Tweet
COMMENTARY: POSITIONING FOR THE KAZAN SUMMIT
By Edmond Y. Azadian
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2011/06/16/commentary-positioning-for-the-kazan-summit/
Posted on June 16, 2011 by Editor
Expectations as well as doubts abound regarding the forthcoming summit
in the Russian city of Kazan, which will bring together the presidents
of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia June 25-26.
The same presidents have walked the same road in the past, raising
hopes for a breakthrough, but disappointment has followed each and
every meeting. After issuing declarations and verbal commitments,
the Azeri leaders have raised the ante upon returning home. Most
significant violations happened especially right after the Meindorf
declarations where the parties had agreed to refrain from military
solutions and concentrate on the negotiations. But the ink was not
yet dried on that declaration, when Azerbaijan's President Ilham
Aliyev provoked a border skirmish, claiming many victims.
Based on this kind of checkered background, neither the pundits nor
the negotiating parties seem hopeful for a positive outcome. Although
the Kazan summit is ostensibly called to negotiate on the basic
principles worked out by the co-presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group,
symbolism still matters if a positive outcome will be ascribed to
Russia whose president, Dmitry Medvedev, will be mediating between
President Serge Sargisian and Aliyev. Certainly the other parties
do not wish to lose the limelight. The summit has already claimed
one casualty, which was Iran's president's visit to Armenia; it was
supposed to take place on the eve of Kazan summit, but was mysteriously
postponed indefinitely. Although the Armenian government presented the
lame excuse that the documents were not ready to be signed, another
possibility which may not be ruled out is that should there be any
tangible results at the summit, Iran should not share any credit.
The Armenian side is skeptical of the outcome of the summit. The Azeri
side is even vocally pessimistic and already gloomy predictions have
been issued by high government officials.
Armenia's Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian has announced that
Yerevan has positively responded to the basic principles worked out
by the OSCE group and has challenged Baku to do the same.
On the Armenian front, the negative voices are heard mostly from the
Karabagh leaders.
Recently, Ashod Ghoulian, the speaker of the Karabagh parliament, and
Georgy Petrossyan, the foreignminister, addressed a press conference.
Ghoulian's prediction is: "No serious breakthrough is anticipated at
Kazan, because preconditions for that breakthrough are non-existent.
But a preliminary declaration is possible because the co-presidents of
OSCE and the mediators are hard at work to bring some results." But
Karabagh leaders also add that any agreement at the summit cannot
be considered as final, if the Karabagh government does not give its
stamp of approval.
The Russian side is cautiously optimistic, while the spokesman for
the Minsk Group Anjei Kasprschik has even divulged some details about
the basic principles.
The US government has also sounded a positive note. Indeed in her
farewell message, the outgoing US ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, has
expressed her regret that she is leaving Yerevan at a "critical" and
"historic" moment, indicating that an impending solution is about to
happen to the most intractable problem in the region.
The Russian president of the Minsk Group, Igor Popov, has specified
that "the documents which will be discussed at the summit need more
refinement and further deliberation, which are being conducted on
the Foreign Ministry level. We do hope that in Kazan the parties will
demonstrate some constructive approach."
Even Turkey's Foreign Minister Davutoglu has expressed a glimmer
of hope.
The basic principles are composed of six steps, while those steps
begin with the evacuation of "occupied territories" for Azerbaijan's
Foreign Minister Mamedyarov and the expression of the will of the
people (referendum) about the Karabagh status, Kasprschik indicates
that the interim status of Karabagh cannot be less than what the
region enjoys at the present time, but what is crucial is that
Azerbaijan will have to acquiesce to that status which eventually
win international recognition.
One of the sticking points among the six principles is the composition
of the peacekeeping forces in the interim period while agreements
begin to be implemented on the ground. It is believed that the
Minsk Group negotiating parties will come up with that peacekeeping
force.
So much criticism was directed at the Minsk Group negotiations that
the pressure is mounting on the opposing parties to move forward.
Russia's Foreign Ministry has, in a way, verbalized that pressure
through its official representative, Alexander Loukashevich. He has
stated: "There is great hope that the Deauville declaration by the
three presidents will help the sides to realize that the process for
a peaceful settlement has reached a limit after which they have to
come to an agreement to implement them. Any delay beyond that point
will indicate a destructive intention."
The French co-president of the Minsk Group, Bernard Fazier, has
similarly expressed hope for action by stating: "We are hopeful
that the presidents will give their approval at the Kazan summit to
the final draft of the documents presented to them. We refer to the
documents which were delivered to them in March in Sochi."
While pressure is mounting form all sides and hopeful signs are in
the air, Azerbaijan's leaders continue their war threats or negative
statements. Thus the Azeri president has visited Serbia and although
Baku does not recognize Kosovo's independence but Mr. Aliyev has
seized the opportunity to reiterate his eternal refrain: "Serbia,
like Azerbaijan, is suffering from separatism. We hope that your
territorial integrity will one day be realized."
Two other contradictory statements from Azeri officials indicate that
Baku is in the process of using carrot and stick policy, hoping that
one of them will work.
Thus the spokesman for Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry, Elbar Sabiroglu,
has announced, "The Armenian side, through its actions is contributing
to the possibility of a military solution to the Karabagh conflict.
Azerbaijan will be liberating its occupied territories from the enemy.
We are in the process of getting ready for war."
Any government, prepared to sign a peace agreement, would prepare
its population for that situation. These announcements are far from
preparing Azeri people for a peaceful solution.
On the other hand, the deputy foreign minister of Azerbaijan has
made an contradictory statement, perhaps intentionally, for public
consumption as a carrot policy, saying: "We are not interested to
renew the war. We still believe that there is possibility to resolve
the problem through diplomatic means. Why should we think about war?"
In this chaotic atmosphere where contradictory statements and political
pressures are in action, any positive step at the Kazan summit will
constitute a miracle and hailed by all parties.
By Edmond Y. Azadian
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2011/06/16/commentary-positioning-for-the-kazan-summit/
Posted on June 16, 2011 by Editor
Expectations as well as doubts abound regarding the forthcoming summit
in the Russian city of Kazan, which will bring together the presidents
of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia June 25-26.
The same presidents have walked the same road in the past, raising
hopes for a breakthrough, but disappointment has followed each and
every meeting. After issuing declarations and verbal commitments,
the Azeri leaders have raised the ante upon returning home. Most
significant violations happened especially right after the Meindorf
declarations where the parties had agreed to refrain from military
solutions and concentrate on the negotiations. But the ink was not
yet dried on that declaration, when Azerbaijan's President Ilham
Aliyev provoked a border skirmish, claiming many victims.
Based on this kind of checkered background, neither the pundits nor
the negotiating parties seem hopeful for a positive outcome. Although
the Kazan summit is ostensibly called to negotiate on the basic
principles worked out by the co-presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group,
symbolism still matters if a positive outcome will be ascribed to
Russia whose president, Dmitry Medvedev, will be mediating between
President Serge Sargisian and Aliyev. Certainly the other parties
do not wish to lose the limelight. The summit has already claimed
one casualty, which was Iran's president's visit to Armenia; it was
supposed to take place on the eve of Kazan summit, but was mysteriously
postponed indefinitely. Although the Armenian government presented the
lame excuse that the documents were not ready to be signed, another
possibility which may not be ruled out is that should there be any
tangible results at the summit, Iran should not share any credit.
The Armenian side is skeptical of the outcome of the summit. The Azeri
side is even vocally pessimistic and already gloomy predictions have
been issued by high government officials.
Armenia's Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian has announced that
Yerevan has positively responded to the basic principles worked out
by the OSCE group and has challenged Baku to do the same.
On the Armenian front, the negative voices are heard mostly from the
Karabagh leaders.
Recently, Ashod Ghoulian, the speaker of the Karabagh parliament, and
Georgy Petrossyan, the foreignminister, addressed a press conference.
Ghoulian's prediction is: "No serious breakthrough is anticipated at
Kazan, because preconditions for that breakthrough are non-existent.
But a preliminary declaration is possible because the co-presidents of
OSCE and the mediators are hard at work to bring some results." But
Karabagh leaders also add that any agreement at the summit cannot
be considered as final, if the Karabagh government does not give its
stamp of approval.
The Russian side is cautiously optimistic, while the spokesman for
the Minsk Group Anjei Kasprschik has even divulged some details about
the basic principles.
The US government has also sounded a positive note. Indeed in her
farewell message, the outgoing US ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, has
expressed her regret that she is leaving Yerevan at a "critical" and
"historic" moment, indicating that an impending solution is about to
happen to the most intractable problem in the region.
The Russian president of the Minsk Group, Igor Popov, has specified
that "the documents which will be discussed at the summit need more
refinement and further deliberation, which are being conducted on
the Foreign Ministry level. We do hope that in Kazan the parties will
demonstrate some constructive approach."
Even Turkey's Foreign Minister Davutoglu has expressed a glimmer
of hope.
The basic principles are composed of six steps, while those steps
begin with the evacuation of "occupied territories" for Azerbaijan's
Foreign Minister Mamedyarov and the expression of the will of the
people (referendum) about the Karabagh status, Kasprschik indicates
that the interim status of Karabagh cannot be less than what the
region enjoys at the present time, but what is crucial is that
Azerbaijan will have to acquiesce to that status which eventually
win international recognition.
One of the sticking points among the six principles is the composition
of the peacekeeping forces in the interim period while agreements
begin to be implemented on the ground. It is believed that the
Minsk Group negotiating parties will come up with that peacekeeping
force.
So much criticism was directed at the Minsk Group negotiations that
the pressure is mounting on the opposing parties to move forward.
Russia's Foreign Ministry has, in a way, verbalized that pressure
through its official representative, Alexander Loukashevich. He has
stated: "There is great hope that the Deauville declaration by the
three presidents will help the sides to realize that the process for
a peaceful settlement has reached a limit after which they have to
come to an agreement to implement them. Any delay beyond that point
will indicate a destructive intention."
The French co-president of the Minsk Group, Bernard Fazier, has
similarly expressed hope for action by stating: "We are hopeful
that the presidents will give their approval at the Kazan summit to
the final draft of the documents presented to them. We refer to the
documents which were delivered to them in March in Sochi."
While pressure is mounting form all sides and hopeful signs are in
the air, Azerbaijan's leaders continue their war threats or negative
statements. Thus the Azeri president has visited Serbia and although
Baku does not recognize Kosovo's independence but Mr. Aliyev has
seized the opportunity to reiterate his eternal refrain: "Serbia,
like Azerbaijan, is suffering from separatism. We hope that your
territorial integrity will one day be realized."
Two other contradictory statements from Azeri officials indicate that
Baku is in the process of using carrot and stick policy, hoping that
one of them will work.
Thus the spokesman for Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry, Elbar Sabiroglu,
has announced, "The Armenian side, through its actions is contributing
to the possibility of a military solution to the Karabagh conflict.
Azerbaijan will be liberating its occupied territories from the enemy.
We are in the process of getting ready for war."
Any government, prepared to sign a peace agreement, would prepare
its population for that situation. These announcements are far from
preparing Azeri people for a peaceful solution.
On the other hand, the deputy foreign minister of Azerbaijan has
made an contradictory statement, perhaps intentionally, for public
consumption as a carrot policy, saying: "We are not interested to
renew the war. We still believe that there is possibility to resolve
the problem through diplomatic means. Why should we think about war?"
In this chaotic atmosphere where contradictory statements and political
pressures are in action, any positive step at the Kazan summit will
constitute a miracle and hailed by all parties.