KARABAKH ON “LOW HEAT”

There is no progress in the settlement of the Karabakh problem. The European Commission said this in its annual report. According to the document, nor is there any development in the issue of creating mechanisms for investigating incidents on the line of contact. Meanwhile, according to analysts, this state of affairs is also furthered by the insufficient activities of the EU itself in the process of settling the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. This view is also echoed by the expert of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, Amanda Paul, who shared her thoughts with R+.

-How would you comment on the recent statement by the official of the Azerbaijani presidential administration, Ali Hasanov, that the EU should consider appointing its own envoy to the Minsk Group to help strengthen the EU positions in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict?

There would seem to be very little chance that the format of the OSCE Minsk Group is going to be amended to allow the EU to have an envoy.  While Azerbaijan has voiced on several occasions a desire to see a change in the nature of the Minsk Group, this view is not broadly shared by some other actors which are happy with the current setup. Furthermore, having the EU as a co-chair is not really the answer.  The EU is too big and too contradictory to have a decisive role.   While the EU has on a number occasions dating back to its 2003 Security Strategy stressed its intention to take on a bigger role in the resolution of the conflict, given it is a direct threat to the stability of the EU's neighbourhood as well as EU backed energy projects in the Caspian region, this has not really happened and would seem unlikely to. While the EU has slowly increased its presence in the South Caucasus it remains a side-actor in the Karabakh conflict.  Unfortunately, the EU is still punching below its weight, with the current internal political and economic cuisine of the EU absorbing most of its energy. 

- How will Brussels react to this proposal?

Brussels continues to advocate that it is happy with the current arrangement.  That it supports the efforts of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs.  The French co-chair regularly briefs EU Ambassadors, the European Council and other EU officials on developments (or rather lack of developments) in the Karabakh conflict.  This sometimes gives the impression that the EU is satisfied with the Status Quo which I do not believe is the case.  Having a passive approach is a mistake and dangerous.  Unfortunately, Nagornyy Karabakh is nobody's priority, thereby it is left to simmer.  Yet this situation is not sustainable with the very fragile ceasefire at permanent risk.  Furthermore, for the EU to be a really credible foreign policy actor it needs to take a much bigger role in dealing with the security challenges in its neighbourhood which is not the case presently.

- Can Baku's initiative about greater involvement in the conflict resolution of the EU rather than an individual European country mean that Baku is not happy with French mediation?

I would not say that Mr Hasanov was talking directly about France but rather in a broader sense.  There is a sense of frustration over the current deadlock, and there seems to be a need to shake up the Minsk Group a bit as it would seem to have become rather stale and cozy. This may help get the process back on track.  Indeed nowadays you could compare the Minsk Group to chefs in a kitchen preparing a meal  when there is nobody in the restaurant.    While nobody is expecting the Minsk Group Co-Chairs to solve the Karabakh problem, its role needs to be more than just maintaining the ceasefire.  It needs to stimulate and promote ideas to move ahead on the Basic Principles.    Therefore I believe it is time to have a broader discussion on the stalled Karabakh peace process with a big push in particular coming from the two key external powers - Moscow and Washington.   However, at the end of the day, while you can lead a horse to water you cannot make it drink, and it is ultimately up to the leaderships of Azerbaijan and Armenia to reach an agreement.

- What can you say about the Eastern Partnership Programme as a tool to increase confidence-building measures between the sides?

Overall the EU is still a marginal player in the Karabakh peace process.  However, it has stepped up efforts in terms of supporting civil society and peace-building. One way this has been done is through the EPNK project which has financed some six civil society actors, supporting projects focused on building people to people contacts including youth and women.  For peace to be successful it is vital that Azerbaijani's and Armenian's, including the Karabakh Armenian community and the currently expelled Azerbaijani Karabakh community, start to know each other again and build trust.  This is a very difficult and long process, and frequently dangerous too.  While success has so far been rather limited, the EU's efforts in this area are nevertheless important.  The EU should further push political elites to support efforts aimed at building the trust between the two Karabakh communities which is not always the case today, while continuing to offer strong support to civil society actors that which are promoting these type of activities.

- To what extent does the Eastern Partnership Programme correspond to the same task?

The Eastern Partnership is not specifically aimed at conflict resolution nor peace-building.  Rather its main purpose is to deepen economic and political ties between the EU and the partner countries as well as strengthening democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and freedoms, with a more for more or less for less approach.   While Eastern Partnership has both a bilateral and a multilateral track, in the case of the South Caucasus the multi-lateral track has not been able to function due to the Karabakh conflict.  However, it has opened the door for greater contacts and interaction at a parliamentary level through EURONEST, although one can hardly say this as produced any tangible results overall. 

- There are a lot of factors that escalate tensions in the region, and one of these factors is the new airport that the Karabakh separatists are threatening to launch. How great is the danger of further escalation in the conflict zone?

Today the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict is the only conflict in the region, which has a real risk of escalating into an all-out war in the foreseeable future. The situation on the ground remains very fragile and tensions can increase very easily. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan should avoid actions that can provoke tensions and increase violations of the ceasefire.  Talk of flights from the recently completed airport in Karabakh has created concerns both in Azerbaijan and the international community and added to regional tensions.