DISCOURAGING STATEMENTS, NO OPTIMISM

Following a pause caused by the estivation, as well as the crisis in Armenia due to the capture of police regiment by radicals in Yerevan, the mediation efforts for a peaceful settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict cannot possibly gather momentum. The commitment of the Minsk Group, observed after the April outbreak of hostilities in Karabakh, has decreased remarkably. In fact, we still miss the start of substantive talks. Recent statements by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and the Russian Presidential Aide, Yuri Ushakov, did not clarify the situation, rather got everyone even more confused.

As a reminder, let me quote Mr. Kerry: “There are some frozen conflicts in the world today - Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan-Armenia, where you can’t quite see [the resolution] right now because the leaders aren’t ready.” This statement could be interpreted as a statement of a politician, who is left to lead the State Department for a couple of months before the US presidential administration change coming in January next year, without attaching particular importance to it, considering that Mr. Kerry is well-known to be under the influence of the Armenian lobby. After all, it was he, who as a senator co-authored the unjust 907^th amendment of the US Congress against Azerbaijan in the early 90's. His statement is an indirect admission of the fact that he failed to both persuade Baku for a peace treaty in accordance with the wishes of the Armenian side and to fix the status quo supporting the perpetual occupation of the Azerbaijani territories by the Armenian forces. However, as an official American position, the statement by the Secretary of State is absolutely unacceptable.

As President Ilham Aliyev clearly said at the convention of the Cabinet of Ministers on the results of the third quarter: “To what extent is (Kerry’s) statement consistent with other ones? In fact, the presidents of the United States, Russia, and France have repeatedly proclaimed that the status quo was not acceptable. We welcome this statement. However, we do not observe any practical progress in this direction. Having such a serious statement but claiming that “both sides are guilty” and “the parties are not ready for [resolution]”, and “the issue is more complicated than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict”, simply means the support of the aggressive policy of Armenia. No other explanation is possible.” The Azerbaijani leader has requested to clarify and adjust the current position at the highest possible level, indicating that otherwise the mediation mission may be questioned.

Although both Russia and the United States adhere to opposite positions regarding the majority of global and regional problems, the aide to the Russian president, Yuri Ushakov, has expressed solidarity with a pessimistic American position on Karabakh. In his recent interview, Mr. Ushakov said: “I would not say that we are experiencing a great optimism about the resolution of this conflict in the near future, but we will definitely continue to work persistently with Baku and Yerevan.”

Against this backdrop, quite optimistic words came from Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu in response to the question of MP Ganira Pashayeva. At the PACE meeting in Strasbourg he said: “We have made lots of efforts to resolve the Karabakh problem. Much has been done also to normalise relations with Armenia. We have even signed an agreement in Switzerland, but it has not brought results. Today the co-chairs of the Minsk Group and Russia have put forward some constructive suggestions. On the agenda is the return to Azerbaijan of at least five occupied regions. Russia has shared this proposal, and Turkey has supported it. We have discussed this with the Azerbaijani side as well. If such steps are taken, we will support any decision of Azerbaijan. We want to normalise relations with Armenia too. If this problem is solved, we expect that Azerbaijan will want it.”

The statement by the Turkish Foreign Minister, which announces the activation of Ankara’s role in regional affairs and, in particular, in the Karabakh settlement, caused a nervous reaction in Yerevan. The Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharian rushed with comments about the unilateral support of Turkey to Azerbaijan, claiming that Turkey had nothing to do in the negotiation process with such a position. But, in fact, his words do not have a decisive power on international and regional policy, especially after the normalization of Russian-Turkish relations.

This was confirmed by the statement of Sergey Lavrov during the CSTO summit in Yerevan in October: “Turkey can play a positive role, ensuring the unblocking of Nagorno-Karabakh and normal economic cooperation in the region - this is a major factor that we always have in mind.” According to Mr. Lavrov, “If Armenia and Turkey get back to the implementation of their agreements without reference to the Karabakh conflict, we will only be glad. But our feeling is that progress in the Karabakh settlement will be crucial for seeing Armenian-Turkish relations normalized.”

These contradictory statements demonstrate a high degree of uncertainty in the situation around the Karabakh conflict. The process of negotiations can flow in any direction – from a real settlement to yet another dead-end, and vice versa. More than ever, Moscow maintains the control over the course of negotiations. The US and France are fully concentrated on Ukraine and Syria. Furthermore, they are on the eve of elections and a change of the government. The normalization of the Russian-Turkish relations, the rapprochement of the two powers on Syria, as well as the implementation of major energy projects enhance Ankara's role as a partner of Moscow in stabilizing the situation in the South Caucasus. This may spur the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. On the other hand, Russia would like to employ Turkey’s influence to persuade Azerbaijan to accept unacceptable concessions. But Ankara is well aware of the topics eligible for discussions with Baku, and the ones that are best left untouched.

I suppose that Ilham Aliyev, who attended the recent Energy Congress in Turkey and had an opportunity to communicate directly with both Putin and Erdogan, is aware of the efforts of Moscow and other mediators for a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He mentioned about the external pressure on Azerbaijan to persuade it to agree on concessions, which assume an inevitable violation of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, only to confirm that such concessions were absolutely unacceptable.

So, in response to the question of Dmitry Kiselyov, General Director of “Russia Today”, President Aliyev said: “What is our position on the resolution of this conflict? Certainly, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is not and cannot be a subject of discussion. We will never say yes to the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Armenian side is well aware of this. However, a reasonable compromise is possible - the security of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, their livelihood, self-government, the implementation of various investment projects by Azerbaijan and a peaceful interaction between the two nations on the condition of liberation of the territories outside Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region. A compromise can also be achieved on local governance. If we agree on these terms, Nagorno-Karabakh can become an autonomous republic in the future.”

Thus, President Aliyev put the ball back in the Armenian court, who, contrary to the resolutions of the UN Security Council, as well as the logic of the Madrid principles, seek to bring forward the issue of the status Nagorno-Karabakh. In fact, this issue should be a topic of discussions at the final stage of resolution, when the parties will ensure a lasting peace, restore normal relations, open communication, and return hundreds of thousands of refugees back to their homes. If, however, the status of autonomous republic is unacceptable for Armenians, they should now agree with the proposals of the mediators, the “interim status for Karabakh”, and postpone a final decision until further negotiations. Otherwise, it is impossible to ensure a lasting peace, territorial integrity, and self-determination simultaneously, what the mediators and the international community urge.

On October 23, after numerous meetings in European capitals, the mediators finally arrived in the conflict region. President Aliyev received the heads of the OSCE Minsk Group, James Warlick, Igor Popov, Pierre Andrieu, and the Special Representative of the OSCE Chairman Andrzej Kasprzyk. This was a farewell visit for the French representative, as in the order of rotation he is replaced by Stefan Visconti, the former ambassador of France to Latvia. Then, the mission crossed the contact line between the armed forces, visited Nagorno-Karabakh, and finally departed to Yerevan.

The purpose of that visit was to discuss the strengthening of the ceasefire regime, the implementation of agreements reached at the summits in Vienna and St. Petersburg with the participation of Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents.

However, it is difficult to judge on the practical results of the visit. James Warlick, the most open mediator to the public, made specific statements during a press-conference: “The occupied territories must be returned to Azerbaijan. The elements of negotiations also include the return of refugees and IDPs to their lands, and deployment of peacekeepers in the territory. All the elements mentioned should be discussed as a package in order to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully. The current status quo will not last long.”

Although we are accustomed to the inconsistency of Mr. Warlick depending on his location, this is what he said in Yerevan: “We try to reach a settlement of the conflict. We want to double our efforts. I believe that the day will come when the Azerbaijanis and Armenians will live together.” Referring to the recent statement by President Aliyev about the autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh, Mr. Warlick added: “The positions of the parties may not be the same, but these issues should be presented to the populations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh. I said this in Baku and I will repeat here that we welcome this statement by Mr. Aliyev. Not because it is the final word, but because the issue is the subject of discussions.” In his closing remarks at the press conference, the diplomat said: “The principles of the Helsinki Final Act should be at the core of any future agreement. We work based on all three principles, as you know very well. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan signed under these principles. We continue to be governed by these principles as a primary way to progress.”

On behalf of himself and his colleagues, J. Warlick assured that they would redouble efforts to reach a settlement, which is acceptable to both sides, but he did not disclose the specifics. His statement about an advisability to hold a meeting of the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the need to demonstrate goodwill from both sides was not anything new. After all, there is no certainty either on the date and place, or on the agenda of such a summit. It is clear that with all due respect to the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group, they are diplomats of the average level under the respective foreign ministries. The ambassador-rank diplomats can hold meetings, prepare proposals, work on compromise wordings, but do not have the resources and authority to exert pressure on the parties of the conflict in order to induce them to compromise on fundamental steps and key issues.

This would be possible to make by the presidents of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group or by foreign ministers. But the United States are on the eve of presidential elections, which also means the renewal of the administration. While the new leaders are appointed to the Security Council and the State Department, and until they are briefed on the details of the case, identify the priorities and approaches, the process may extend at least until the spring of the next year. By that time, the presidential election campaign will be launched in France. Thus, it is expected that the real impetus to get the negotiations out of the dead-end in the near future may come only from Russia or Germany, which is the incumbent chair of the OSCE. It is difficult to say if they are able to turn their attention from Ukraine and Syria to the Karabakh problem, or if we can expect a new dangerous aggravation of the military standoff on the Armenian-Azerbaijani contact line. Current conditions do not give much cause for optimism, but there are chances and time for action. And we do not wish they were lost once again.