Tweet
Al-Arabiya , UAE
June 18 2011
Hopes and fears rise in Karabakh conflict
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Hopes have been raised of progress towards a peace deal to end the
long-running stand-off between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorny
Karabakh, but analysts warn that a return to war is also possible.
There has been speculation ahead of talks between the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents on June 25 in the Russian city of Kazan that
the bitter enemies could sign a `basic principles' agreement -- a
small step on a long road to a settlement of the dispute over the
mountainous region.
But 17 years after the ceasefire that ended all-out hostilities,
tensions have risen again with regular firefights along the Karabakh
frontline and repeated threats from Baku to seize the region back by
force if talks don't yield results.
In response, the ethnic Armenian forces who have controlled Karabakh
since the war and their backers in Yerevan have threatened large-scale
retaliation if Baku takes military action.
`This is not a `frozen conflict;' it is actually smouldering,' said
Thomas de Waal, a Caucasus expert at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington. `The level of the rhetoric makes
war more possible and the danger is that, at some point, words could
become deeds.'
Energy-rich Azerbaijan, flush with oil and gas money, has massively
increased military spending, and a report from the International
Crisis Group think tank earlier this year warned that an arms build-up
and clashes on the frontline could lead to renewed fighting.
The conflict in the 1990s killed some 30,000 people and forced around
a million more from their homes.
A return to war could threaten important pipelines which pass close to
Karabakh, taking Caspian Sea oil and gas from Azerbaijan to Europe,
and even involve neighboring powers like Turkey, which supports Baku
over Karabakh, and Russia, which has troops stationed in Armenia.
`The scenario could get very ugly -- energy pipelines could be
considered fair game, you could have a huge refugee exodus and the
danger is that Turkey and Russia could be dragged in,' said Lawrence
Sheets, Caucasus project director at the International Crisis Group.
A statement issued by the US, Russian and French presidents at the G8
summit last month put pressure on both countries to `move beyond the
unacceptable status quo' and `take a decisive step towards a peaceful
settlement.'
`We strongly urge the leaders of the sides to prepare their
populations for peace, not war,' the statement said.
It urged them to sign a `basic principles' document that envisages an
Armenian withdrawal from areas around Karabakh also seized during the
war, the return of refugees, international security guarantees, and a
decision on the final status of the territory at an unspecified point
in the future.
Officials in both countries said they had come closer to resolving
differences over the document ahead of the talks this month, although
they continued to express suspicions about the other's motives.
`I've seen some very hostile statements from both sides and nothing to
suggest that some sort of breakthrough is on the horizon,' said Mr.
Sheets.
Even if the document is signed, huge obstacles to a peace deal remain.
Azerbaijan insists that Karabakh must remain part of its sovereign
territory, albeit with widespread autonomy, while Armenia says it must
never return to Baku's control.
The ethnic Armenian authorities who now control the region say that
they too should have a seat at the negotiating table, although Baku
regards them as illegitimate.
Karabakh remains a highly emotive issue in both Azerbaijan and
Armenia, where enmity is constantly stoked by official rhetoric and
media reports.
`No one (in Armenia) believes that Nagorny Karabakh can be handed over
to Azerbaijan,' said Manvel Sarkisian of the Armenian Centre for
Strategic and National Studies. `They believe that Karabakh should be
recognised as an independent state or joined with Armenia.'
In Azerbaijan however it is considered absolutely unthinkable for the
region to be allowed to secede.
`Azerbaijan's position is clear -- territorial integrity cannot be a
subject for discussion,' said foreign ministry spokesman Elkhan
Polukhov. `This position has the unequivocal support of the
Azerbaijani public.'
No country in the world, even Armenia, has recognized Karabakh as
independent from Azerbaijan, but while Baku says that its sovereignty
must be maintained, Yerevan says that the people now living in the
disputed region must have the right to self-determination.
Negotiations mediated by the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe have continued since the 1990s without significant progress,
and Mr. De Waal said that a basic principles agreement would represent
a `huge commitment to embark on a serious peace process.'
But he cautioned that the document would not signal an end to the conflict.
`It's important to stress that this is only a framework, a road map to
a peace treaty -- not a final settlement,' he said.
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/06/18/153786.html
June 18 2011
Hopes and fears rise in Karabakh conflict
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Hopes have been raised of progress towards a peace deal to end the
long-running stand-off between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorny
Karabakh, but analysts warn that a return to war is also possible.
There has been speculation ahead of talks between the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents on June 25 in the Russian city of Kazan that
the bitter enemies could sign a `basic principles' agreement -- a
small step on a long road to a settlement of the dispute over the
mountainous region.
But 17 years after the ceasefire that ended all-out hostilities,
tensions have risen again with regular firefights along the Karabakh
frontline and repeated threats from Baku to seize the region back by
force if talks don't yield results.
In response, the ethnic Armenian forces who have controlled Karabakh
since the war and their backers in Yerevan have threatened large-scale
retaliation if Baku takes military action.
`This is not a `frozen conflict;' it is actually smouldering,' said
Thomas de Waal, a Caucasus expert at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington. `The level of the rhetoric makes
war more possible and the danger is that, at some point, words could
become deeds.'
Energy-rich Azerbaijan, flush with oil and gas money, has massively
increased military spending, and a report from the International
Crisis Group think tank earlier this year warned that an arms build-up
and clashes on the frontline could lead to renewed fighting.
The conflict in the 1990s killed some 30,000 people and forced around
a million more from their homes.
A return to war could threaten important pipelines which pass close to
Karabakh, taking Caspian Sea oil and gas from Azerbaijan to Europe,
and even involve neighboring powers like Turkey, which supports Baku
over Karabakh, and Russia, which has troops stationed in Armenia.
`The scenario could get very ugly -- energy pipelines could be
considered fair game, you could have a huge refugee exodus and the
danger is that Turkey and Russia could be dragged in,' said Lawrence
Sheets, Caucasus project director at the International Crisis Group.
A statement issued by the US, Russian and French presidents at the G8
summit last month put pressure on both countries to `move beyond the
unacceptable status quo' and `take a decisive step towards a peaceful
settlement.'
`We strongly urge the leaders of the sides to prepare their
populations for peace, not war,' the statement said.
It urged them to sign a `basic principles' document that envisages an
Armenian withdrawal from areas around Karabakh also seized during the
war, the return of refugees, international security guarantees, and a
decision on the final status of the territory at an unspecified point
in the future.
Officials in both countries said they had come closer to resolving
differences over the document ahead of the talks this month, although
they continued to express suspicions about the other's motives.
`I've seen some very hostile statements from both sides and nothing to
suggest that some sort of breakthrough is on the horizon,' said Mr.
Sheets.
Even if the document is signed, huge obstacles to a peace deal remain.
Azerbaijan insists that Karabakh must remain part of its sovereign
territory, albeit with widespread autonomy, while Armenia says it must
never return to Baku's control.
The ethnic Armenian authorities who now control the region say that
they too should have a seat at the negotiating table, although Baku
regards them as illegitimate.
Karabakh remains a highly emotive issue in both Azerbaijan and
Armenia, where enmity is constantly stoked by official rhetoric and
media reports.
`No one (in Armenia) believes that Nagorny Karabakh can be handed over
to Azerbaijan,' said Manvel Sarkisian of the Armenian Centre for
Strategic and National Studies. `They believe that Karabakh should be
recognised as an independent state or joined with Armenia.'
In Azerbaijan however it is considered absolutely unthinkable for the
region to be allowed to secede.
`Azerbaijan's position is clear -- territorial integrity cannot be a
subject for discussion,' said foreign ministry spokesman Elkhan
Polukhov. `This position has the unequivocal support of the
Azerbaijani public.'
No country in the world, even Armenia, has recognized Karabakh as
independent from Azerbaijan, but while Baku says that its sovereignty
must be maintained, Yerevan says that the people now living in the
disputed region must have the right to self-determination.
Negotiations mediated by the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe have continued since the 1990s without significant progress,
and Mr. De Waal said that a basic principles agreement would represent
a `huge commitment to embark on a serious peace process.'
But he cautioned that the document would not signal an end to the conflict.
`It's important to stress that this is only a framework, a road map to
a peace treaty -- not a final settlement,' he said.
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/06/18/153786.html