Armenia: Few Objections to Mediators’ Karabakh Statement

Senior Armenian government officials and political leaders appear to have reconciled themselves with a top American diplomat's disclosure of details of a draft peace agreement covering Nagorno-Karabakh.

In a June 22 interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza revealed the existence of a framework agreement that would resolve the 18-year conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The framework envisages the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories around Karabakh, as well as "a vote at some point in the future" on Karabakh's status, and a "normalization of Armenia's ties" that would allow an international peacekeeping presence and economic assistance to the disputed region.

In a July 5 interview with the Haykakan Zhamanak daily newspaper, Bryza explained that his comments were part of a new strategy endorsed by the Minsk Group's French and Russian co-chairs to promote public discussion of the peace framework. "It is not my decision to disclose the [framework agreement's] principles," said Bryza, recently appointed as US co-chairperson of the Minsk Group, the body tasked by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe with moderating talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. "It was the decision of the three co-chairs, taken even before I became co-chair."

In Armenia, initial government reaction to the interview was emotional. Anger appeared targeted more at what was perceived to have been left unsaid, than at what was actually disclosed about the draft agreement. On June 26, the official newspaper Hayastani Hanrapetutiun published a story on Bryza's comments under the title "Provocation or Pressure?" In the piece, the Armenian Foreign Ministry cited what it perceived as the gaps in the information provided by Bryza. The ministry stated that the regions connecting Armenia with Karabakh, Lachin and Kelbajar, are expected to remain under Armenian control until a referendum on the enclave's status is held. During the period preceding the vote, Karabakh, according to the ministry, would also be given an internationally recognized status.

Following Bryza's disclosures, President Robert Kocharian stated that Armenia was ready to adopt the document as the basis for further negotiations, whereas Azerbaijan appeared reluctant to endorse the draft agreement. The Armenian side, however, has denied a July 3 report on the Azerbaijani news site Day.az, which quoted Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov as saying that Kocharian and Aliyev would meet July 17 to discuss a Karabakh settlement.

Notably, no political party or public organization in Armenia has objected to the proposed Armenian withdrawal from the seven occupied territories, often termed "liberated" by Armenian organizations and politicians. The prospect of such a swap has been called "reasonable" by opposition leader Aram Sargsian, head of the Hanarpetutiun (Republic) Party and brother of the late defense minister Vazgen Sargsian, founder of the Yerkrapah organization of war veterans.

In Armenia, public debate on the issue has intensified amid speculation about possible new disclosures about the peace negotiations. On June 26, presidential spokesperson Viktor Soghomonian told the Mediamax news agency that Yerevan may make public all documents relating to the peace talks over the last seven to eight years, including papers covering the 2001 presidential summit in Key West, Florida. It was at that meeting that Kocharian and the late Azerbaijani President Heidar Aliyev reportedly agreed in principle on a peace deal, only to see the supposed agreement unravel within weeks. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Hayots Ashkharh, another pro-government daily, commented that by disclosing such documents, Yerevan would "restrict the room for maneuver" for Baku. The commentary went on to claim that Azerbaijan is a frequent source of inaccurate information concerning the peace talks. Despite the urgings of politicians and analysts, however, the Armenian government has not yet released the documents.

In their absence, key questions about the proposed framework agreement linger. In a July 6 editorial entitled "Let's Discuss, But What?," the daily newspaper Aravot wondered whether the referendum on Karabakh's status would be held among the enclave's actual population, as proposed by Armenia, or among the residents of Azerbaijan, as advocated by the Azerbaijani government. The newspaper also queried whether Lachin and Kelbajar would remain under the control of Armenian forces before the referendum is held, or whether they would be demilitarized, as proposed by Azerbaijan.

Analysts seem sharply divided about the known features of the framework peace deal. For example, scientist Alexander Iskandarian was quoted by the Hayots Ashkharh daily on July 6 as saying framework agreement favors Armenia as never before. But others, including 168 Zham newspaper columnist Armen Baghdasarian, maintain that war with Azerbaijan seems inevitable since Baku would not risk a legitimate referendum on the enclave's status.