Tweet
A MOMENT FOR PEACE IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
SABINE FREIZER
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24iht-edfreizer24.html
June 23, 2011
The United States, the European Union and Russia don't seem to agree
on much these days. But in the volatile South Caucasus, they concur
that Armenia and Azerbaijan need to sign an agreement on Friday if
they are serious about finding a peaceful solution to the decades-old
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia has invited the Armenian and
Azerbaijani leaders to the city of Kazan on Friday and expects they
will finally put their signatures on a "basic principles" text they
have been wrangling over since 2007. This will be the ninth meeting
that Medvedev hosts with his Caucasian counterparts.
To some, the deal on the table may not seem like much. After all, it
would still only mark the start of a process, not its conclusion. But
if Medvedev can get them to put ink to paper, it will be a rare and
significant step forward in this confrontation and a validation of
the Russian leader's persistence.
The signs seem promising. In a strongly worded statement issued at
the May G-8 summit meeting in Deauville, France, Presidents Obama,
Medvedev and Nicolas Sarkozy of France, representing the mediators
of the "Minsk Group" charged with settling the dispute, highlighted
the Kazan meeting and demanded no further delay. Indeed, time is
running out because this autumn campaigning will begin in the region
and in the Minsk Group countries for 2012 and 2013 elections, thus
complicating matters for some and driving the issue lower on the
priority list for others.
Nagorno-Karabakh has been pushed down the ladder for too long. It has
often been described as a "frozen conflict" ever since a cease-fire
deal was signed 16 years ago leaving Armenian forces in control of
the mountainous territory and surrounding areas, at least 13 percent
of Azerbaijan's territory. However, shooting across the line has been
killing dozens of people every year. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have
been trying to outdo each other buying sophisticated weapons - with
Azerbaijan spending as much on arms as Armenia's total state budget -
in expectation of a major war. Pressure to reverse the status quo by
force is especially increasing in Baku, Azerbaijan's capital.
A final settlement would allow some 600,000 internally displaced
people to return to their homes and offer a sense of security for the
approximately 150,000 people currently living in Nagorno-Karabakh. It
would put an end to fears of a regional war, in which, because of
existing security accords, Russia could step in on Armenia's side
and Turkey on Azerbaijan's, and Iran would be unlikely to stay on
the sidelines. .
It is now up to President Serzh Sargsyan of Armenia and Ilham Aliyev
of Azerbaijan to decide if war or peace is more threatening. They
have done very little to prepare their people for peace and a lot to
prepare them for war. But they could still convince their citizenry
of the advantages of compromise. If a deal is forthcoming in Kazan,
they will need to do a lot to prevent spoilers from surfacing.
The deal on the table includes withdrawal by Armenian forces of most
of the Azerbaijani territory they occupy around Nagorno-Karabakh,
the deployment of international peacekeepers, the establishment of
an Armenian security corridor, return of displaced persons, interim
status for Nagorno-Karabakh, and the promise of a "legally-binding
expression of will" to determine the future status of the territory
at the end of the process.
This is very balanced. But it will take 10 years or more to implement.
Armenians and Azerbaijanis have spent the past two decades building
up reservoirs of hate and don't trust each other to respect their
commitments. The Armenians want quick implementation to ensure that
Nagorno-Karabakh gets independence, Azerbaijanis are in no rush to
let go of a territory that Aliyev says will remain part of his country
as long as he is president. Even with a deal, the United States, the
European Union and Russia will have much to do after the ink is dry.
They may have to begin the painstaking work of drafting a comprehensive
peace agreement and start physical planning for implementation. The
occupied territories have been destroyed, massive reconstruction will
be needed, as will international peacekeepers. The E.U. especially will
need to quickly provide civilian, military and economic assistance. If
there is no speedy follow up to an agreement in Kazan, and firm
international commitment to support it, the deal risks unraveling.
Or, if the presidents don't sign, the international actors will have
to start preparing for a renewal of fighting that would be drawn out.
With so much violence already happening in the broader region, this
is not an eventuality that the United States, the E.U. and Russia
can afford.
Sabine Freizer is Europe program director of the International
Crisis Group.
SABINE FREIZER
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24iht-edfreizer24.html
June 23, 2011
The United States, the European Union and Russia don't seem to agree
on much these days. But in the volatile South Caucasus, they concur
that Armenia and Azerbaijan need to sign an agreement on Friday if
they are serious about finding a peaceful solution to the decades-old
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia has invited the Armenian and
Azerbaijani leaders to the city of Kazan on Friday and expects they
will finally put their signatures on a "basic principles" text they
have been wrangling over since 2007. This will be the ninth meeting
that Medvedev hosts with his Caucasian counterparts.
To some, the deal on the table may not seem like much. After all, it
would still only mark the start of a process, not its conclusion. But
if Medvedev can get them to put ink to paper, it will be a rare and
significant step forward in this confrontation and a validation of
the Russian leader's persistence.
The signs seem promising. In a strongly worded statement issued at
the May G-8 summit meeting in Deauville, France, Presidents Obama,
Medvedev and Nicolas Sarkozy of France, representing the mediators
of the "Minsk Group" charged with settling the dispute, highlighted
the Kazan meeting and demanded no further delay. Indeed, time is
running out because this autumn campaigning will begin in the region
and in the Minsk Group countries for 2012 and 2013 elections, thus
complicating matters for some and driving the issue lower on the
priority list for others.
Nagorno-Karabakh has been pushed down the ladder for too long. It has
often been described as a "frozen conflict" ever since a cease-fire
deal was signed 16 years ago leaving Armenian forces in control of
the mountainous territory and surrounding areas, at least 13 percent
of Azerbaijan's territory. However, shooting across the line has been
killing dozens of people every year. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have
been trying to outdo each other buying sophisticated weapons - with
Azerbaijan spending as much on arms as Armenia's total state budget -
in expectation of a major war. Pressure to reverse the status quo by
force is especially increasing in Baku, Azerbaijan's capital.
A final settlement would allow some 600,000 internally displaced
people to return to their homes and offer a sense of security for the
approximately 150,000 people currently living in Nagorno-Karabakh. It
would put an end to fears of a regional war, in which, because of
existing security accords, Russia could step in on Armenia's side
and Turkey on Azerbaijan's, and Iran would be unlikely to stay on
the sidelines. .
It is now up to President Serzh Sargsyan of Armenia and Ilham Aliyev
of Azerbaijan to decide if war or peace is more threatening. They
have done very little to prepare their people for peace and a lot to
prepare them for war. But they could still convince their citizenry
of the advantages of compromise. If a deal is forthcoming in Kazan,
they will need to do a lot to prevent spoilers from surfacing.
The deal on the table includes withdrawal by Armenian forces of most
of the Azerbaijani territory they occupy around Nagorno-Karabakh,
the deployment of international peacekeepers, the establishment of
an Armenian security corridor, return of displaced persons, interim
status for Nagorno-Karabakh, and the promise of a "legally-binding
expression of will" to determine the future status of the territory
at the end of the process.
This is very balanced. But it will take 10 years or more to implement.
Armenians and Azerbaijanis have spent the past two decades building
up reservoirs of hate and don't trust each other to respect their
commitments. The Armenians want quick implementation to ensure that
Nagorno-Karabakh gets independence, Azerbaijanis are in no rush to
let go of a territory that Aliyev says will remain part of his country
as long as he is president. Even with a deal, the United States, the
European Union and Russia will have much to do after the ink is dry.
They may have to begin the painstaking work of drafting a comprehensive
peace agreement and start physical planning for implementation. The
occupied territories have been destroyed, massive reconstruction will
be needed, as will international peacekeepers. The E.U. especially will
need to quickly provide civilian, military and economic assistance. If
there is no speedy follow up to an agreement in Kazan, and firm
international commitment to support it, the deal risks unraveling.
Or, if the presidents don't sign, the international actors will have
to start preparing for a renewal of fighting that would be drawn out.
With so much violence already happening in the broader region, this
is not an eventuality that the United States, the E.U. and Russia
can afford.
Sabine Freizer is Europe program director of the International
Crisis Group.