NEITHER WAR NOR PEACE

On 19th December, Azer-baijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh Sarg-syan had talks in the Swiss capital Bern aimed at settling the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. The talks were also attended by the foreign ministers of both countries, Elmar Mammadyarov and Eduard Nalbandyan, as well as by the co-chairman of the OSCE [Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe] Minsk Group, Igor Popov (Russia), James Warlick (USA), Pierre Andre (France) and the personal representative of the OSCE chairperson-in-office, Andrzej Kasprzyk. The one-to-one talks between the presidents lasted approximately one hour, after which they were joined by the rest of the participants.

The presidents and foreign ministers refused to talk to the media, so the journalists had to be satisfied with the brief statement made by the co-chairman of the Minsk Group in which it is noted that the presidents' meeting made it possible to define the position of the sides more precisely, discuss the recent outbreaks of violence on the line of contact and the Armenian-Azerbaijani frontier.

The presidents expressed particular concern regarding the casualties, among them civilians, which were caused by the use of heavy weapons; they supported the current effort by the co-chairmen regarding the proposals to cut down the risk of violence along the line of contact and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani frontier, including an investigation mechanism. The presidents confirmed their willingness to continue cooperating, as well as their adherence to the Minsk Group format. Just as before, the co-chairmen were ready to work with the sides as intermediaries on a peaceful settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict," it says in the statement.

A natural question springs to mind when reading this text: was it really worth insisting on holding talks between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents to achieve such an insigni-ficant outcome? I recall that the previous meeting took place in Paris more than a year ago, on 27 October 2014, with the participation of French President Francois Hollande. The talks were moreover much more constructive ones and did inspire certain positive expectations. But soon a provocative flight by an Armenian military helicopter, checking on what the Azerbaijani troops were doing in the depths of their own territory, was halted by fire from a mobile anti-aircraft missile complex. As a result, instead of productive talks, the sides set about exchanging mutual accusations and threats, and the situation on the line of contact has started to become more heated with every passing day. 

In order to stop the situation creeping towards war, the Minsk Group co-chairmen insisted on holding a meeting of the presidents. For the lengthy interval in the dialogue at summit level against the backdrop of constant exchanges of fire, now involving heavy weapons, has created the sensation that the Minsk intermediary format has failed. Although Baku and Yerevan had no particular illusions regarding the outcome of the presidents' meeting, they did not evade the Minsk Group co-chairmen's insistent proposals that it be held, since the side that refused would be presented as an un-constructive one.

More than 20 years have passed since the moment  the ceasefire regime was established and the Minsk Group mission to attain a settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict began, but the year 2015 which is drawing to a close, has possibly been the most tense and least productive. The Minsk Group co-chairmen, who have made several visits to the region, have not managed to get the presidents or even the foreign ministers to the negotiating table, the latter preferring to have separate meetings with the intermediaries.

Whereas Baku has been insisting on an objective discussion of the principal issue of withdrawing Armenian troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territories, which is completely in keeping with the resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assem-bly, Yerevan has put forward proposals aimed at consolidating the cease-fire regime and implementing measures of trust, that is, maintaining the existing status quo. It is understandable that with such an approach by the sides, it is not only impossible to achieve a breakthrough in the peace talks, but even to agree a specific schedule for the next round of talks.

In an atmosphere of universal sympathy in the centenary year of the so-called "1915 genocide", with help from the West, the Armenians were staking on motivating Turkey to normalise bilateral relations and open the frontier without caring about Baku's objections and discontent. This would have allowed the peace talks on a Karabakh settlement to develop in a manner which benefitted them. But the Armenians' expectations were dashed and the Turks stood firm in the face of external pressure. 

In order to strengthen their own positions, the Armenians simultaneously began to put forward the idea of involving the representatives of the separatist "NKR" [Nagornyy Kara-bakh republic] being involved in the talks process and in taking steps to delimit this unrecognised formation, albeit de facto. For this purpose a visit to Paris by the so-called "president of the NKR", Bako Sahakyan, was organised, where he had some kind of meetings in the French parliament; in London he read a lecture at the well-known Chatham House analytical centre, and an excursion to the Palace of Westminster was arranged.

"NKR Days" were held in Moscow which no-one took any notice of. A certain Mirzoyan, presenting himself as the "NKR foreign minister" was welcomed in the USA where he was favoured with conversations not only with pro-Armenian congressmen, but even met with the American co-chairman of the Minsk Group, James Warlick, which is completely unacceptable. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry expressed a protest regarding this, which was officially conveyed through the US ambassador to Baku. Warlick's explanations of the need "to hear the opinion of Karabakh representatives" were not accepted, since the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group regularly visit Nagornyy Karabakh with Baku's consent.

A tactical diplomatic struggle between the conflicting sides throughout the year has been waged within the walls of the OSCE, the European Union and in the parliaments of many countries, in which a resolution condemning the Xocali [Khojaly] genocide and supporting for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan have been successfully achieved. Thanks to the persistence of the Azerbaijani delegation, the Council of Europe Committee for Political Affairs and Human Rights supported a resolution based on the report by Robert Walter (Great Britain).

The resolution calls upon Armenia to withdraw its armed forces from Nagornyy Karabakh and other occupied territories, to recognise the full sovereignty of Azerbaijan over the aforementioned territories and also to ensure the immediate release of the illegally captured Dilqam Asgarov and Sahbaz Quliyev. Another resolution supported by the Social Committee concerns the Sarsang reservoir, whose improper use by the occupying Armenian regime restricts Azerbai-janis' access to water, and also threatens the population with catastrophic flooding. At the January PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] session, in spite of all the efforts by the Armenians and their sponsors, these resolutions will be submitted to the plenary session of the assembly.

The information war has hardly slackened off for a minute; Armenia's isolation from the regional projects and the economic exhaustion of this country has continued. The prices and unemployment there are growing, and the population's standard of living is constantly falling. Emigration is gathering speed and that has led to the villages along the border with Azerbaijan becoming almost uninhabited. But the "neither war nor peace" situation remains, and there are no visible prospects of getting a conclusion to the talks out of the impasse. It is not surprising that trust in the intermediary efforts of the Minsk Group has markedly declined, but a situation has taken shape today in which there is no-one to replace it, to act as an intermediary working towards a peaceful settlement. 

When it comes to the Karabakh conflict, influential international organisations like the European Union, the Council of Europe, NATO and others mainly restrict their appeals to a peaceful settlement of it and expressing support for the efforts of the Minsk Group. For many years now the UN has conducted an intermediary mission in the Cyprus settlement, in Palestine and other places, but in vain. NATO was unable to achieve a positive outcome in Afghanistan. The European Union together with the USA, Ukraine and Russia have been unable to make progress in settling the least troublesome conflict in Transnistria. As far as Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia and Crimea are concerned, it hasn't even been possible to get the conflicting sides to the negotiating table and begin a productive dialogue.

Appeals are being heard to change the composition of the Minsk Group or increase the number of its co-chairmen. These proposals can be initiated as a variant, but attention has to be paid to the fact that discussion of the make-up of the co-chairman in the Minsk Group paralyses its activity which has been without any particular initiative of late and distracts attention and efforts towards unproductive elements of procedure. It is hardly likely that anyone seriously thinks that, even if Russia, the USA and France were excluded from the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group, these powers could successfully be kept out of the Karabakh settlement process. So, in that case is it worth initiating this topic and setting these powers in opposition to Azerbaijan?

The intermediary mission can be made more effective, if in parallel with the efforts of the co-chairmen, the Minsk Group were to operate with a fuller membership. I would like to remind you that, besides the co-chairman countries and the conflicting sides, it also includes Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Turkey. In the coming year 2016, the chairmanship of the OSCE, to which the structure of the Minsk Group formally belongs, is to pass to Germany. This authoritative and economically mighty power is completely in a position to spur on the activity of the Minsk Group and even initiate the convening of a Minsk conference, if it regards that as expedient.

The meeting of the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Bern has emphasized what was obvious from the start: the conflicting sides are completely at odds in their expectations with regard to the talks. Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan confirmed this when he reported in Bern that "the sides have expressed their attitudes to various elements and different principles in settling the problem, but the approaches of the sides are not similar to one another and even do not coincide at all".

The Minsk Group co-chairmen who are only middle-ranking diplomats for their countries, are not independently in a position to spur on the talks in order to get them out of the impasse. Who will take this mission upon himself? Or is everyone reconciled to the fact that the growing tension on the sides' line of contact will spill over into an outbreak of military operations and, only after that, will decisive steps be taken by the sides in the international community?