modalities and exact timelines of the
actions outlined in the basic principles. To move in this direction,
we need strong political will in Armenia and Azerbaijan and concerted
international efforts to explain to both the leaderships and the
societies, particularly in Armenia, that the gains to be achieved
from a peaceful and gradual change in the status quo outweigh any
perceived advantages of clinging to the status quo.
From: A. Papazian