WARLICK'S TWITTER DIPLOMACY

Contrary to expectations, the expected meeting between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, who attended the opening of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, did not take place. If we take into account the continuous violations of the ceasefire on the line separating the Armenian and Azerbaijani troops, as well as the defiant speech by President Serzh Sargsyan at the congress of the organization of former Karabakh militants Yerkrapa, then there is no need to be surprised about this. We can say that there is a pause again in the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace dialogue, which resumed after nearly a two-year break.

It seemed that it was a good time for the mediators from the OSCE Minsk Group to somehow intervene. But the co-chairs from Russia and France remain silent, preferring, apparently, the so-called "quiet" diplomacy. Only US co-chair James Warlick shows activity and generates news. This is evident from his frequent visits to the region, which is quite understandable for a person new to this mediatory format. Mr Warlick had to get acquainted with the situation and the most important actors. His unusual activity on social networks also attracts attention. However, this is in the spirit of the time, and journalists specializing in the Karabakh issue and experiencing an information hunger have to be grateful to him for the opportunity to write at least about something.

As long as the issue was limited to Warlick's harmless tweets about "the extraordinary freshness of the air in Karabakh", there was no need to react to this. However, his last tweets testify to the birth of a new phenomenon - twitter diplomacy. Recently, Warlick wrote  on his Twitter account: "Greek and Turkish Cypriots announced they will have full-fledged negotiations on a settlement. Why can't this happen for Nagornyy Karabakh?"

Such a question can occur to people who are not well informed about the complex issues of Cyprus and Nagornyy Karabakh. It is surprising that this question is posed by a diplomat and the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair from the United States, whose status in theory should not lead to rhetorical questions. Voicing his question in the public space, which is the social networks, Mr Warlick in fact expressed a certain position, which, given his official status, could be cleared up to the end. After all, his tweet electrified the leadership of the so-called "NKR", whose self-styled "president" Bako Sahakyan clearly said that he would carry out consistent work "... appealing to the concerned sides that without the full participation of the so-called 'NKR' in all stages of the negotiations, it is impossible to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Karabakh conflict". The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry was also forced to react. Foreign Ministry spokesman Elman Abdullayev said in this regard: "The negotiation process on Nagornyy Karabakh conflict is between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The full-fledged negotiations between Baku and Yerevan within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group focus on its settlement and the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement."

It would seem that the parties to the conflict expressed their attitude and the issue was settled. But still it is not quite clear what Warlick meant by citing as an example the intercommunal dialogue that has begun in Cyprus? If he called on the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagornyy Karabakh for this, it is one thing. By the way, the proportion of the Armenian and Azerbaijani population of Nagornyy Karabakh is the same as between Greeks and Turks in Cyprus. Baku has been coming up with such an initiative for years, but it is stubbornly torpedoed by the separatist leadership of the so-called "NKR", which prohibits dialogue even at the level of civil society activists.

If Warlick suggests that Baku should begin a dialogue directly with the separatist leadership of the "NKR", then there are neither legal nor political-military grounds for that. Back in 1991, when a decision was made to prepare the Minsk Conference on the Karabakh settlement (the author participated in the meeting of the Committee of Senior Officials of the OSCE in Prague as an adviser to the president of Azerbaijan), Azerbaijan and Armenia were identified as parties to the conflict and the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagornyy Karabakh as interested sides. The fact that the Azerbaijanis were subsequently expelled (more than 45,000 from NK alone) does not deprive them of their right to participate in the discussion of issues related to the establishment of peace and the future status of Nagornyy Karabakh. In practice, their rights are violated and denied by the Armenian separatists and, unfortunately, not always perceived with due respect by the OSCE Minsk Group. If they regularly inform the separatist leadership of the so-called "NKR" on the progress of the negotiations and study its reaction, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs meet with the leaders of the Azerbaijani community of Karabakh for form's sake and not on every visit to the region.

The desire of the Armenian side to reformat the negotiating process and include the separatist leadership of the unrecognized so-called "NKR" in it as an independent party is understandable. First, it would disguise the occupation and looting of Azerbaijani territories by Armenia and avoid responsibility for the ethnic cleansing that was carried out. Second, for Yerevan, which is hiding behind the intransigence of the Armenian leaders of Nagornyy Karabakh, it is easier to show imaginary constructiveness and demand the opening of the closed borders and various financial handouts as a reward. And, most importantly, a change in the format of the negotiations can give the Armenians the opportunity to prolong the negotiations for a few more years and keep the "status quo" that suits them.

But the fact remains that it is not the 120,000 Karabakh Armenians that comprise less than a half percent of the population of Azerbaijan who captured an area three times larger than the Nagornyy Karabakh during the war. In the US, through reconnaissance satellites, it is well known how and when regular tank and assault units invaded Azerbaijan from Armenia and seized Lacin, Kalbacar, Agdam, Fizuli, Cabrayil, Zangilan and Qubadli. The connivance of the international community has led to the fact that Yerevan no longer hides that it keeps its expeditionary corps in the territory of Azerbaijan, subsidizes Nagornyy Karabakh and has included it in its legal, monetary-financial and customs systems as the tenth region of Armenia. Therefore, it makes sense to conduct negotiations for the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories in conjunction with issues of establishing a lasting peace and long-term security precisely with Yerevan. Only if progress is made in this direction, is Baku ready for dialogue with representatives of the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of Nagornyy Karabakh on the status and resumption of full cooperation.

As for the example of Cyprus, the intercommunal dialogue here is not new. Representatives of the Turkish and Greek communities have been conducting them since the very beginning. Cyprus itself was proclaimed in 1959 as an independent two-communal state with Greece and Turkey being guarantors. The actual division of the island was a response to an attempt to incorporate Cyprus into Greece, which was accompanied by ethnic cleansing against Turkish Cypriots. Ankara was forced to intervene militarily on a legal basis as a guarantor state. So parallels with the actions of Armenia are inappropriate.

On 17 February, the US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, James Warlick, wrote on Twitter: "Leaving today for Ankara. I look forward to hearing Turkey's views." Apparently, he was talking about Turkey's position on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict in relation to the possible opening of the Armenian-Turkish border by Ankara. It is hard to say in conversations with whom he wanted to hear this, because at that time Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was leaving for Ganja where a tripartite meeting of the foreign ministers of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan was held. The declaration adopted at the end of the meeting confirmed the fundamental support for the settlement of conflicts existing in the region and respect for the territorial integrity of states within their internationally recognized borders. However, Mr Warlick's visit to Turkey is certainly the right thing to do. He wrote on his page on Twitter: "It was useful to hear Turkish government views on regional issues, including Nagornyy Karabakh. We remain committed to the Minsk Group co-chair format." Perhaps, Mr Warlick managed to deepen his knowledge in relation to the Cyprus problem and clarify its similarities and differences with the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict.

In conclusion, I should note that it is extremely important and useful for the diplomats engaged in a delicate mediatory mission to constantly clarify the positions of the parties and explain their nuances and the boundaries of possible concessions for reaching a compromise. As for tips and suggestions to the parties, it is better to make them in private rather than through social networks. Otherwise, there may be unwanted doubts about the competence and impartiality of diplomats meant to promote the peaceful resolution of the very difficult Nagornyy Karabakh conflict laden with various kinds of suspicions and phobias.

Meanwhile, former Armenian foreign ministers Vahan Papazyan, Aleksandr Arzumanyan and Vardan Oskanyan are thinking about the future of their country. They have held a special meeting. Two of them are meeting with active politicians and members of the Armenian parliament. The participants in the meeting made quite critical remarks on the policy pursued by the administration of President Serzh Sargsyan. Vardan Oskanyan said directly, and other participants in the meeting did not mind, that "one day we will have to make concessions in the Karabakh issue. The public will accept these concessions if the government is legitimate. At this point, even if the government presents society with a solution to the Karabakh problem on a silver platter, it will not accept it." It would be good for the ruling administration of President Serzh Sargsyan to realize that persisting in the seizure of the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan is counterproductive, deprives not only the Karabakh Armenians, but also Armenia itself of a decent future and threatens with large disasters across the region.