Tweet
VISION FOR PEACE: TWO COMMUNITIES
by ZAUR SHIRIYEV
Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-265758-vision-for-peace-two-communities.html
Dec 14 2011
Turkey
2011 is ending without any resolution on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
even though mediation efforts have continued to intense negotiations
throughout the year.
Ultimately, the "momentum" for peace never gathered sufficient force.
Hope for a peaceful solution increased after the May 2011 statement
of the United States, Russian and French presidents at Deauville,
held within the framework of the G8 Summit, which urged Armenia
and Azerbaijan to finalize the Basic Principles for the Peaceful
Settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Unfortunately, the
Kazan summit halted this progress. The failure of these negotiations
suggests to the Azerbaijani public that the conflict is locked in a
stagnation period. What they see is international powers pushing both
parties to reach an agreement, but failing to produce any result,
and so the population is beginning to look to military intervention
as the inevitable next step. Following the recent meeting in Vilnius,
the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk
Group released a statement saying that "the parties agreed on the
need to continue the negotiation process in the format of OSCE Minsk
Group and to improve the atmosphere for progressing towards a peaceful
settlement." Similar statements have come out of other meetings in
Deauville, Helsinki, Astana, Athens and Sochi over recent years.
However, Armenia and all three of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair
countries will enter an election period next year, and this will
significantly restrict diplomatic activity in the Nagorno-Karabakh
peace process. When there is a "diplomatic vacuum," the risk of
war is always greater. In the meantime, ceasefire violations have
increased, fuelling mutual distrust and the growing frustration with
the deadlocked peace talks. The current "frozen conflict" is ever more
dangerous, for it is fraught with the underlying threat of renewed
hostilities, and a likelihood that the sporadic violations of the
ceasefire agreement may gather pace and intensify.
The history of the current peace process demonstrates that the key
steps toward a lasting peace come not only from the negotiating table,
but also from inside the societies themselves. From the perspective of
the government in Baku, the public must be prepared for the realities
of peace, and increased contact between the divided communities will
help to achieve this. If the public can accept a framework agreement on
basic principles, this could later serve as a basis for more in-depth
negotiations on a comprehensive peace agreement.
First of all, Azerbaijan strongly supports inter-community dialogue
between the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagorno-Karabakh.
This marks a new step towards peace by Azerbaijan, envisaging
negotiations on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh between Azerbaijan
and Armenia, and the two communities of Nagorno-Karabakh, once peace
has been reached. While the realization of these inter-community
negotiations would seem to characterize the final stage of the peace
process, the whole strategy cannot become a reality until Azerbaijan's
sovereign rights over the occupied territories are restored, and the
safe and dignified return of the expelled Azerbaijani population is
assured. Both parties to the conflict are continuing negotiations on
the basis of the Baker Rules, which were agreed to by all sides, and
under which the two communities of Nagorno-Karabakh are recognized
as "interested parties," and Armenia and Azerbaijan as "principal
parties." For the most part, international media coverage refers
only to the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, though there is also an
Azerbaijani community there. It was established in accordance with
Article 9 of the document signed at the first Helsinki meeting held
by the OSCE Ministerial Council (March 24, 1992) and got legal status
as Public Union Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno-Karabakh Region of
Azerbaijan Republic in 2009.
For several years, Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh have been lobbying
to take part in the negotiations. Last month, the Azerbaijani
Nagorno-Karabakh community attempted to meet with representatives
of the Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh community in Berlin, via the
"Dialogue-Nagorno-Karabakh" forum. The problem is that Armenians
from Nagorno-Karabakh are monopolizing the right to speak on behalf
of the region, and are refusing to accept the Azerbaijani community
as part of Nagorno-Karabakh region. In fact, there is not a single
document adopted by an international organization since the start
of the conflict that does not recognize the territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan. Moreover, the sovereign status of the so called
"Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" has not been recognized by a single
country. This destabilizes the common view in Armenia that the
frozen conflict is sustainable and that the dispute has been
resolved. While Armenia's removal of its snipers from the front
line has been interpreted by the international media as an attempt
to support peaceful resolution, in reality this maneuver seeks to
prolong the status quo, by reducing violations of the ceasefire. The
international community intensifies peace efforts when they see
increasing violations.
Additionally, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue will feature prominently in
Armenia's forthcoming elections. Both the government and opposition
will try to use the Nagorno-Karabakh as political cards in their
campaigns. The moderate voices in Armenia remain marginalized. For
example, Armenian human rights activist Georgi Vanyan, who is one of
the few people in Armenia to have spoken out against the Armenian
occupation of Azerbaijani territories, was insulted and threatened
with physical violence when he organized screenings of Azerbaijani
films in Yerevan.
Since 2007, peace talks have been guided by the "Basic Principles"
or "Madrid Principles," which propose that agreement on the final
status of Nagorno-Karabakh must be put on hold, while other issues,
such as the liberation of the surrounding territories, the return of
Azerbaijani IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons), the restoration of
crucial social and transport infrastructure, the resumption of trade
and other confidence building measures are dealt with first. In fact,
these same principles were first accepted by former Armenian President
Levon Ter-Petrossian in 1997, but the bloodless coup in Armenia and
Ter-Petrossian's subsequent departure from office that year buried the
chances of its realization. Now, the Armenian side sees the remaining
controversial points as significant obstacles, while Azerbaijan deems
them technical details. Azerbaijan Minister of Foreign Affairs Elmar
Mammadyarov outlined his vision in a Dec. 6 statement on news.az. "The
Azerbaijani side is aware of the failure to find final points of
contact and knows that these principles are a good basis for moving
forward and concluding the main peace agreement and, therefore,
suggests the next step of beginning work on a major peace agreement."
It seems that Azerbaijan is demonstrating its readiness to work on
peace agreements, while the Armenian side argues that "the devil is
in the details."
The prospects for peaceful resolution can be summed up in the words
of Nelson Mandela: "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you
have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." The
Azerbaijani side has made demonstrated efforts, including community
meetings and meetings of the PACE Subcommittee on Nagorno-Karabakh
and civil society meetings, but these measures have been rejected by
Armenia. The current situation does not offer hope for resolution. The
Armenian leadership faces "a fateful dilemma" -- to accept and work
on peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and thereby
risk angering the Armenian public, or to play for time by refusing
to sign it, which will alienate the international community.
by ZAUR SHIRIYEV
Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-265758-vision-for-peace-two-communities.html
Dec 14 2011
Turkey
2011 is ending without any resolution on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
even though mediation efforts have continued to intense negotiations
throughout the year.
Ultimately, the "momentum" for peace never gathered sufficient force.
Hope for a peaceful solution increased after the May 2011 statement
of the United States, Russian and French presidents at Deauville,
held within the framework of the G8 Summit, which urged Armenia
and Azerbaijan to finalize the Basic Principles for the Peaceful
Settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Unfortunately, the
Kazan summit halted this progress. The failure of these negotiations
suggests to the Azerbaijani public that the conflict is locked in a
stagnation period. What they see is international powers pushing both
parties to reach an agreement, but failing to produce any result,
and so the population is beginning to look to military intervention
as the inevitable next step. Following the recent meeting in Vilnius,
the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk
Group released a statement saying that "the parties agreed on the
need to continue the negotiation process in the format of OSCE Minsk
Group and to improve the atmosphere for progressing towards a peaceful
settlement." Similar statements have come out of other meetings in
Deauville, Helsinki, Astana, Athens and Sochi over recent years.
However, Armenia and all three of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair
countries will enter an election period next year, and this will
significantly restrict diplomatic activity in the Nagorno-Karabakh
peace process. When there is a "diplomatic vacuum," the risk of
war is always greater. In the meantime, ceasefire violations have
increased, fuelling mutual distrust and the growing frustration with
the deadlocked peace talks. The current "frozen conflict" is ever more
dangerous, for it is fraught with the underlying threat of renewed
hostilities, and a likelihood that the sporadic violations of the
ceasefire agreement may gather pace and intensify.
The history of the current peace process demonstrates that the key
steps toward a lasting peace come not only from the negotiating table,
but also from inside the societies themselves. From the perspective of
the government in Baku, the public must be prepared for the realities
of peace, and increased contact between the divided communities will
help to achieve this. If the public can accept a framework agreement on
basic principles, this could later serve as a basis for more in-depth
negotiations on a comprehensive peace agreement.
First of all, Azerbaijan strongly supports inter-community dialogue
between the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagorno-Karabakh.
This marks a new step towards peace by Azerbaijan, envisaging
negotiations on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh between Azerbaijan
and Armenia, and the two communities of Nagorno-Karabakh, once peace
has been reached. While the realization of these inter-community
negotiations would seem to characterize the final stage of the peace
process, the whole strategy cannot become a reality until Azerbaijan's
sovereign rights over the occupied territories are restored, and the
safe and dignified return of the expelled Azerbaijani population is
assured. Both parties to the conflict are continuing negotiations on
the basis of the Baker Rules, which were agreed to by all sides, and
under which the two communities of Nagorno-Karabakh are recognized
as "interested parties," and Armenia and Azerbaijan as "principal
parties." For the most part, international media coverage refers
only to the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, though there is also an
Azerbaijani community there. It was established in accordance with
Article 9 of the document signed at the first Helsinki meeting held
by the OSCE Ministerial Council (March 24, 1992) and got legal status
as Public Union Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno-Karabakh Region of
Azerbaijan Republic in 2009.
For several years, Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh have been lobbying
to take part in the negotiations. Last month, the Azerbaijani
Nagorno-Karabakh community attempted to meet with representatives
of the Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh community in Berlin, via the
"Dialogue-Nagorno-Karabakh" forum. The problem is that Armenians
from Nagorno-Karabakh are monopolizing the right to speak on behalf
of the region, and are refusing to accept the Azerbaijani community
as part of Nagorno-Karabakh region. In fact, there is not a single
document adopted by an international organization since the start
of the conflict that does not recognize the territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan. Moreover, the sovereign status of the so called
"Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" has not been recognized by a single
country. This destabilizes the common view in Armenia that the
frozen conflict is sustainable and that the dispute has been
resolved. While Armenia's removal of its snipers from the front
line has been interpreted by the international media as an attempt
to support peaceful resolution, in reality this maneuver seeks to
prolong the status quo, by reducing violations of the ceasefire. The
international community intensifies peace efforts when they see
increasing violations.
Additionally, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue will feature prominently in
Armenia's forthcoming elections. Both the government and opposition
will try to use the Nagorno-Karabakh as political cards in their
campaigns. The moderate voices in Armenia remain marginalized. For
example, Armenian human rights activist Georgi Vanyan, who is one of
the few people in Armenia to have spoken out against the Armenian
occupation of Azerbaijani territories, was insulted and threatened
with physical violence when he organized screenings of Azerbaijani
films in Yerevan.
Since 2007, peace talks have been guided by the "Basic Principles"
or "Madrid Principles," which propose that agreement on the final
status of Nagorno-Karabakh must be put on hold, while other issues,
such as the liberation of the surrounding territories, the return of
Azerbaijani IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons), the restoration of
crucial social and transport infrastructure, the resumption of trade
and other confidence building measures are dealt with first. In fact,
these same principles were first accepted by former Armenian President
Levon Ter-Petrossian in 1997, but the bloodless coup in Armenia and
Ter-Petrossian's subsequent departure from office that year buried the
chances of its realization. Now, the Armenian side sees the remaining
controversial points as significant obstacles, while Azerbaijan deems
them technical details. Azerbaijan Minister of Foreign Affairs Elmar
Mammadyarov outlined his vision in a Dec. 6 statement on news.az. "The
Azerbaijani side is aware of the failure to find final points of
contact and knows that these principles are a good basis for moving
forward and concluding the main peace agreement and, therefore,
suggests the next step of beginning work on a major peace agreement."
It seems that Azerbaijan is demonstrating its readiness to work on
peace agreements, while the Armenian side argues that "the devil is
in the details."
The prospects for peaceful resolution can be summed up in the words
of Nelson Mandela: "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you
have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." The
Azerbaijani side has made demonstrated efforts, including community
meetings and meetings of the PACE Subcommittee on Nagorno-Karabakh
and civil society meetings, but these measures have been rejected by
Armenia. The current situation does not offer hope for resolution. The
Armenian leadership faces "a fateful dilemma" -- to accept and work
on peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and thereby
risk angering the Armenian public, or to play for time by refusing
to sign it, which will alienate the international community.