BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

After a long pause, the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents met in Vienna on 16 May. The meeting took place following four days of fighting in April at line of contact in Karabakh, in the course of which heavy military equipment was used and both sides suffered significant casualties. Indicating the importance of the Vienna meeting was at least the fact that alongside the mediating OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, it was attended by the foreign ministers of the United States (John Kerry), Russia (Sergey Lavrov) and France (Jean-Marc Ayrault), as well as High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini. Also noteworthy is the fact that Iranian Foreign Minister Zarifi was visiting Vienna, too. After the Armenian-Azerbaijani talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov briefed his Iranian counterpart on the results of the meeting.

The armed clashes in April showed that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is not a frozen one and may quickly develop into full-scale war fraught with serious consequences both for the parties to the conflict and the entire South Caucasus region. An understanding of this prompted the international community to induce Baku and Yerevan to restore the cease-fire and continue negotiations.

Unlike Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, who put forward absurd preconditions for the resumption of dialogue, Baku has always stood for a peaceful settlement of the conflict and insisted on substantive, that is to say, meaningful negotiations, rather than an imitation of talks to maintain the status quo. Contrary to Yerevan's expectations, neither Western powers nor Russia took sides with it, nor did they rush to denounce or threaten Baku. After all, the root of the problem lies in the illegal presence of Armenian military units in Azerbaijani territory. Our armed forces have demonstrated high combat readiness and state-of-the-art weapons, while it has turned out that the vaunted Armenian defence line in Karabakh is not that impenetrable. The Azerbaijani public has displayed unity with the supreme political leadership and the army in the cause of the liberation of the occupied lands from the Armenian invaders who brazenly ignore the numerous resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly. All this has allowed Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to confidently resume the cease-fire and negotiations, based on international law and the might of his country.

The tense negotiations in Vienna were useful and led to certain agreements. The talks resulted in the representatives of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries - US Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and French Secretary of State for European Affairs Harlem Desir - issuing a joint statement. The statement stresses the impossibility of a military solution to the conflict and calls upon the parties to respect the cease-fire agreement, which was signed in 1994 and 1995. The statement notes that the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia expressed commitment to the cease-fire and a peaceful settlement of the conflict. They agreed to the completion within a short period of time of work on the OSCE mechanism to reduce risks of use of force, and gave agreement to the expansion of the powers of the office of the special representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office that monitors the contact line. The statement confirms the readiness of the parties to continue, with the assistance of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to exchange information on missing persons. The presidents are to meet again in June for more talks towards a comprehensive settlement of the conflict. The exact date and venue for the talks are to be set by mutual agreement.

The meeting in Vienna launched substantive negotiations (that is to say, negotiations not about general principles but the essence of the problem), something that Baku has insisted on for years and Yerevan has been doing its best to avoid by coming up with proposals to discuss "confidence-building measures" and other minor issues. Azerbaijan agreed to reinforce the cease-fire, not in order to maintain the existing status quo, which suits Armenians, but to ensure a favourable environment for the negotiations. If there are no meaningful negotiations aimed at achieving concrete agreements, cease-fire will be pointless. Monitoring of compliance with the cease-fire is to be carried by a group led by the special representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, who may be given additional staff and technical equipment to this end. But it will be done in such a way as to prevent the Armenians from being tempted to sabotage the negotiations and from continuing to indefinitely occupy Azerbaijani lands, while hiding behind the backs of "peacekeepers".

People both in the region and around the world are wondering whether the current diplomatic activity will be bogged down in old arguments about wordings and order of actions, and whether the meditators will make a helpless gesture and say that the parties are not ready for compromises and start conferring in safe and cozy European capitals? These fears are not groundless at all. After all, this is how it has been many times before. The April battles showed that Azerbaijan's patience is running out and military aggravation is predictable if there are no progress in the negotiations and real prospects for the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied lands. This was stated clearly enough by Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov at a meeting of the foreign ministers of Eastern Partnership countries in Brussels. "Everyone understands that the status quo is unacceptable. The conflict zone must be de-occupied and troops withdrawn from there. Preservation of the status quo in the Karabakh conflict may lead to violence and serious military clashes," he said.

To eliminate negative scenarios, it is desirable that non-stop negotiations be conducted, and the foreign ministers of the conflicting parties and the co-chairs of the Minsk Group should immediately start to prepare documents to be discussed in the planned June meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents. The US co-chair of the Minsk Group, Warlick, says: "The resolution of the conflict means the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territories and the return of them [territories] to Baku and at the same time preparation for a decision on Karabakh's status". He believes that it is understandable that the Azerbaijanis are disappointed with the lack of an outcome from the work of the Minsk Group because as it has been over 20 years, but a war would lead to new deaths, therefore a political solution is needed.

The Russian co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Popov, told reporters that "there is no new document on the negotiating table to settle the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. There are proposals by the co-chairs, which have been discussed by the parties". He added that "there are several versions, which, however, are based on three basic principles and six elements presented. These are non-use of force, the right of peoples to self-determination, and territorial integrity". When speaking about the six elements, he said that "the two key ones are the return of the territories and the resolution of Nagornyy Karabakh's status or, the other way round, the resolution of Nagornyy Karabakh's status and the return of territories. This is one single whole". Popov also noted the importance of things like return of refugees and identification of the width and of the status of the corridor linking Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh. As for the deployment of peacekeepers, the Russian mediator says that a peacekeeping operation is envisaged in the last stage after the signing of a peace treaty.

Hiding behind the smooth diplomatic phrases is reluctance to call a spade a spade. After all, just like the other co-chairs of the Minsk Group, Popov is well aware that by "Nagornyy Karabakh's status" Yerevan means exclusively the legitimization of its secession, that is to say, its detachment from Azerbaijan followed by its annexation to Armenia, while the talk about "the width and status of the corridor" covers up the desire to also grab our Lacin District and even Kalbacar District. It is clear that Baku will not give consent to this under any circumstances. It is a futile thing to try to start viscous and fruitless talks that seek, under the pretext of creating a positive atmosphere for them [talks], to promote measures to secure the cease-fire and maintain the status quo. It is the understanding of this and not the desire to appease Baku that urges the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, influential international organizations and great and regional powers to declare unanimously that an infinite extension of the status quo is impossible.

It has long been known that there is a strong Armenian lobby in the countries that co-chair the OSCE Minsk Group and that the mediators are not impartial at all. But things have changed. It is no longer possible to protract the settlement of the Karabakh conflict just to please the territorial ambitions of the Armenians with the hope of persuading Baku to make unacceptable concessions. The withdrawal of Armenian armed forces and liberation of Azerbaijan's occupied territories should begin as soon as this year. This is fully in line with international law and will also make it possible to lead the Armenians out of the impasse that they have put themselves at through their policy of hostility with neighbours. Sargsyan and the Armenian elite are in a difficult situation, which, using chess slang, can be termed as "zugzwang under time pressure". Any moves only worsen the situation Armenia is in, but protracting and postponing them is not an option either because the flag on the clock is about to fall, and then either military action will start or the Armenian economy will collapse. Either way, a spontaneous protest by the Armenian population will sweep off the current criminal oligarchic regime.

As for us, international law and historical justice are on Azerbaijan's side. We have sufficient demographic, economic and financial resources to continue to develop the country even amid low oil and gas prices. The strengthening of defence capability and the active foreign policy conducted by Azerbaijan will definitely lead to Armenian armed forces to start pulling out of the occupied territories. This should happen no later than the end of this year, because otherwise it is with high probability that we should expect a resumption of military action which will be difficult to stop.

Meanwhile, on 26 May, Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan, speaking at a meeting of parliamentary commissions, said that in early June, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are planning to meet the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan separately. According to him, it is too early to talk about any signing as there is no document that needs to be signed. The purpose of the talks is to develop new directions and principles of settlement. In the words of the main Armenian negotiator one can see a desire to drown the talks again in endless disputes about the principles and sequence of the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. If it is true, the negative consequences of this so-called "diplomatic game" will not be long in coming.