by Emil Danielyan
14 June 2006
Agreement on the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region seems unlikely in the near future.
Although international mediators insist a breakthrough remains possible this year, Armenia and Azerbaijan appear to have lost the last realistic chance for a near-term deal to end the bitter conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. A face-to-face meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents June 4-5 again failed to make any headway toward a settlement. Observers see little prospect of that happening before national elections scheduled to take place in both south Caucasus states in 2007 and 2008.
Armenian Presidents Robert Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev held two days of intensive negotiations for a second time in less than four months on the sidelines of a high-level forum of Black Sea nations in Romania. American, French and Russian diplomats spearheading the Karabakh peace process aimed to use the meeting to finalize a framework agreement. But Kocharian and Aliyev apparently refused to budge from their respective negotiating stances, despite strong pressure from mediators.
The most recent round of intensive negotiations (the second such meetings in the past four months) took place on the sidelines of a high-level forum of Black Sea nations in Romania. American, French and Russian diplomats spearheading the Karabakh peace process aimed to use the meeting to finalize a framework agreement. But Kocharian and Aliyev apparently refused to budge from their respective negotiating stances, despite strong pressure from mediators.
The two leaders have so far declined to publicly comment on their Bucharest talks, leaving it to their foreign ministers to acknowledge that the talks ended in failure. Armenia’s Vartan Oskanian told state television on June 6, “They did not succeed in registering progress and giving a new impetus to resolving the Karabakh conflict.” The same day, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told reporters in Baku: “I can’t assert that we have a major movement forward in the negotiating process.”
The three mediators co-chairing the OSCE’s Minsk Group on Karabakh insisted the signing of an Armenian-Azerbaijani peace accord this year is “both imperative and achievable.” The co-chairs “continue to believe that the basic principles they have identified and proposed to the parties for settlement of the conflict offer an equitable basis for such a resolution,” according to a June 6 statement. “They regret that the parties have not yet come to agreement on these principles.”
These principles call for a gradual settlement of the dispute, reportedly culminating in a referendum in Karabakh on the Armenian-controlled territory’s status. Leaks reported by Armenian and Azerbaijani media over the past year indicate the referendum would take place at least 10 years after the start of an Armenian military pullout from all but one of the seven Azerbaijani districts surrounding Karabakh.
Hopes were high that Aliyev and Kocharian could cut a framework deal along these lines when they met outside Paris in February. The mediators, as well as a number of senior European officials, made unusually upbeat statements in the weeks leading up to the Armenian-Azerbaijani summit, suggesting the conflicting parties had already agreed on this peace formula in principle. However, those talks collapsed because of what Armenian officials claim was Aliyev’s last-minute rejection of the referendum option. Commentators in both Baku and Yerevan believe the proposed vote in Karabakh would almost certainly legitimize the disputed enclave’s reunification with Armenia.
Since the February talks, Aliyev has repeatedly stated he will never agree to a de jure loss of any part of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory. Given Aliyev’s comments, Kocharian said prior to going to Bucharest that he had “very modest” expectations for his latest round of discussions, despite a flurry of diplomatic activity by France, Russia, and the United States. In late May, US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, along with high-ranking Russian and French diplomats, visited the Armenian and Azerbaijani capitals in an effort to generate fresh negotiating momentum. In a joint statement, the diplomats emphasized that “now is the time for the sides to reach agreement on the basic principles of a settlement.” Also, Karabakh was high on the agenda of Aliyev’s talks with US President George W. Bush at the White House in April.
According to Vahan Hovannisian, the pro-Kocharian deputy speaker of the Armenian parliament, the Bucharest talks failed because Aliyev again refused to agree on referendum terms for Karabakh. Oskanian was more diplomatic, saying the unspecified “issue which the presidents had failed to solve at Rambouillet was also not solved at Bucharest.”
“They (the Armenians) want Nagorno-Karabakh to gain independence,” a top Aliyev foreign policy adviser, Novruz Mamedov, told the Azerbaijani APA news agency on June 6. “President Ilham Aliyev categorically rejected this proposal by Robert Kocharian.”
For his part, Vafa Guluzade, a former top aide to Aliyev’s late father and predecessor Heidar, complained about international pressure on the Azerbaijani leadership to give up not only Karabakh but also some of the Armenian-occupied lands in Azerbaijan proper. “The West has a coward position on the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands,” Guluzade told the Baku daily Zerkalo on June 7. “Instead of condemning the aggression and evil, the West is demanding certain concessions from Azerbaijan, the victim of the aggression.”
Mediators have warned that failure to achieve Karabakh peace this year would delay a settlement until at least 2009. They point out that both Armenia and Azerbaijan plan to hold presidential elections in 2008. Armenians will also be electing a new parliament next year. Domestic political jockeying in both countries is likely to tightly constrain Yerevan’s and Baku’s negotiating positions.
Armenian and Azerbaijani officials say Aliyev and Kocharian could meet again before the end of this year in yet another attempt to break the Karabakh deadlock. In their words, that depends on the outcome of ongoing consultations between the mediators, and a possible meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers. “We are now awaiting news from the co-chairs,” said Mammadyarov.
It emerged this week that the Minsk Group’s American co-chair, Steven Mann, will step down to take up another position at the US State Department. For some observers, this is a sign that Washington has essentially lost hope of a speedy Karabakh settlement.
Aravot, an independent Armenian newspaper, editorialized on June 7 that a settlement remains elusive because Karabakh peace would make it much harder for the ruling elites in Armenia and Azerbaijan to cling to power, and thus retain control of lucrative sources of income, including cash gained by corrupt means. The paper suggested governing politicians in both Yerevan and Baku must have let out a big sigh of relief after the Bucharest summit. “They will prolong their meaningless existence for a while,” the editorial added, “To the great detriment of their countries.”
Yorumlar kapatıldı.