In an interview with Tert.am, Laurence Broers, the Caucasus programs director at the London-based peacebuilding organization Conciliation Resources, stressed the urgent importance of reviving the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmanship format in achieving a steady and lasting peace over Nagorno-Karabakh (Arttsakh).
Agreeing that much depends on the dynamics of the next five years, he nonetheless highlighted the impossibility of addressing the “core conflict drivers” without a return to the peace talks.
“This is quite uncertain for now, although the Minsk Group reminded us in a statement on 13 April of its mandate and the need for a final comprehensive settlement on the basis of elements and principles ‘well-known to the sides’. Several elements have been decided through the ceasefire declaration of 10 November 2020, the notable exception being the issues around the status of Nagorno-Karabakh itself,” he said when asked to comment on real possibilities for restarting the negotiations now.
“When and how Armenia and Azerbaijan meet again under the auspices of the Minsk Group depends on a number of variables. One is the extent to which Azerbaijan is motivated to see the outcomes of the 10 November 2020 declaration re-embedded in a multilateral peace process, or whether it prefers to ‘go it alone’ in the process led by Russia. Another is the extent to which Russia sees utility in reviving the OSCE’s process, of which it sees itself with some justification as the informal leader, as opposed to continuing with informal bilateral arrangements with Turkey that effectively keep Euro-Atlantic actors at bay. A third is whether Euro-Atlantic actors and multilateral institutions manage to sustain interest and regain leverage to bring the conflict back into a multilateral framework.
“Much depends on the dynamics of the next five years and where all of the actors are at the five-year interval when the Russian peacekeeping mandate is scheduled for renewal. Without the revival of the Minsk Group, we’ll more likely see a new era of conflict management that might reduce violence but won’t necessarily address core conflict drivers,” he said.
Asked to comment the Armenian authorities’ work with the international community in the pre- and post-war periods, the expert hesitated to give a specific evaluation, noting that the war “was timed to coincide with a moment of maximal international distraction”.
“The war was perfectly timed to coincide with a moment of maximal international distraction, so it was a challenging environment in which to engage international audiences. The international community was concentrating on the US presidential election, on protest in Belarus, on managing the pandemic.
“On top of that, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is resistant to the popular and easily recognised frames that usually, in the case of Western states, bring Eurasian conflicts to international audiences. Russia does not have an easily simplified or typical role. There are no conflict parties seeking to join Euro-Atlantic alliances.
“This weakened the capacity of some of the framings of the conflict coming from the Armenian authorities – that this was a war on democracy, or a civilizational struggle – to resonate. On the other hand, Azerbaijan had a simpler framing of the conflict around a core set of demands that was easier to get across in interviews,” he added.
Addressing the Azerbaijani authorities’ move to open a “military trophies park” in their country’s capital with mannequins degrading the image of Armenian soldiers, Mr. Broers said he believes that the commemoration of all victories and defeats characterizes a specific nation.
“All nations commemorate victories, as well as defeats, in the stories they tell about themselves. It’s not surprising that Azerbaijan would celebrate its recent victory, after living with a humiliating defeat for such a long time. The park seems to me to be less a museum about commemorating Azerbaijani losses, and more a spectacle both visualising Armenian losses and emphasising Armenians as an essentialised enemy, rather than a defeated party with whom relations can now be transformed. The aim of the park would appear to be to embed perceptions of the Armenian-Azerbaijani relationship as intrinsic and irredeemably hostile. This seems to be about sustaining the mobilization of Azerbaijani society around the axis of the conflict, and it would appear to contradict the discourse around regional connectivity and opening up the region. Effective regional connectivity cannot be reduced to a technical process, you need transformed relationships and in particular reduced threat perceptions. The park takes Azerbaijan in a different direction,” he added.
Yorumlar kapatıldı.