Armenia Cautiously Optimistic About US Diplomacy Concerning Nagorno-Karabakh

Armenia is cautiously optimistic about recent American diplomacy concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Yerevan's hopes for a peace settlement are mixed with concern about Washington's long-term goals for the region.

During their March 14-16 visit to Yerevan and Baku, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried and Steven Mann, the American co-chairperson of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Minsk Group, stressed that a "good window" exists in 2006 to resolve the 18-year-long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Both diplomats expressed confidence that the failure of last month's Armenian-Azeri presidential summit in Rambouillet, France, does not mean that negotiations have reached an impasse.

At least officially, the Armenian government shares this optimism. "We hope that the move backward made in Rambouillet may be compensated, and we can move further ahead in the settlement process," Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said in an interview with H2 TV on March 16.

The fact that the US envoys emphasized Washington's opposition to the use of force -- an option mooted by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in remarks since Rambouillet – encouraged Armenian policymakers. On March 17, the Haykakan Zhamanak daily newspaper quoted an unnamed Armenian politician as saying that Fried had offered assurances during a Yerevan reception that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev did not favor a resumption of armed conflict. The paper went on to quote the politician as saying that Fried believed "Aliyev's bellicose statements were aimed at domestic use."

Still, Armenian media outlets have identified several aspects of US policy as sources of concern. For instance, many argue that the US desire for rapid progress on the Karabakh issue – coupled with US Deputy Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Matthew Bryza's visit to Yerevan a week ahead of Fried and Mann -- signals the possibility of a rise in US-Iranian tension. "The USA is in a hurry, the Greater Middle East project is endangered by the Iranian nuke [nuclear program], and if Iranian ambitions are not prevented ... the USA will be late and the Russia-Iran-China alliance will prevent American penetration both into Central Asia and the Middle East," said a March 17 commentary published by the Chorrord Ishkhanutiun newspaper.

Many commentators believe that one of Washington's goals may be the deployment of international peacekeeping forces in the Karabakh conflict zone – a move that could increase Washington's geopolitical leverage over Iran. "Even if [Armenian President Robert] Kocharian, under US pressure, agrees to deploy peacekeeping forces this summer, then [Iran] itself may initiate preventive military actions in the territories around Artsakh [Karabakh], including Armenia," the Iravunk opposition weekly wrote on March 17.

Observers have also noted that both Bryza and Fried paid considerable attention to matters not directly linked to the Karabakh issue, such as U.S-Armenian bilateral relations and the prospects for democracy in Armenia. Fried told journalists in Yerevan on March 16 that discussions about a time when the whole South Caucasus region could "live in peace and choose their place in this world without any external pressure" were a major component of the talks, local wire services reported.

As part of that discussion, according to Oskanian, Washington expressed its support for Armenian efforts to diversify its gas supplies, and will probably endorse Yerevan¹s efforts to construct a new nuclear power plant after the Metsamor station is closed in roughly 10 years. Many observers forecast that this endorsement could potentially discomfort Russia, which dominates Armenia¹s energy sector.

A sense of discomfort may not be limited to external players alone, however. A seeming dispute between the leaders of the unrecognized Karabakh Republic and President Kocharian has sparked controversy among Armenians. On February 22, de facto Nagorno-Karabakh President Arkady Ghukasian called on Kocharian's administration to stop acting as a go-between, and instead promote direct talks between Azerbaijani officials and Karabakh representatives. "When Baku starts to negotiate with Nagorno-Karabakh, for me it will mean that Azerbaijan tries to solve the problem," the ARKA news agency quoted Ghukasian as saying February 24.

Many politicians and non-governmental organizations both in Armenia and in Nagorno-Karabakh supported Ghukasian¹s argument, prompting Kocharian to hold a special television interview to defend his position.

In the March 2 broadcast, Kocharian favored including Nagorno-Karabakh in the talks, but argued that Armenia at present can better represent the territory's interests in international negotiations. The Armenian president went on to stress, however, that Stepanakert¹s unrecognized government has always been given detailed updates about the negotiations. Kocharian then cautioned that Armenia could officially recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as well as reinforce its positions in the seven occupied Azerbaijani territories which surround Karabakh, if Azerbaijan continues to move in a belligerent direction. Ghukasian has not publicly commented on Kocharian's television interview, but the calls for Yerevan to stop negotiating with Azerbaijan remain.