Tweet
Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Russia
Sept 29 2011
Supervised Peace in South Caucasus: Russia Suggests West Jointly
Ensure Nonrenewal of War in Troubled Region
by Yuriy Roks
Sergey Lavrov expressed Russia's interest in a stable South Caucasus.
Russia is prepared to become the guarantor of peace in the South
Caucasus and would be grateful if the United States and European Union
[EU] would help in this mission. The statement by Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov during his speech to the Sixth-Sixth Session of
the UN General Assembly elicited mixed reactions in the generally
recognized subjects of the South Caucasus. Georgia responded with
sarcasm, Azerbaijan with understanding but without trying to hide its
dissatisfaction with the Karabakh settlement process, and Armenia with
positive restraint.
The reaction of the South Caucasus states to the statement by the head
of the Russian MID [Foreign Ministry] could serve as a pointed
illustration of Russia's own position in the South Caucasus. This
"multifacetedness" may explain the challenge to the West to help
Russia be the guarantor of peace and stability in the South Caucasus.
Previously in Russian leaders' speeches regarding this region we heard
the phrase "zone of our responsibility."
"Russia firmly intends to undertake all that is necessary in order to
prevent the application of a force scenario and an escalation of
violence in the Caucasus," Sergei Lavrov said, speaking at a session
of the UN General Assembly in New York. According to him, if there is
an illegal use of force by any of the sides, "Russia is prepared to
take all necessary measures to establish peace in the region."
Can this statement be interpreted as a warning of the possibility of
deja vu of August 2008 if shooting breaks out somewhere in the South
Caucasus? Apparently so. At the same time, Russia has once again shown
its readiness to be the guarantor of non-use of force agreements
between Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. "We would welcome it if
the United States and EU [European Union] took on analogous
obligations," Lavrov said. "In our capacity as guarantor we would be
prepared to take measures to prevent the renewal of violence in the
region and, in the event of illegal use of force by any of the sides,
to achieve the speediest settlement of the situation on the basis of
the current norms of international law."
In the opinion of Aleksey Malashenko, a member of the Carnegie Moscow
Centre's research council, Lavrov's statement was elicited by a
recognition of reality as well as a reluctance to portray Russia as an
empire on the backdrop of Vladimir Putin's likely return to the
presidency. "And if nothing works with the West in the
Georgia-Abkhazia-South Ossetia triangle, then criticism against Russia
on the relevant issues will die down," Professor Malashenko told NG
[Nezavisimaya Gazeta].
Tbilisi responded to Lavrov's statements about Russia's desire to be
the guarantor of peace in the region with reminders of the losses
Georgia suffered by trusting its northern neighbour. Tbilisi also made
it clear that it has no intention of reaching agreements with "its
autonomous regions"; on the other hand, it is prepared to consider a
scenario for signing an agreement on the non-use of force with Russia
itself. With the participation of the international community. That
is, the West.
The EU showed more interest than Georgia in Lavrov's proposal. Maya
Kochiyanchich, the press secretary for the EU's High Representative of
the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, told journalists
that the proposal "touches upon certain aspects of the complicated
situation around the conflict in Georgia that we have to study in more
detail."
"We will continue to advance additional possibilities for a peaceful
settlement of the Karabakh conflict that have arisen as a result of
Russia's efforts and mediation. We will continue, within the framework
of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe]
Minsk Group [MG], together with our partners - France and the United
States - to advance a peaceful solution to the conflict," Lavrov said,
addressing the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. "Within the framework of
the troika of OSCE Minsk Group cochairs, together with our American
and French partners, we will be advancing a set of measures for
building confidence and strengthening the ceasefire."
Calling a spade a spade, the Russian foreign minister basically
indicated that the status quo in the Karabakh regard was optimal:
talks under the patronage of the MG OSCE, with a slight increase in
pressure first on one side of the conflict, then on the other, with
refusals to sign the proposed documents first by one side, then by the
other. This might also suit Yerevan. But not Baku.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, speaking from the same
podium, listed the conditions that might facilitate progress in a
settlement. He did not say anything new in enumerating their demands,
which the Armenian side would not accept without the recognition of
Nagornyy Karabakh's independence: the withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces, the return of refugees, and "the creation of conditions for
peaceful coexistence by Azerbaijanis and Armenians in the region of
the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict within the context of territorial
integrity." "Azerbaijan still maintains its interest, motivation, and
patience in this very difficult and sensitive negotiations process. .
. . We believe that the international community will convince the
Armenian side. . . . In turn, we are prepared to guarantee a high
level of self-governance for this region within the Republic of
Azerbaijan," Mammadyarov stated. Heard in the foreign minister's
intonations were clear notes of disappointment at the years-long, but
fruitless talks. His deputy, Halaf Halafov, spoke out more caustically
on this subject during this time at a meeting in Baku with a
delegation from Argentina's parliament: "The peace talks are not
yielding results due to the unreadiness of the Armenian leadership to
liberate the occupied territories." There is probably no point in
clarifying what follows from such an "ingenuous" statement given the
condition of Azerbaijan's unwillingness to lose the NKR [Republic of
Nagornyy Karabakh]. From this standpoint, the statement about Russia's
readiness to be the guarantor of peace might bother Baku and
simultaneously have a sedative effect on the Armenian side.
Yerevan has emphasized yet again that compromise assumes mutual
concessions, but Azerbaijan has only demands and ephemeral promises
"one day to hold a referendum on the status of Nagornyy Karabakh," "to
ensure democratic standards and civil freedoms for the Karabakhs," and
so on. "It is odd hearing about this from the leaders of a country
that has been criticized more than once in PACE [Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe] for its regression in democratic
processes," Naira Zograbyan, chair of the Armenian parliament's
permanent commission on Euro integration issues. "Azerbaijan has
passed amendments to the Constitution revoking the limit on the
president to two terms. In a country . . . where life-long rule is
sanctioned, it is useless to speak of democracy," she stated.
"Of course, Mr Lavrov's words cannot be interpreted with 100 per cent
certainty. A joint approach is possible in the projection on the
Karabakh problem if Russia, the United States, and the EU, say, with
the nonopposition of Turkey, create conditions in line with reality
and propose a package agreement to Yerevan and Baku as the sole path
for settling the conflict. My position on this issue is well known:
recognize NKR sovereignty, hand the territory around Karabakh, except
Lachinskiy Rayon, over to Azerbaijan, and return the refugees," State
Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin, who is the director of the Institute
for CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] Countries, told NG.
According to him, the positions of Russia and the West on the Karabakh
conflict are close enough. "If Lavrov had in mind that Russia could
reach an agreement with the West on all South Caucasus issues, then I
do not believe that. We have a completely different vision of the
situation in Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia," Zatulin told NG.
[translated from Russian]
Sept 29 2011
Supervised Peace in South Caucasus: Russia Suggests West Jointly
Ensure Nonrenewal of War in Troubled Region
by Yuriy Roks
Sergey Lavrov expressed Russia's interest in a stable South Caucasus.
Russia is prepared to become the guarantor of peace in the South
Caucasus and would be grateful if the United States and European Union
[EU] would help in this mission. The statement by Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov during his speech to the Sixth-Sixth Session of
the UN General Assembly elicited mixed reactions in the generally
recognized subjects of the South Caucasus. Georgia responded with
sarcasm, Azerbaijan with understanding but without trying to hide its
dissatisfaction with the Karabakh settlement process, and Armenia with
positive restraint.
The reaction of the South Caucasus states to the statement by the head
of the Russian MID [Foreign Ministry] could serve as a pointed
illustration of Russia's own position in the South Caucasus. This
"multifacetedness" may explain the challenge to the West to help
Russia be the guarantor of peace and stability in the South Caucasus.
Previously in Russian leaders' speeches regarding this region we heard
the phrase "zone of our responsibility."
"Russia firmly intends to undertake all that is necessary in order to
prevent the application of a force scenario and an escalation of
violence in the Caucasus," Sergei Lavrov said, speaking at a session
of the UN General Assembly in New York. According to him, if there is
an illegal use of force by any of the sides, "Russia is prepared to
take all necessary measures to establish peace in the region."
Can this statement be interpreted as a warning of the possibility of
deja vu of August 2008 if shooting breaks out somewhere in the South
Caucasus? Apparently so. At the same time, Russia has once again shown
its readiness to be the guarantor of non-use of force agreements
between Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. "We would welcome it if
the United States and EU [European Union] took on analogous
obligations," Lavrov said. "In our capacity as guarantor we would be
prepared to take measures to prevent the renewal of violence in the
region and, in the event of illegal use of force by any of the sides,
to achieve the speediest settlement of the situation on the basis of
the current norms of international law."
In the opinion of Aleksey Malashenko, a member of the Carnegie Moscow
Centre's research council, Lavrov's statement was elicited by a
recognition of reality as well as a reluctance to portray Russia as an
empire on the backdrop of Vladimir Putin's likely return to the
presidency. "And if nothing works with the West in the
Georgia-Abkhazia-South Ossetia triangle, then criticism against Russia
on the relevant issues will die down," Professor Malashenko told NG
[Nezavisimaya Gazeta].
Tbilisi responded to Lavrov's statements about Russia's desire to be
the guarantor of peace in the region with reminders of the losses
Georgia suffered by trusting its northern neighbour. Tbilisi also made
it clear that it has no intention of reaching agreements with "its
autonomous regions"; on the other hand, it is prepared to consider a
scenario for signing an agreement on the non-use of force with Russia
itself. With the participation of the international community. That
is, the West.
The EU showed more interest than Georgia in Lavrov's proposal. Maya
Kochiyanchich, the press secretary for the EU's High Representative of
the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, told journalists
that the proposal "touches upon certain aspects of the complicated
situation around the conflict in Georgia that we have to study in more
detail."
"We will continue to advance additional possibilities for a peaceful
settlement of the Karabakh conflict that have arisen as a result of
Russia's efforts and mediation. We will continue, within the framework
of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe]
Minsk Group [MG], together with our partners - France and the United
States - to advance a peaceful solution to the conflict," Lavrov said,
addressing the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. "Within the framework of
the troika of OSCE Minsk Group cochairs, together with our American
and French partners, we will be advancing a set of measures for
building confidence and strengthening the ceasefire."
Calling a spade a spade, the Russian foreign minister basically
indicated that the status quo in the Karabakh regard was optimal:
talks under the patronage of the MG OSCE, with a slight increase in
pressure first on one side of the conflict, then on the other, with
refusals to sign the proposed documents first by one side, then by the
other. This might also suit Yerevan. But not Baku.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, speaking from the same
podium, listed the conditions that might facilitate progress in a
settlement. He did not say anything new in enumerating their demands,
which the Armenian side would not accept without the recognition of
Nagornyy Karabakh's independence: the withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces, the return of refugees, and "the creation of conditions for
peaceful coexistence by Azerbaijanis and Armenians in the region of
the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict within the context of territorial
integrity." "Azerbaijan still maintains its interest, motivation, and
patience in this very difficult and sensitive negotiations process. .
. . We believe that the international community will convince the
Armenian side. . . . In turn, we are prepared to guarantee a high
level of self-governance for this region within the Republic of
Azerbaijan," Mammadyarov stated. Heard in the foreign minister's
intonations were clear notes of disappointment at the years-long, but
fruitless talks. His deputy, Halaf Halafov, spoke out more caustically
on this subject during this time at a meeting in Baku with a
delegation from Argentina's parliament: "The peace talks are not
yielding results due to the unreadiness of the Armenian leadership to
liberate the occupied territories." There is probably no point in
clarifying what follows from such an "ingenuous" statement given the
condition of Azerbaijan's unwillingness to lose the NKR [Republic of
Nagornyy Karabakh]. From this standpoint, the statement about Russia's
readiness to be the guarantor of peace might bother Baku and
simultaneously have a sedative effect on the Armenian side.
Yerevan has emphasized yet again that compromise assumes mutual
concessions, but Azerbaijan has only demands and ephemeral promises
"one day to hold a referendum on the status of Nagornyy Karabakh," "to
ensure democratic standards and civil freedoms for the Karabakhs," and
so on. "It is odd hearing about this from the leaders of a country
that has been criticized more than once in PACE [Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe] for its regression in democratic
processes," Naira Zograbyan, chair of the Armenian parliament's
permanent commission on Euro integration issues. "Azerbaijan has
passed amendments to the Constitution revoking the limit on the
president to two terms. In a country . . . where life-long rule is
sanctioned, it is useless to speak of democracy," she stated.
"Of course, Mr Lavrov's words cannot be interpreted with 100 per cent
certainty. A joint approach is possible in the projection on the
Karabakh problem if Russia, the United States, and the EU, say, with
the nonopposition of Turkey, create conditions in line with reality
and propose a package agreement to Yerevan and Baku as the sole path
for settling the conflict. My position on this issue is well known:
recognize NKR sovereignty, hand the territory around Karabakh, except
Lachinskiy Rayon, over to Azerbaijan, and return the refugees," State
Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin, who is the director of the Institute
for CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] Countries, told NG.
According to him, the positions of Russia and the West on the Karabakh
conflict are close enough. "If Lavrov had in mind that Russia could
reach an agreement with the West on all South Caucasus issues, then I
do not believe that. We have a completely different vision of the
situation in Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia," Zatulin told NG.
[translated from Russian]