YEREVAN'S "DOUBLE HYSTERIA"

In Yerevan - and not just Yerevan - discussion and analysis of the latest "shuttle" trip to the region of the co-chairs of the OSCE's Minsk Group continues. To be frank, the region has seen more than enough of such visits. But the current visit by the co-chairs could scarcely be called boring routine, and not just because it coincided with the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the cease-fire regime, albeit a relative one, on the front line. Nonetheless, one should point out the much-talked of speech at the Carnegie Centre by the co-chair of the OSCE's Minsk Group from the US, James Warlick, in which he set out the revamped Madrid principles of a settlement to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh, which preceded the visit.  These included not only the granting of interim status to Nagornyy Karabakh, which Armenia does not wish to hear about, but also a demand for the withdrawal of troops from Azerbaijan's occupied regions which were not part of the former NKAR [Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region]. As far as the Lacin [Lachin District of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenian troops] Corridor, which links Nagornyy Karabakh with Armenia, is concerned, then, according to Warlick, its width cannot include the whole of Lacin District.

R+ has already written about the hysteria that was raised in Armenia immediately after Warlick announced the basic principles of a settlement. And it was not by chance that in his comments Armenia's leader Serzh Sargsyan either failed to notice the paragraph where Warlick spoke about the occupied territories and the need for them to be returned or tried to do all he could to ensure the others didn't notice it.

The Armenian authorities welcomed the co-chairs, or rather James Warlick, in occupied Lacin District with a picket of "young Karabakhis".  And in the main square in Xankandi [Khankendi] a small, but very noisy youth rally was held, the participants in which just as predictably stated that the "NKR", which is recognized by no-one, has no territories subject to "return".

However, in Yerevan they are apparently aware that the trend in world diplomacy cannot be reversed. Moreover, many representatives of Yerevan's community of experts see a "direct and clear threat" in the words of the co-chairs. The statement by the co-chairs of the OSCE's Minsk Group on a return of the territories surrounding Nagornyy Karabakh, is very alarming because the emphasis is changing, political expert Yervand Bozoyan said in an interview with an Armenian News-News.am correspondent. He said that the statement about the impermissibility of the maintenance of the status quo on the Karabakh question is nothing new, but on the return of the territories this was very disturbing. "The situation is changing and I see danger in this," Yervand Bozoyan stressed.

And Yerevan's "Lragir" said bluntly: "Competition has begun in the OSCE's Minsk Group as to who can lobby the Turkish-Azerbaijani version of a settlement the quickest. Because Armenia has demonstrated in every way that it is incapable of becoming a part of a serious political project." And generally, it says, "in fact the Minsk Group made the statement for Turkey and Azerbaijan, and for Armenia it looks like an ultimatum".

Perhaps one ought to add another thing here. In recent months official Yerevan has clearly been making attempts to re-build bridges with the West, although it would appear that after 3 September and the statements about readiness to join the Customs Union such activity would have lost its purpose. Nevertheless, Armenia, despite Russia's call to its allies in the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization] to curtail their relations with NATO, continues to take part in the Partnership for Peace programme, and its president, Serzh Sargsyan, even went to the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague. And still today, against the background of Warlick's statements, in Armenian circles they are already beginning to realize that although the West is at the moment conducting its old policy in Karabakh, calling on the sides to "reach an agreement themselves", the situation is actually "progressing", and not to Armenia's advantage. And Yerevan simply doesn't know how to react to these changes.

A no less unpleasant surprise also followed from the Russians which, apparently, was the biggest disappointment for Yerevan. A political bomb exploded during the course of an innocent Astana-Moscow-Minsk-Yerevan tele-bridge, when the head of the international interaction section of the Development and Integration Department of the Eurasian Economic Commission, Anton Azarov, made it clear that in the event of Armenia's joining the Customs Union a customs border should appear between it and Karabakh. Yerevan was outraged. A response immediately followed. "A customs border between Armenia and the 'Nagornyy Karabakh Republic' is impossible under any circumstances," the chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations of the Armenian parliament, Artak Zakaryan, said. Azarov then explained that he had incorrectly understood the question, and so on, but, in all probability, most people in Yerevan got the "message": they came to the conclusion that Moscow also has no intention of publicly and openly supporting Armenia's claims to other people's territories, never mind unfurling an "umbrella" over them in the form of extending the rules of the Customs Union to Karabakh. One may surmise that Armenia's other partners in the CU, especially Kazakhstan, also have their own opinions on this score. 

The main thing is that political analysts in Yerevan are already confidently predicting that Russia will not be trying either today or tomorrow to improve relations with Azerbaijan at the cost of Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh. As the head of the Modus Vivendi Centre, the political analyst Ara Papyan, argued at his press conference, following Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan's statement about joining the Customs Union, the Kremlin believes that "Yerevan is already in its pocket" and it is now Azerbaijan's turn. "Baku has oil and gas. Therefore, it has money as well. It remains to be motivated by Nagornyy Karabakh," Papyan noted.

And former head of the Armenian special services, David Shakhnazaryan, added: "There is no way you can compare the economic situation of Armenia and Azerbaijan now and 15 years ago; it is constantly changing in Azerbaijan's favour." Moreover, he believes, "painful though it is to say this (from Armenia's point of view - Ed. Note), Azerbaijan is conducting a fairly independent and diversified foreign policy. In rates of migration Armenia outstrips Azerbaijan where the population, unlike Armenia, is increasing. On the question of energy security, Russia controls the whole of Armenia's energy system, whereas Azerbaijan has provided its own energy security and the energy spheres of many countries depend on it". To put it another way, unlike Armenia, Azerbaijan is of considerable political interest to the West and Russia, and what is more, is conducting an independent foreign policy. And therefore it is perfectly obvious to whose advantage the balance of interests is moving. At the same time, international law (which, let us remember, is on Azerbaijan's side) should not be discounted, either. And as a result the Armenian political in-crowd simply cannot help but experience a quite understandable fear leading to a kind of "double hysteria", because the external players in the regions are discovering their own interests, which are far from being in tune with Armenia's.