THE SIX ELEMENTS OF WARLICK

At the beginning of this year, the American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, James Warlick, let it be known that Washington might come up with its own initiative in the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. But the one-sided and clearly pro-Armenian actions of Warlick and his "Twitter diplomacy", which jeopardized the privacy and format of the negotiations, were somewhat alarming. Things reached such a point that Baku expressed distrust in Warlick as an impartial mediator.

Intrigue arose a week ago when the American magazine Foreign Affairs published an article alleging that "in early May, the Obama administration will make a new attempt to resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan". It said the main motivation of the White House is the fact that "in light of the Russian annexation of the Crimea, the US is more than ever determined to resolve the protracted conflict, which was supported by Russia to maintain its influence in the region". And right after that, the same Warlick presented a report on the subject "Nagornyy Karabakh: towards a settlement" at the American Carnegie Foundation. Now he presents not his personal, but the official position of the US State Department on resolving the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. With reference to joint statements by the US, Russian and French presidents in L'Aquila (2009) and Muskoka (2010), he identified six elements which, according to him, should be the basis of a future peace agreement.

Reactions...

The reaction of the Azerbaijani side to the proposals voiced by Warlick was not long in coming. Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammad-yarov said that the issue was about the six mandatory elements of a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which were agreed in 2009 and are the basis of the updated Madrid principles.

"The principles of the peace agreement have long been developed and Azerbaijan is ready to work on them in order to achieve a lasting peace in the region," the minister said, calling the message of James Warlick positive.

The minister reiterated that the status quo in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict is unacceptable for any of the parties to the conflict. A peace agreement will bring great benefits for all: it will open additional economic development opportunities in the region and enable people to return to their native land. Armenia will get rid of the isolation in which it is due to the ongoing conflict.

At the same time, Mammadyarov said that Azerbaijan's territorial integrity is not a subject of negotiations, and problems can be solved if, first of all, the Armenian troops are withdrawn from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

Armenia, too, saw nothing new in the theses set forth by Warlick. However, Yerevan's reaction to the report of the American diplomat was sharply different from Baku's reaction. Armenian officials did not hide their irritation that the parties are offered the same updated Madrid principles.

According to Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia Shavarsh Kocharyan, there are two conditions, without which the pursuit of progress results in nothing but good wishes: an atmosphere of trust between the parties and the direct participation of Nagornyy Karabakh in the negotiation process.

Such hysteria in the ruling elite could not but alarm Armenian society. And, apparently, for this reason, the US Ambassador to Armenia John Heffern thought it necessary to explain why the US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group is now talking about the basic principles of settlement.

The ambassador called it an attempt to give impetus to the process. "There was no aim to announce a new policy. The goal was to start a discussion of these points of the peace agreement so that the peoples of the two countries are ready for it," the ambassador said. 

"In addition, the mediator wanted to present the position of the United States, which distinguishes the status of Nagornyy Karabakh from the surrounding areas, because it seems that in the two capitals, in society and in Nagornyy Karabakh, these territories are considered as common, but they are different, and the related results should be different, too," the ambassador said.

In this whole situation, what attracts attention is the emphasis with which the US embassy in Armenia stressed on its Twitter page that the principles articulated by Warlick have long been accepted by the Armenian authorities as a basis for negotiations on the basis of the Madrid principles. "Those who criticize Ambassador Warlick must remember: there are three choices - a settlement through negotiations, maintaining an unacceptable status quo or war. Negotiations presuppose compromises on both sides. If the parties want to get all they want, they will have to wait long," the US diplomatic mission said.

Who is muddying the waters?

The reaction of the parties to Warlick's statement shows that although Azerbaijan shares not all the proposals of the mediators, it is ready for a constructive discussion of these elements. The Armenian side also officially does not refuse to discuss the proposed principles, but prevents their further advancement in every way. In particular, in response to the clear proposal of the mediators to withdraw from the occupied territories around Nagornyy Karabakh, Yerevan answers no less clearly that it is not part of its plans. "I am specifically against these approaches that we have to return the territories and so on and so forth," the Armenian prime minister said in response to journalists' request to comment on Warlick's statement. "Our plan does not include the return of the lands," Armenian Defence Minister Seyran Ohanyan echoed the prime minister's view.

Moreover, Yerevan is making attempts to diplomatically attach the occupied lands to the Nagornyy Karabakh separatist regime. Yerevan's desire to put the puppet regime of the Armenian separatists of Nagornyy Karabakh at the negotiating table also hinders progress in the negotiations.

Either way, the statement of the American co-chair of the Minsk Group has one main message to the parties. James Warlick made it clear that the international mediators continue to be guided by the "Madrid principles". And for the time being, none of the parties has proposed leaving these principles aside. Therefore, it is likely that the irritated reaction of Yerevan to Warlick's six basic principles has domestic political implications. Serzh Sargsyan's team is not satisfied with the fact that the American co-chair actually explained to Armenian society that Yerevan's positions in the negotiations are weak - international law is on the side of Azerbaijan and to resolve the conflict, they first need to give up occupation. But does the adoption of this momentous decision depend on Armenia?

Geopolitical motives

Against the background of the Ukrainian events, more and more analysts tend to believe that the key to the Karabakh lock is in Moscow, and after Crimea, Washington wants to seize the initiative in other potential spots of confrontation with Russia. In this context, we can interpret US activity on the "Karabakh front". Of course, the main message in Warlick's statement was addressed to the parties of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. But the fact that the American mediator spoke not on behalf of all mediators but on behalf of the United States alone is also a message to Russia.

Today the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is in Washington's interests as never before. Thus, the US can enlist the unequivocal support of Azerbaijan as the most powerful state in the region and contribute to the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations and, as a consequence, reduce Yerevan's reliance on Moscow and get it away from Russian influence.

In any case, Warlick's statement said that in the coming months the activity of geopolitical forces in the Karabakh conflict will increase significantly. Now the main thing is to ensure that this activity does not develop into an open confrontation, which will certainly affect both the peace process and the entire region.