EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs Hail Moscow Karabakh Talks

EURASIA INSIGHT

OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS HAIL MOSCOW KARABAKH TALKS
Jean-Christophe Peuch 11/07/08

International mediators are encouraged by the outcome of the recent Russian-sponsored Armenian-Azerbaijani talks in Moscow, saying it allows for "cautious optimism" with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

"We would like to acknowledge and thank the Russian Federation, President [Dmitry] Medvedev, and Foreign Minister [Sergei] Lavrov for their significant contribution last weekend, on November 2, by organizing hopefully what appears to be a groundbreaking meeting between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan," Matthew Bryza, the US State Department’s point man in the Southern Caucasus, told a November 6 news conference at the Vienna headquarters of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Bryza is the US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, which has been mediating between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 1992. Also present at the news briefing were the other two co-chairs, Bernard Fassier of France and Yury Merzlyakov of Russia.

The three diplomats, who earlier in the day had briefed the OSCE Permanent Council on the negotiation process, noted that both "personal and objective" factors had made the Moscow meeting possible, thus giving them reasons for some "cautious, or realistic optimism." First among them, they said, is the "constructive relationship" that has been developing between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan, since their first meeting in St Petersburg on June 6.

Mediators believe the recent Russian-Georgian crisis and the warming of Turkish-Armenian ties were no less instrumental in paving the way for the Moscow summit. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Finally, they argue that the set of peace proposals that was presented to the parties at last year’s OSCE ministerial council in the Spanish capital -- known as the Madrid principles -- helped maintain the talks on track despite presidential ballots being held this year in both countries. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In Fassier’s words, unlike what happened in previous election years when the negotiation process remained stalled for months, peace talks could resume immediately after the recent Armenian and Azerbaijani ballots "on a more or less precisely identified basis." In addition to the "strong booster" of the Moscow summit, "this is creating a momentum that we have to sustain and develop further," the French diplomat said.

The Moscow meeting resulted in an unprecedented joint declaration, by which the two Caucasus leaders and their Russian host committed themselves to seeking a political solution to the Karabakh conflict, and reiterated their support to the OSCE mediation efforts. They also instructed their respective foreign ministers to activate the negotiation process in coordination with the Minsk Group co-chairs.

Independent political analysts and opposition leaders in both Armenia and Azerbaijan have downplayed the significance of the Moscow declaration, arguing that it contains no specifics that could possibly help foster the peace talks. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The Minsk Group co-chairs counter that the importance of the joint declaration should not be underestimated.

"Behind apparently general formulations, the substance [of this document] is very heavy," Fassier argued. For one thing, he said, by referring twice to a political settlement of the conflict, the joint declaration clearly states that "war is not an option."

In sharp contrast to his pre-election threats to initiate a policy of "total offensive" against Armenia, Aliyev said in Ankara on November 5 that the Moscow declaration opens "new prospects" for a step-by-step peace settlement. His Armenian counterpart sounds equally upbeat. Addressing representatives of the Armenian Diaspora in Brussels on November 6, Sargsyan said that the tripartite statement heralds a "new, more active phase" of the negotiation process.

Yet, the reality behind those statements is that the sides remain separated by seemingly irreconcilable differences.

According to information obtained by EurasiaNet, the presentation the Minsk Group co-chairs made before the OSCE Permanent Council on November 6 was followed by a lively exchange between the representative of Yerevan, who defended the principle of self-determination for Karabakh, and that of Baku, who pleaded for a solution based on the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Both capitals have still to agree on the Madrid principles which, in Bryza’s words, "embrace both self-determination and territorial integrity, as well as the non-use of force."

Those principles, which have not been made public, reportedly envisage the progressive withdrawal of Armenian forces from seven Azerbaijani administrative districts bordering on Karabakh that Armenia has occupied since 1992-93. They also call for the demilitarization of the conflict zone, the deployment of an international peacekeeping force, the repatriation of Armenian settlers from occupied territories and the return of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons. Karabakh’s future status would be determined later, possibly through a referendum.

Among the outstanding differences that remain to be solved is the scope and modalities of the possible withdrawal from Azerbaijan’s occupied Kalbacar and Lachin districts, which are sandwiched between Karabakh and Armenia. Yerevan views those two districts as being of vital importance to Karabakh’s future security, and has in the past conditioned their liberation on stringent requirements.

The practicalities of any future referendum are another sticking point. The Minsk Group co-chairs earlier suggested that, pending a vote, Karabakh be given an interim status that would be recognized by both sides.

In remarks printed in Russia’s "Rossiiskaya Gazeta" daily on October 6, Lavrov said that "there remain two or three unresolved issues which need to be agreed upon at the next meetings of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan." The Russian foreign minister added that, in his view, an agreement on Lachin was "perfectly realistic." He did not elaborate on the other stumbling blocks.

Asked whether any progress was made on those or other issues at the Moscow meeting, the Minsk Group co-chairs remained customarily elusive, citing an arrangement which forbids them to divulge details of the negotiation process without the consent of the parties.

Yet Merzlyakov said that, in his opinion, the number of major differences between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been "probably" reduced to one by now. "This is a very serious issue on which there is not yet any mutual understanding between the sides.

Editor's Note: Jean-Christophe Peuch is a Vienna-based freelance correspondent, who specializes in Caucasus- and Central Asia-related developments.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.