Tweet
CLOSER TO WAR THAN PEACE?: OSCE MG MARKS TWENTY YEARS OF UNFRUITFUL NEGOTIATION PROCESS OVER NAGORNO KARABAKH
By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmeniaNow
23.03.12 | 15:30
Photo: OSCE/Frane Maroevic
The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, French Co-chair Jacques Faure,
alongside Robert Bradtke of the United States, Bernard Fassier of
France, and Igor Popov of the Russian Federation, during the 18th
OSCE Ministerial Council, Vilnius, 6 December 2011.
March 24 marks twenty years since the OSCE Minsk Group was
established. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union this
international structure was set out to resolve something that the
Kremlin had failed to do over the three preceding years - stop the war
in Nagorno Karabakh and reach a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
American Co-Chair of OSCE MG Robert Bradtke admitted in this reference,
when recently summing up the activities of this organization over
the past two decades, that no tangible progress has been made.
Indeed, twenty years later the conflict remains unresolved, even the
fact that active hostilities were suspended in May of 1994, is the
merit of CIS Inter-parliamentary Assembly, rather that the Minsk Group.
The international community viewed the Karabakh issue the same way
the Kremlin leadership had before them.
If in 1988-1991 soviet Moscow was stating the inadmissibility of
soviet republics' border repartition, since 1992 the same has been
repeatedly stated by the United Nations (UN), this time in reference to
the impossibility of changing the borders of the UN member-countries.
There is no principal difference between the two approaches. That's
one major reason why the conflict remains unresolved up until now.
On March 2, 1992 - three weeks before MG was established - Armenia
and Azerbaijan joined the UN within the borders of their respective
soviet republics. As a result, the new political realities in the
region - declaration of Nagorno Karabakh Republic and its referendum
of independence - were ignored not only by the soviet, but also the
international community.
This was in Baku's interests as the international recognition of the
Azerbaijani Republic within its soviet borders enabled, and still does,
the Azeri leadership to present any form of Armenian confrontation as
"Armenian separatism". The same was true during the soviet regime.
The United Nations refused to take direct participation in the
settlement process and entrusted the peacemaking negotiation mission
on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), by
which the Minsk Group was created and has been functioning until today.
Despite the fact that today the concept of Minsk Group is associated
with the three co-chairs - Russia, France and the USA, it hasn't
always been like that. Various countries have been its members:
Czech Republic, Belarus, Sweden and Italy, Germany and Turkey...
The institute of three permanent co-chairs finally took shape in 1997,
but it was a very difficult process.
The same year, MG co-chairs proposed two options of settlement, both
of which provided for Nagorno Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. These
options were accepted by Baku, but rejected by Stepanakert (Nagorno
Karabakh).
Yerevan's position was dual: firs president Levon Ter-Petrosyan
accepted the suggested options, but the Armenian community, including
political parties and the majority of the cabinet, were categorically
against them; the situation led to the crisis of power and resignation
of the first president.
In the following year of 1998, MG suggested a new option - the
so-called "Common House", stipulating horizontal relations to be
established between Baku and Stepanakert, meaning that Azerbaijan
and Nagorno Karabakh would remain separate countries, but part of
the same confederation. This time it was Baku's turn to say "No".
In 2007, the mediators suggested the fourth option of settlement,
the Madrid Principles.
As opposed to the preceding ones, this document did not specify Nagorno
Karabakh's political status and insisted on the withdrawal of the
Defense Army of Nagorno Karabakh from the five regions around former
Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh (ARNK), return of refugees and
displaced people, rehabilitation of communications, and only after that
(during 15-20 years) holding a referendum to determine the political
status of Nagorno Karabakh.
This document, or the amended variants of it, is still on the
negotiation table.
Official Yerevan recognizes the Madrid Principles, but with certain
reservations - the referendum must be held within former ARNK, meaning
by native Armenian population, which as of the start of the conflict
made 80 percent of the total population in that region. Hence, from
Yerevan's perspective, Nagorno Karabakh's future status is obvious.
Baku speaks against the reservations and wants unconditional
recognition of all the territories as part of Azerbaijan.
As a result, two decades after OSCE MG's establishment, the negotiation
process is still far from being resolved. Moreover, today more than
before, opinions are voiced on the possible resumption of active
hostilities.
By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmeniaNow
23.03.12 | 15:30
Photo: OSCE/Frane Maroevic
The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, French Co-chair Jacques Faure,
alongside Robert Bradtke of the United States, Bernard Fassier of
France, and Igor Popov of the Russian Federation, during the 18th
OSCE Ministerial Council, Vilnius, 6 December 2011.
March 24 marks twenty years since the OSCE Minsk Group was
established. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union this
international structure was set out to resolve something that the
Kremlin had failed to do over the three preceding years - stop the war
in Nagorno Karabakh and reach a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
American Co-Chair of OSCE MG Robert Bradtke admitted in this reference,
when recently summing up the activities of this organization over
the past two decades, that no tangible progress has been made.
Indeed, twenty years later the conflict remains unresolved, even the
fact that active hostilities were suspended in May of 1994, is the
merit of CIS Inter-parliamentary Assembly, rather that the Minsk Group.
The international community viewed the Karabakh issue the same way
the Kremlin leadership had before them.
If in 1988-1991 soviet Moscow was stating the inadmissibility of
soviet republics' border repartition, since 1992 the same has been
repeatedly stated by the United Nations (UN), this time in reference to
the impossibility of changing the borders of the UN member-countries.
There is no principal difference between the two approaches. That's
one major reason why the conflict remains unresolved up until now.
On March 2, 1992 - three weeks before MG was established - Armenia
and Azerbaijan joined the UN within the borders of their respective
soviet republics. As a result, the new political realities in the
region - declaration of Nagorno Karabakh Republic and its referendum
of independence - were ignored not only by the soviet, but also the
international community.
This was in Baku's interests as the international recognition of the
Azerbaijani Republic within its soviet borders enabled, and still does,
the Azeri leadership to present any form of Armenian confrontation as
"Armenian separatism". The same was true during the soviet regime.
The United Nations refused to take direct participation in the
settlement process and entrusted the peacemaking negotiation mission
on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), by
which the Minsk Group was created and has been functioning until today.
Despite the fact that today the concept of Minsk Group is associated
with the three co-chairs - Russia, France and the USA, it hasn't
always been like that. Various countries have been its members:
Czech Republic, Belarus, Sweden and Italy, Germany and Turkey...
The institute of three permanent co-chairs finally took shape in 1997,
but it was a very difficult process.
The same year, MG co-chairs proposed two options of settlement, both
of which provided for Nagorno Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. These
options were accepted by Baku, but rejected by Stepanakert (Nagorno
Karabakh).
Yerevan's position was dual: firs president Levon Ter-Petrosyan
accepted the suggested options, but the Armenian community, including
political parties and the majority of the cabinet, were categorically
against them; the situation led to the crisis of power and resignation
of the first president.
In the following year of 1998, MG suggested a new option - the
so-called "Common House", stipulating horizontal relations to be
established between Baku and Stepanakert, meaning that Azerbaijan
and Nagorno Karabakh would remain separate countries, but part of
the same confederation. This time it was Baku's turn to say "No".
In 2007, the mediators suggested the fourth option of settlement,
the Madrid Principles.
As opposed to the preceding ones, this document did not specify Nagorno
Karabakh's political status and insisted on the withdrawal of the
Defense Army of Nagorno Karabakh from the five regions around former
Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh (ARNK), return of refugees and
displaced people, rehabilitation of communications, and only after that
(during 15-20 years) holding a referendum to determine the political
status of Nagorno Karabakh.
This document, or the amended variants of it, is still on the
negotiation table.
Official Yerevan recognizes the Madrid Principles, but with certain
reservations - the referendum must be held within former ARNK, meaning
by native Armenian population, which as of the start of the conflict
made 80 percent of the total population in that region. Hence, from
Yerevan's perspective, Nagorno Karabakh's future status is obvious.
Baku speaks against the reservations and wants unconditional
recognition of all the territories as part of Azerbaijan.
As a result, two decades after OSCE MG's establishment, the negotiation
process is still far from being resolved. Moreover, today more than
before, opinions are voiced on the possible resumption of active
hostilities.