THE UNPREDICTABLE WIND OF WORLD POLITICS

One does not normally expect momentous decisions and broad statements from G8 summits. The bottom line is rather to decide whether there is basic agreement or disagreement of the "eight" on various issues, and also on the presence or absence of discord in its ranks. Therefore, quite unexpected things, for example "body language": the gestures, facial expressions and even poses of the presidents at bilateral meetings suddenly become a matter of close scrutiny. Each little thing becomes the subject of excited discussion: who is sitting next to whom at the dinner table or who conceded to whom in the gym. All jokes become a pretext for serious political prognosis.

The latest summit could be said to have been very indicative in this respect. The world's media carefully analyzed not so much the text of the Syrian communiqu? as the behaviour of Putin, Obama or Cameron during their bilateral meetings. The newspaper headlines carried references to Putin's "strange glances" at journalists at the press conference and American President Obama "chewing casually" during his Russian counterpart's speech.

One can sympathise with the journalists. After all, everything of importance at G8 summits takes place behind closed doors and reporters and experts don't expect any specific terms and conditions or directives but just a general trend from the final statements by the eight world leaders. In other words, the main outcome of each summit of the "eight" is to understand which way and how strongly the wind of world politics is blowing, is not blowing or might blow. 

The Karabakh conflict: things aren't moving

Azerbaijan was expecting a clarification of the positions of the world leaders on the Karabakh problem from the G8 summit which was held in the Northern Irish resort of Lough Erne from 17 to 18 June. In their joint statement Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and Francois Hollande - the presidents of the countries that are co-chairs of the OSCE's Minsk Group (Russia, USA and France) - expressed profound regret that the sides in the conflict had failed to solve the problem during the negotiations process. 

"We are certain that further delay in achieving a balanced framework agreement leading to an all-embracing peace settlement is unacceptable and we call upon the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan to concentrate with renewed vigour on solving the questions which remain open," the document says.

Russia, the US and France believe that the statements they have made on this subject in the past four years "should be the basis of a just and lasting settlement to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict".

"These elements should be considered as an integrated whole because any attempt to select some elements over others would make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution. We strongly urge all the sides to recommit to the Helsinki principles and, particularly to those relating to the non-use of force or threat of the use of force, territorial integrity and equal rights and self-determination of peoples," Russia, the US and France emphasize.

The first thing to strike one is that these theses are fully concordant with those statements which are constantly being made by the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry also reaffirmed its position this time.

"The Azerbaijani side has stated more than once that it will not accept the status-quo which creates a threat to stability in the region. In this question Azerbaijan's position is concordant with that of the co-chairs of the OSCE's Minsk Group. Unlike Azerbaijan, Armenia is doing everything to drag out a settlement to the Karabakh conflict," said the head of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry's press service, Elman Abdullayev.

Abdullayev also once again stressed Azerbaijan's basic position. First of all, the conflict must be resolved with regard to Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Second, the Azerbaijani side, unlike Armenia, has accepted as a basic document, the updated Madrid principles to which the co-chairs refer.

"Azerbaijan has suggested on more than one occasion that the conflict be resolved on the basis of a 'road map'. Unfortunately, Armenia has rejected this proposal of Azerbaijan and the co-chairs of the OSCE's Minsk Group, which once again proves that Armenia does not accept the updated Madrid principles," the head of the Foreign Ministry's press service noted. As regards the "principle of the non-use of force" specifically, it has been violated by Armenia whose armed forces continue to occupy Azerbaijani territory.

It should be noted that the Armenian side, through Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan, was quick to state that Yerevan also agrees with the co-chairs and is resolutely disposed towards an "exclusively peaceful settlement to the conflict".

So, what is the "G8's" basic message with regard to the negotiations process? First, it has to be said that such documents have been adopted before. However, things aren't moving. Four years have passed since the publication of the updated Madrid principles, and that is time enough. The co-chairs "regret" that a result has still not been achieved, and express confidence that "the points contained in the joint statements of the heads of the co-chair countries made in the past four years could be the basis of a just and lasting settlement". At the same time, in the text of the statement there is not even a hint of why nothing has been achieved. Why could these very proposals become the basis of a settlement but have not done so? If the co-chairs agree with one another, and the sides agree with the co-chairs, why are the talks still bogged down?

As the executive secretary of the ruling New Azerbaijan Party (NAP), deputy Ali Ahmadov, said, "until the aggressor is actually named and until all the co-chair countries of the Minsk group make a specific demand for the liberation of Azerbaijan's occupied territories, progress in the sphere of a settlement to the conflict will be impossible. I believe it would be better if the co-chair countries of the Minsk group expressed a specific attitude to this question and it would be possible to achieve more serious steps in a settlement to the conflict," Ahmadov said.

Indeed, world leaders frequently leave vague wording, forcing experts and journalists to wonder what they meant this time - which way and from what direction is the wind of their aspirations blowing? Of course, it is gratifying that the world community in the shape of the co-chairs recalls and is speaking openly about the need for the speediest solution to the conflict. However, when the broker-countries, twenty years after the start of the negotiations process, speak about regret on the lack of a result, this can only make one feel alarmed and depressed. The four resolutions on the liberation of occupied Nagornyy Karabakh and the adjacent territories, which were adopted by the UN Security Council, have still not been fulfilled by Armenia. Azerbaijan is constantly asking itself the question: why is the necessary pressure not being put on Armenia? You don't even have to invent any new mechanisms for this - everything has already been prescribed and tested long ago in basic documents of international law. The general direction of the co-chair countries has long been stated and understood. But, apparently, that is not enough…

One against seven

Meanwhile, the main subject of the summit at Lough Erne was the war in Syria and here political commentators the world over were unanimous in noting a diplomatic victory for Putin who, in the opinion of many, "was one against seven". At the same time, a number of world papers stated speaking not only about a victory for Putin, but almost about a "cold war" between the Russian and US presidents. "They agreed never to speak to each other again," joked the bloggers who were closely following the outward tension during the meetings between Obama and Putin.

There are indeed plenty of disagreements between Moscow and Washington at the moment - from "black lists" to ABM systems and Syria. However, at the summit the Kremlin and the White House still managed to conclude a "new bilateral framework agreement on reducing the nuclear threat", thereby continuing the cooperation begun in the context of the Nanna-Lugar programme. Besides, Moscow and Washington decided to create a direct contact line in the event of threats in the computer sphere. Thus, in the sphere concerning a strengthening of confidence-building measures in the cyberspace, Russia and the USA have virtually created a precedent.

Apart from this, the leaders of the G8 countries pledged to do everything possible to increase tax transparency in the world. This refers to methods of preventing offshore tax evasion by major corporations and devising a single standard in this field.

The decision to create an American-European Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in other words a free trade zone, was also confirmed at Lough Erne. It is expected that the economic alliance between the EU and the USA will become one of the most important documents of world economics for the near future and the biggest bilateral trade agreement in history. Washington and Brussels hope that this will finally mean economic recovery, new jobs and a strengthening of the trans-Atlantic community. The first round of talks will be held in Washington in July. Of course, the sides still have to overcome differences concerning such spheres as the film industry and television, agriculture, engineering, and so on, but the project itself is appreciably gathering momentum. And in this sense, incidentally, it cuts across quite rigidly the attempts to put the Russian-supported project of EurAsian integration on track. 

The next summit will be held in Sochi in 2014 and it is difficult to guess which way the wind of the world economy will be blowing by then.