Tweet
CLINTON VISITS BAKU, YEREVAN AS FRONTLINE CLASHES PERSIST
By Jasur Sumerenli, Naira Melkumyan
Ground Report
June 13 2012
Each side blames the other for spate of cross-border shooting
incidents.
Clashes along the front lines separating Armenian and Azerbaijani
forces last week resulted in deaths on both sides, but that does not
mean the Nagorny Karabakh conflict is in danger of reigniting after
a two-decade-long truce, experts say.
As is often the case, accounts of the shootings from June 4 to 7 - and
of who was to blame - differed sharply on both sides. The Armenians
said the Azerbaijani military suffered 25 dead and killed four of
their soldiers. Azerbaijan said Armenian troops killed five of its
men at a cost of 40 of theirs.
The end of full-scale hostilities in 1994 left an Armenian
administration in control of Nagorny Karabakh and adjoining regions,
but without international recognition. The ceasefire agreement
has held over the years, despite sporadic gunfire both across the
"line of control" that rings Karabakh, and along the border between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Years of negotiations have not produced a
formal peace agreement.
Officials in Yerevan said the violence started on June 4 with an
Azerbaijani incursion into Armenia's Tavush region, which left three
Armenian soldiers dead. A fourth was killed overnight on June 5-6 on
the front line around Karabakh.
Azerbaijan's defence ministry described one clash on June 5 as an
Armenian attack on its forces' positions in the Qazakh region, which
was repulsed. Apparently referring to the same incident, Armenian
sources said Azerbaijani troops made an incursion into Tavush region
- which borders on Qazakh - and lost five men in the process without
causing any fatalities.
The one point on which Armenian and Azerbaijani commentators agree
is that this spate of skirmishes was connected with a visit to the
region by United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that took
place at the same time - June 4-7. Each side accused the other of
deliberately provoking an outbreak of violence timed to coincide with
the Secretary of State's arrival.
"I think it's no coincidence that these aggressive actions occurred
during Hillary Clinton's visit," David Jamalyan, a defence expert in
Armenia, said. "Azerbaijan wanted to check to see what the reaction
from the United States and other world powers would be."
At a joint news conference with Clinton, Armenian foreign minister
Eduard Nalbandyan pressed home his government's position.
"Not satisfied with violating the ceasefire regime in the Nagorny
Karabakh conflict zone on a daily basis, Baku is trying to raise
tensions on the border with Armenia," he said.
In Azerbaijan, reserve lieutenant-colonel Oqtay Kerimov said it was
Armenia that was responsible, and suggested that it was planned long
in advance as a tactic for focusing US attention on Karabakh.
At the same time, Kerimov blamed the general recurrence of ceasefire
violations on an Armenian policy of bolstering military positions,
for example by gaining control of hilltop vantage points and buildings
near the conflict lines.
Sergei Minasyan, head of political studies at the Caucasus Institute
in Yerevan, said tensions - caused by Azerbaijan - had reached
unprecedented levels, and it was not clear which way things were
heading.
"Azerbaijan has not been so active on the border for a long time,"
he said.
In Yerevan, Clinton stressed that the Karabakh conflict must be
resolved via the ongoing peace process.
"I am very concerned by these incidents and have called on all parties,
all actors, to refrain from the use or threat of force, because there
is no military solution to this conflict," she said. "It can only be
resolved at the negotiating table. And of course there is a danger
that it could escalate into a much broader conflict that would be
very tragic for everyone concerned."
Clinton took precisely the same message to Baku, where she met
Azerbaijani foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov on June 6.
"I am deeply concerned about the danger of escalating tension, which
could have unpredictable and disastrous consequences. This cycle of
violence and retaliation must end, and everyone should work to keep
the peace and comply with the obligations under the 1994 ceasefire
agreement," she said. "I have asked the president, as I have asked
the president of Armenia, to work together to exercise restraint and
to take the steps necessary for peace, not conflict."
Elnur Aslanov, a spokesman for Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev,
said Armenia was attempting to undermine the talks.
"This most recent act of sabotage by Armenia is an example of the
unconstructive position which that country has taken for a number of
years," he said. "Armenia is trying to maintain the status quo.
Instead of taking steps towards peace, stability and security, it is
increasing militaristic rhetoric, instability and provocations. That
shows Armenia is not interested in achieving peace."
Ilhar Mammadov, a political analyst from the Republican Alternative
Movement, argued that Clinton's comments supported the Azerbaijani
position - if peaceful negotiation was the only route for resolving
the Karabakh, Armenian control of Karabakh could not be legitimate.
"Clinton's remarks don't mean that at one point, there was a military
solution to the conflict, and that Armenia achieved it. If there is no
military solution, that means there never was and never will be one,"
he said, noting that this logic meant that "Armenia must withdraw
its armed forces from the occupied territories."
Despite the violence on the ground and the political recriminations,
analysts in Yerevan are not predicting that things will really get
out of hand.
"This sabotage [of the ceasefire] is more or less constant," Artsrun
Hovhannisyan of Armenia's Institute for Political Studies said. "It
isn't worth deliberating whether such incidents genuinely make it
more or less likely that the ceasefire will break down."
Jasur Sumerinli is editor-in-chief of the MilAz defence news agency
in Azerbaijan. Naira Melkumyan is a freelance journalist in Armenia.
By Jasur Sumerenli, Naira Melkumyan
Ground Report
June 13 2012
Each side blames the other for spate of cross-border shooting
incidents.
Clashes along the front lines separating Armenian and Azerbaijani
forces last week resulted in deaths on both sides, but that does not
mean the Nagorny Karabakh conflict is in danger of reigniting after
a two-decade-long truce, experts say.
As is often the case, accounts of the shootings from June 4 to 7 - and
of who was to blame - differed sharply on both sides. The Armenians
said the Azerbaijani military suffered 25 dead and killed four of
their soldiers. Azerbaijan said Armenian troops killed five of its
men at a cost of 40 of theirs.
The end of full-scale hostilities in 1994 left an Armenian
administration in control of Nagorny Karabakh and adjoining regions,
but without international recognition. The ceasefire agreement
has held over the years, despite sporadic gunfire both across the
"line of control" that rings Karabakh, and along the border between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Years of negotiations have not produced a
formal peace agreement.
Officials in Yerevan said the violence started on June 4 with an
Azerbaijani incursion into Armenia's Tavush region, which left three
Armenian soldiers dead. A fourth was killed overnight on June 5-6 on
the front line around Karabakh.
Azerbaijan's defence ministry described one clash on June 5 as an
Armenian attack on its forces' positions in the Qazakh region, which
was repulsed. Apparently referring to the same incident, Armenian
sources said Azerbaijani troops made an incursion into Tavush region
- which borders on Qazakh - and lost five men in the process without
causing any fatalities.
The one point on which Armenian and Azerbaijani commentators agree
is that this spate of skirmishes was connected with a visit to the
region by United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that took
place at the same time - June 4-7. Each side accused the other of
deliberately provoking an outbreak of violence timed to coincide with
the Secretary of State's arrival.
"I think it's no coincidence that these aggressive actions occurred
during Hillary Clinton's visit," David Jamalyan, a defence expert in
Armenia, said. "Azerbaijan wanted to check to see what the reaction
from the United States and other world powers would be."
At a joint news conference with Clinton, Armenian foreign minister
Eduard Nalbandyan pressed home his government's position.
"Not satisfied with violating the ceasefire regime in the Nagorny
Karabakh conflict zone on a daily basis, Baku is trying to raise
tensions on the border with Armenia," he said.
In Azerbaijan, reserve lieutenant-colonel Oqtay Kerimov said it was
Armenia that was responsible, and suggested that it was planned long
in advance as a tactic for focusing US attention on Karabakh.
At the same time, Kerimov blamed the general recurrence of ceasefire
violations on an Armenian policy of bolstering military positions,
for example by gaining control of hilltop vantage points and buildings
near the conflict lines.
Sergei Minasyan, head of political studies at the Caucasus Institute
in Yerevan, said tensions - caused by Azerbaijan - had reached
unprecedented levels, and it was not clear which way things were
heading.
"Azerbaijan has not been so active on the border for a long time,"
he said.
In Yerevan, Clinton stressed that the Karabakh conflict must be
resolved via the ongoing peace process.
"I am very concerned by these incidents and have called on all parties,
all actors, to refrain from the use or threat of force, because there
is no military solution to this conflict," she said. "It can only be
resolved at the negotiating table. And of course there is a danger
that it could escalate into a much broader conflict that would be
very tragic for everyone concerned."
Clinton took precisely the same message to Baku, where she met
Azerbaijani foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov on June 6.
"I am deeply concerned about the danger of escalating tension, which
could have unpredictable and disastrous consequences. This cycle of
violence and retaliation must end, and everyone should work to keep
the peace and comply with the obligations under the 1994 ceasefire
agreement," she said. "I have asked the president, as I have asked
the president of Armenia, to work together to exercise restraint and
to take the steps necessary for peace, not conflict."
Elnur Aslanov, a spokesman for Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev,
said Armenia was attempting to undermine the talks.
"This most recent act of sabotage by Armenia is an example of the
unconstructive position which that country has taken for a number of
years," he said. "Armenia is trying to maintain the status quo.
Instead of taking steps towards peace, stability and security, it is
increasing militaristic rhetoric, instability and provocations. That
shows Armenia is not interested in achieving peace."
Ilhar Mammadov, a political analyst from the Republican Alternative
Movement, argued that Clinton's comments supported the Azerbaijani
position - if peaceful negotiation was the only route for resolving
the Karabakh, Armenian control of Karabakh could not be legitimate.
"Clinton's remarks don't mean that at one point, there was a military
solution to the conflict, and that Armenia achieved it. If there is no
military solution, that means there never was and never will be one,"
he said, noting that this logic meant that "Armenia must withdraw
its armed forces from the occupied territories."
Despite the violence on the ground and the political recriminations,
analysts in Yerevan are not predicting that things will really get
out of hand.
"This sabotage [of the ceasefire] is more or less constant," Artsrun
Hovhannisyan of Armenia's Institute for Political Studies said. "It
isn't worth deliberating whether such incidents genuinely make it
more or less likely that the ceasefire will break down."
Jasur Sumerinli is editor-in-chief of the MilAz defence news agency
in Azerbaijan. Naira Melkumyan is a freelance journalist in Armenia.