FRUSTRATED HOPES

Ukraine is one of the countries that traditionally support good relations with both sides of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh. That is why initially, the OSCE pinned great hopes on this country's presidency this year as it is well familiar with the realities of the post-Soviet area.

In this context, many were looking forward to the visit of the OSCE chairman-in-office and Ukrainian foreign minister, Leonid Kozhara, to the region of the conflict. Contrary to expectations, after talks with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, the OSCE chairman-in-office did not say anything that would allow us to hope for the Minsk Group's intention to intensify its efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict. Apart from the general conciliatory statements in support of the development of contacts between the Azerbaijani and Armenian societies, the Ukrainian diplomat repeated what Kiev has been saying since the moment of its presidency of the OSCE: the settlement of frozen conflicts is a priority for the Ukrainian side, which will make every effort during its presidency to achieve positive momentum in their settlement. At the same time, Kozhara immediately made a reservation that in the status of the OSCE chairman, Ukraine speaks on behalf of the 57 member countries, taking into account the position of each of them. "Therefore, we have to take into account the so-called 'collective intelligence', which we are trying to tune to a collective decision in every way," he explained.

But it seems that in the two decades of negotiations Azerbaijan got tired of the diplomatic language and actual inaction of the organization that assumed the mission to help Baku and Yerevan to put an end to the conflict. Mammadyarov said in the presence of his Ukrainian counterpart that Baku has repeatedly declared its readiness to begin work on a major peace agreement, but Armenia continues to show unwillingness to take a state-level decision on the matter.

The Azerbaijani foreign minister also expressed his disagreement with the term "frozen" in relation to the Karabakh conflict, the unresolved status of which regularly leads to loss of life on the frontline. In addition, Elmar Mammadyarov spoke about the inadmissibility of the presence of Armenian forces on Azerbaijani territory from the point of view of international law and logic. "I have asked the chairman-in-office to make the Minsk Group more active. Yes, there are co-chairs engaged in the Karabakh problem, but the OSCE Minsk Group itself convenes rarely," the foreign minister said.

Time will show whether the OSCE leadership will listen to the call of the Azerbaijani foreign minister, but somehow Baku's resentment about the uncertain position of the organization and the countries mediating the conflict and about their reluctance to call the occupation by its name is understandable. The attempts of the co-chairs and their leadership represented by the OSCE to consider the situation in the conflict from the perspective of a "clean slate" and without considering a whole pile of resolutions, declarations and other documents already adopted by a number of international organizations cannot but cause perplexity. The four resolutions of the UN Security Council, the key and the most authoritative body in world politics, adopted two decades ago, unequivocally demand the unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied Azerbaijani lands. The same was said in subsequent documents of PACE, the European Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other organizations. However, instead of forcing the aggressor-Armenia to fulfill these requirements, the mediators are trying to re-invent the wheel, pretending that there were no resolutions at all to resolve the problem. Why pander to the aggressor or at best to try to persuade him to withdraw his troops from foreign soil if the UN Security Council resolutions say in black and white that it should be done unconditionally? This is a natural question that increasingly concerns the Azerbaijani side.

It is clear why Armenia is ignoring these demands, but the uncertain position of the OSCE raises questions. This fact begins to cause outrage not only in Azerbaijan. More and more often, representatives of individual countries urge Armenia to stop the occupation of Azerbaijani territories. The latest example of the lawyer of the Moldovan Parliament, Aurelia Grigoriu, is particularly revealing. During a recent conference, which was held not in Chisinau but in the Armenian parliament in Yerevan, she openly spoke about the Armenian occupation of one fifth of the territory of Azerbaijan and condemned the genocide of civilians in Xocali. This statement, for good reason, plunged the Armenian leadership into shock, which it is still unable to overcome. Grigoriu's bold step dealt a fatal blow to the habit of many representatives of international organizations and politicians from third countries to make in Baku statements that please the Azerbaijanis and in Yerevan - statements that please the Armenians. The deputy chairman of the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, Ali Ahmadov, noted Grigoriu's statement as a bold step and urged the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to follow suit.

Meanwhile, as the main mediator in the conflict is inactive, the OSCE is not the only organization in the Euro-Atlantic area that Azerbaijan is trying to persuade to take a more active role in resolving the Karabakh conflict. Baku sent a similar appeal to NATO through the republic's permanent representative in the organization, Xazar Ibrahim, who said that the North Atlantic alliance had direct motivation to come to grips with the Karabakh settlement. "In the event of a new war in Karabakh, the entire regional infrastructure will face a threat of attack, which will cause a serious crisis not only in the region but also outside it," he stressed. According to Ibrahim, the threat to the security of the energy infrastructure of Azerbaijan and neighbouring Georgia may suspend the supply of energy resources to the West, which may cause a rise in prices for oil and gas in Europe and, consequently, lead to a serious crisis. In addition, regional pipelines are not insured against Armenian attacks, at which, by the way, Yerevan likes to hint.

So will Baku manage to "rouse" NATO and the OSCE, the largest Euro-Atlantic organizations, to give at least some momentum to the negotiation process on Nagornyy Karabakh? The issue is complex, and no matter what the international community and Armenia is saying about their interest in a speedy resolution of the conflict, the only party really geared up for an immediate change in the status quo is Azerbaijan. For the current situation is more convenient for Armenia, while the international community, including the mediating troika - Russia, the US and France - is indifferent to the situation, or rather their aim is to prevent a new war. This position is determining and is unlikely to be changed by Ukraine or any other country, which is to lead the OSCE for just one year by rotation. This does not mean that attempts to persuade the international community of the need to change the status quo are hopeless. But this means that Azerbaijan should continue to develop its economic potential and military power as the world is more willing to listen not to someone who is only fair, but to someone who is also strong.