VICIOUS CIRCLE

Year 2012 is over. Unfortunately, the most pessimistic forecasts regarding the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh have come true. Not only has it proved impossible to advance a peaceful settlement, even the negotiating process has been essentially disrupted. The parties held a single high-level meeting in Sochi in January 2012, when the presidential tenure of Dmitriy Medvedev was coming to an end. The sporadic contacts between the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers also lacked productivity. So far the parties have been unable even to outline the issues to be discussed and agree on a specific agenda for future talks. The co-chairs of the Minsk Group, who have paid a number of visits to the region over the past year, have been unable to give a positive impetus and constructivism to the negotiations. They limited themselves to local initiatives, such as a withdrawal of snipers from the front line or the establishment of a dialogue between the civil societies of conflicting parties. It is obvious that even if these proposals are realized, they are unlikely to bring together the radically divergent positions of the parties on the main issues of the conflict.

The Karabakh settlement has reached a dead end. This was confirmed by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev in a recent interview with "Russia 24" TV channel. He said that the talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict had entered a stage of stagnation. It is not surprising that under these circumstances the flywheel of an arms race spins up, the parties are flexing their muscles through military exercises and parades, and there are frequent skirmishes along the front line. The diplomatic confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan takes place on all international platforms, while information warfare has assumed extremely tough and confrontational forms.

Despite the financial assistance from the USA and the EU, favorable gas supplies, loans, political support and large-scale delivery (free of charge or for a nominal charge) of weaponry from Russia, the moral and material support from the large and influential Armenian lobby, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Yerevan to bear the brunt of the conflict with Azerbaijan. Armenia's economy is stagnating. It has been impossible to overcome the 15-per cent decline observed in 2008-2009 and reach pre-crisis levels. The population, except for a small group of people close to power, lured oligarchs and their hangers-on and servants, is sliding into poverty. According to official data, the poor form half the country's rapidly shrinking population.

People are leaving Armenia not only because of poverty and injustice, but also due to a lack of hope for an improvement in the foreseeable future. As Finance Minister Vache Gabrielyan acknowledged in a meeting with journalists in late December, the already meager foreign investment in the Armenian economy declined by a further 40 per cent in 2012. As part of a Gallup research "Index of positive experience" conducted in 148 countries, respondents were asked questions in order to identify the social well-being of the population. In Armenia, the share of positively predisposed respondents was only 49 per cent. In neighboring Georgia it is 52, in Azerbaijan 55, in Turkey 57 and in Russia 59 per cent.

President Serzh Sargsyan and his corrupt and criminal entourage are doing whatever they can in this situation. Namely, they keep on rattling the guns and uttering patriotic speeches for domestic consumption. Addressing the congress of the Republican Party which has nominated him as a presidential candidate in the upcoming election in February, Serzh Sargsyan made a significant statement: "The Armenian armed forces will not engage in exhausting and passive defense because their mobility and combat readiness can establish security in our region and beyond." That's it. No more, no less. But such boastful and bellicose statements do not prevent him from tearfully begging international financial assistance, exploiting the topic of the so-called "genocide of 1915". To achieve the desired, Sargsyan and his government have resorted to the commonplace political blackmail of Moscow, Brussels and Washington, demonstrating a willingness to flop over to whoever gives more.

It is safe to say that as long as all three capitals of the Minsk Group co-chair countries, especially Moscow, do not send the Armenians a clear and harsh signal, it is na?ve to expect them to be reasonable and constructive in negotiations. Moreover, certain changes are making Serzh Sargsyan and his entourage optimistic that it is possible to continue the occupation of Azerbaijani territory and eventually pull out the much-coveted concessions from us.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin, in contrast to his predecessor Dmitriy Medvedev, clearly demonstrates his detachment from the Karabakh settlement. In the six months of his presidency he has not shown interest in organizing meetings and talks between the presidents of the conflicting parties. Vladimir Putin's remark, "You will probably ask about Karabakh", by which he rejected an Azerbaijani journalist's attempt to ask him a question in his recent press conference, is quite symptomatic. It is evident that President Putin is more interested in the involvement of former Soviet republics in the EurAsEC project and the Customs Union and their reintegration under the auspices of Moscow. It is from this angle that we can expect any Kremlin initiatives to resolve conflicts in the former Soviet Union.

The situation in another Minsk Group co-chair country, the USA, does not inspire much optimism either about the revitalization of Washington's mediation efforts in the Karabakh settlement. It has already been announced that Robert Bradtke has completed his mission as co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group on behalf of the USA. In contrast to his very active predecessor, Matthew Bryza, Bradtke's activity in the Minsk Group was barely noticeable. He will be temporarily replaced by Ambassador Ian Kelly until the new Secretary of State is sworn in and forms a team of his team.

As is known, President Obama has nominated Senator John Kerry to the position of Secretary of State. He is known for Armenian sympathies and close ties with the Armenian lobbying organizations. Kerry has repeatedly spoken in Congress in support of the recognition of the so-called "Armenian genocide of 1915", demanded that Ankara and Baku end the "blockade" of Armenia and called for increased economic assistance to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Kerry's attitude to our country is expressly seen in the fact that in the early 1990s, he actively supported the adoption of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act which limited US aid to Azerbaijan. The US media have quoted some not particularly diplomatic statements by Kerry regarding Azerbaijan during his time as a senator. In fact, it was the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate chaired by John Kerry that rejected the candidacy of Matthew Bryza as US Ambassador to Azerbaijan. In this, he actively helped by Senators Barbara Boxer and Robert Menendez, who is now tipped to become committee chairman.

All this has caused great excitement among Armenian lobbying organizations and, accordingly, can not but alarm Azerbaijan. The Former US ambassador to Azerbaijan, Richard Kauzlarich, has admitted that such concerns justified. He said Senator Kerry represented Massachusetts, a state with a large and influential Armenian community. However, according to him, as soon as Kerry becomes secretary of state, he will cease to represent a special group of US citizens or specific constituency, and will defend the national interests of the United States. This is true, but there is little hope that the State Department with its new boss will put pressure on Armenia to withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani lands. Neither is it worth relying on Washington's restraint if Baku, having exhausted all other means, resorts to force to restore its territorial integrity.

David Merkel, an expert of the US John Hopkins Center on transatlantic relations who previously held senior positions in the State Department, the Treasury and the White House, has told 1news.az that: "The settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will not be a priority for the US because Obama is facing too many domestic economic problems and external threats requiring American involvement - Iran, Syria, North Korea." In his view, the only good option is to appoint a special envoy of the American president on this issue. It is possible but it is not clear how this function will differ from that of the current US co-chair in the Minsk Group. After all, it is not the status of the US representative that matters but his political clout, experience and stance. So far, nothing is known about the plans and intentions of the White House and the State Department on this matter.

At the moment, the role of the main moderator in the Minsk Group has passed to France and the European Union. It is in Paris that the Minsk Group has recently organized a meeting of foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan with the participation of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. The European Union has been voicing concern over a lack of progress in resolving the Karabakh conflict, as its members want to increase the role of Brussels in the process. In fact, the appointment of a special EU representative - not an ordinary diplomat but a major political figure from among former prime ministers, presidents or foreign ministers of a European country who would be perceived well not only in Yerevan and Baku, but also in Moscow, Paris and Washington - could give an impetus to a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

As for the negotiating platform, it seems that the "Madrid principles" so much hated by the Armenians are still in place. At least this is what French President Francois Hollande has said. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry has repeatedly offered to move on from endless disputes over the wording of basic principles of a settlement to work directly on the peace agreement. After all, it is this document that will need specifics, i.e. the sequence of actions, dates, control mechanisms, etc. In other words, it will be a real "road map" for a settlement. Yerevan also continues to insist that without the full agreement of all the basic principles it is impossible to start working on a peace agreement because "until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed". I believe, however, that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs have begun, off the record, to work on a future peace agreement based on the provisions of the Madrid principles voiced by the presidents of the United States, France and Russia in their special statements in L'Aquila and Muskoka and which were later joined by the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia during the OSCE Summit in Astana.

Although it is na?ve to count on quick progress in the Karabakh settlement, the infinite delay of the process is fraught with growing risks to peace and regional security. In the mentioned interview with "Russia 24", President Ilham Aliyev did not make pessimistic predictions, but said that difficult as the status quo may be for Azerbaijan, it is equally dangerous for Armenia. "If they calculate at least the medium-term balance of forces in the region and, the regional situation and the strengthening of Azerbaijan, it is clear that in five to 10 years the situation will get even worse for them than it is now. It will be difficult and to some extent even dangerous for them to be at odds with Azerbaijan and keep our lands under occupation. If they want those who are living in Nagorno-Karabakh to keep on living there in peace and security, they should start withdrawing the occupying forces from our territory." The Armenians and their political patrons in the world had better look at the situation from this angle, so that not to regret the missed time and opportunities in the future.