Tweet
Sunday's Zaman , Turkey
June 19 2011
Nagorno-Karabakh: progress on the horizon?
by AMANDA PAUL
The unpredictable security situation in the South Caucasus is of
increasing concern to Europe. While the situation in Georgia is far
from ideal, it is at least contained.
It is the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Azerbaijani
region of Nagorno-Karabakh that is the most dangerous and the most
significant obstacle to peace and stability in the region.
More than 15 years since the cease-fire agreement was signed, Armenia
and Azerbaijan have been unable to find the political will to reach an
agreement, or sign any sort of meaningful document that could bring
them a step closer to peace. While there have been a number of
occasions when an agreement seemed near, at the end of the day the
talks crashed and burned. In the meantime, lives continue to be lost
across the line of contact, including civilians -- even innocent
children, when sniper bullets go astray. In Azerbaijan some 800,000
internally displaced persons (IDP) are still waiting to return to
their homes. Not just in Nagorno-Karabakh (which was predominantly
populated by ethnic Armenians before the war), but more so in the
seven other Azerbaijani regions that Armenia occupied during the war
and now uses as a `security buffer zone' between Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh.
While Azerbaijan continues talk of war to regain these lands (some 17
percent of the country), Armenia responds by signaling Armenia is
ready for war. Hate propaganda continues while confidence building
measures remain limited and have so far had very little impact on the
way Armenians and Azerbaijanis define each other. It is an extremely
sad situation for two peoples that are so similar and have so much in
common. The more time that passes, the more difficult it is to find an
`exit,' and the more likely renewed warfare becomes, which would be
devastating for the entire region. Skyrocketing military spending and
ongoing cease-fire violations are all gloomy signs that time for a
peaceful settlement may be running out. Shared memories of
cohabitation are fading, with the divide becoming increasingly
unbridgeable. There is an urgent need to get a fresh dynamic back into
the negotiations as well as a counter to the hate propaganda. We need
more confidence building, particularly steps to engage youth in joint
projects on all sides.
For those covering the conflict, all eyes are now on the forthcoming
troika meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents and
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on June 25 in the Russian city of
Kazan. There is some optimism that progress may be made, particularly
in light of a recent meeting between the two foreign ministers, Elmar
Mammadyarov and Edward Nalbandian, which has been described in the
media as making `significant progress,' stating `the sides managed to
bring their positions closer on a number of issues of the Basic
Principles of the Karabakh settlement.' However, this is not the first
time such a statement has been made and there was also no word on the
issues that progress was apparently made on. The foreign ministers'
meeting also came just days after US, Russian and French diplomats
co-chairing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) Minsk Group ended yet another tour of the conflict zone issuing
a joint statement that urged the leaders to finalize the `Basic
Principles,' drafted by the three mediating powers, at their next
meeting. They also called upon the parties `to avoid any provocative
actions or statements that might undermine the negotiating process
during this critical period.'
Last week, the European Parliament also held a public hearing on
Nagorno-Karabakh. The European Parliament has really been the only EU
institution to give any meaningful attention to the conflict, and in
May 2010 came up with a report calling for a larger EU role in the
South Caucasus with specific recommendations for the EU, including
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Among the speakers at the meeting were two-thirds of the Minsk Group
-- the French and the Americans. The Russian representative, however,
was nowhere to be seen. This was a pity because it is very much the
Russians who are driving the process nowadays. Andrzej Kasprzyk, who
has been heading up the OSCE's small team that has monitored the line
of contact for more than a decade, was also present. While Kasprzyk
reported that 17 people had been killed so far this year on the line
of contact (including a 9-year-old Azerbaijani boy), he said this was
positive as this represented a decrease on a year ago (35 lives were
lost in 2010). The French and American co-chairs expressed quiet
optimism that something positive would come out of Kazan.
However, it seems to me that agreement is still out of reach. Firstly,
neither side is showing enough political will to reach a final
agreement; nor have they begun to take steps to prepare their
societies for the compromises that such an agreement would
necessitate. Both leaders are still talking about maximum goals. In
the case of Azerbaijan, this amounts to Nagorno-Karabakh remaining
part of Azerbaijan, and for Armenia the exact opposite.
June 19 2011
Nagorno-Karabakh: progress on the horizon?
by AMANDA PAUL
The unpredictable security situation in the South Caucasus is of
increasing concern to Europe. While the situation in Georgia is far
from ideal, it is at least contained.
It is the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Azerbaijani
region of Nagorno-Karabakh that is the most dangerous and the most
significant obstacle to peace and stability in the region.
More than 15 years since the cease-fire agreement was signed, Armenia
and Azerbaijan have been unable to find the political will to reach an
agreement, or sign any sort of meaningful document that could bring
them a step closer to peace. While there have been a number of
occasions when an agreement seemed near, at the end of the day the
talks crashed and burned. In the meantime, lives continue to be lost
across the line of contact, including civilians -- even innocent
children, when sniper bullets go astray. In Azerbaijan some 800,000
internally displaced persons (IDP) are still waiting to return to
their homes. Not just in Nagorno-Karabakh (which was predominantly
populated by ethnic Armenians before the war), but more so in the
seven other Azerbaijani regions that Armenia occupied during the war
and now uses as a `security buffer zone' between Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh.
While Azerbaijan continues talk of war to regain these lands (some 17
percent of the country), Armenia responds by signaling Armenia is
ready for war. Hate propaganda continues while confidence building
measures remain limited and have so far had very little impact on the
way Armenians and Azerbaijanis define each other. It is an extremely
sad situation for two peoples that are so similar and have so much in
common. The more time that passes, the more difficult it is to find an
`exit,' and the more likely renewed warfare becomes, which would be
devastating for the entire region. Skyrocketing military spending and
ongoing cease-fire violations are all gloomy signs that time for a
peaceful settlement may be running out. Shared memories of
cohabitation are fading, with the divide becoming increasingly
unbridgeable. There is an urgent need to get a fresh dynamic back into
the negotiations as well as a counter to the hate propaganda. We need
more confidence building, particularly steps to engage youth in joint
projects on all sides.
For those covering the conflict, all eyes are now on the forthcoming
troika meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents and
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on June 25 in the Russian city of
Kazan. There is some optimism that progress may be made, particularly
in light of a recent meeting between the two foreign ministers, Elmar
Mammadyarov and Edward Nalbandian, which has been described in the
media as making `significant progress,' stating `the sides managed to
bring their positions closer on a number of issues of the Basic
Principles of the Karabakh settlement.' However, this is not the first
time such a statement has been made and there was also no word on the
issues that progress was apparently made on. The foreign ministers'
meeting also came just days after US, Russian and French diplomats
co-chairing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) Minsk Group ended yet another tour of the conflict zone issuing
a joint statement that urged the leaders to finalize the `Basic
Principles,' drafted by the three mediating powers, at their next
meeting. They also called upon the parties `to avoid any provocative
actions or statements that might undermine the negotiating process
during this critical period.'
Last week, the European Parliament also held a public hearing on
Nagorno-Karabakh. The European Parliament has really been the only EU
institution to give any meaningful attention to the conflict, and in
May 2010 came up with a report calling for a larger EU role in the
South Caucasus with specific recommendations for the EU, including
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Among the speakers at the meeting were two-thirds of the Minsk Group
-- the French and the Americans. The Russian representative, however,
was nowhere to be seen. This was a pity because it is very much the
Russians who are driving the process nowadays. Andrzej Kasprzyk, who
has been heading up the OSCE's small team that has monitored the line
of contact for more than a decade, was also present. While Kasprzyk
reported that 17 people had been killed so far this year on the line
of contact (including a 9-year-old Azerbaijani boy), he said this was
positive as this represented a decrease on a year ago (35 lives were
lost in 2010). The French and American co-chairs expressed quiet
optimism that something positive would come out of Kazan.
However, it seems to me that agreement is still out of reach. Firstly,
neither side is showing enough political will to reach a final
agreement; nor have they begun to take steps to prepare their
societies for the compromises that such an agreement would
necessitate. Both leaders are still talking about maximum goals. In
the case of Azerbaijan, this amounts to Nagorno-Karabakh remaining
part of Azerbaijan, and for Armenia the exact opposite.