SAME ROLLING STOCK BUT A CHANGE IN ENGINE

Criticism of the OSCE Minsk Group has sharply increased recently, despite the group's repeated assurances that during the years of negotiations and numerous meetings between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan it has proved possible to make some progress on the peaceful settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh.

It is noteworthy that if before this criticism came from Baku, which is naturally not satisfied with the status quo, now experts from various countries, including the countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group, speak in the same vein. In particular, the director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University, Frederick Starr, said in an interview that he is not a big "fan" of the OSCE Minsk Group, as this car has broken down and stood still for 20 years. Therefore, you should think what kind of car it is. Focusing on the zero result of Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev's mediation efforts, Starr suggests that nothing will be achieved without vigorous initiatives by the United States. According to the American expert, it is time for the United States to deal more actively with the problems of the South Caucasus and for Washington to defend more openly the independence and sovereignty of the Caucasian countries.

Following Starr, the lead analyst of the St Petersburg Centre for Middle East Studies, Aleksandr Sotnichenko, also said that the OSCE Minsk Group was engaged in freezing the conflict and did not want it to be resolved. But despite their similar evaluation of the OSCE Minsk Group, Starr and Sotnichenko demonstrate diametrically opposed approaches to the situation. Noting that Moscow alone will not be able to move the problem from deadlock, the Russian expert proposes doing so within the framework of regional cooperation, that is to say within the framework of negotiations between Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia as members and the most interested parties. At the same time, Sotnichenko is confident that if the border between Turkey and Armenia opens, Ankara will receive an additional lever of pressure on Armenia. He also backs Iran's involvement in the process of settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. According to the Russian expert, the US and France should be removed from the negotiation process, since they are outside the region and the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict does not threaten their security. That is why they are more engaged in ensuring their own interests rather than resolving the conflict. Frederick Starr, on the contrary, is convinced that with the active participation of its allies, Washington must take the initiative in the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

Judging by the statements of the US and Russian experts, Washington and Moscow will try to seize the initiative in resolving the Karabakh conflict in the near future. It should be noted that this issue is an integral part of the new phase of the geopolitical confrontation between Washington and Moscow in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. This is evidenced by some of the events that have occurred over the past few weeks.

After another visit to the region, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs stated that they had offered the parties to the conflict another solution. Following this, the South Caucasus was visited by the US deputy secretary of state for political affairs. Officially, he offered Baku new ideas on the Karabakh conflict settlement. Immediately after the visit, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev said that Moscow will continue to assist in resolving the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, but both nations should seek to agree.

Another interesting point in this context was a statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan: "Russia has no monopoly on relations with Central Asia and the Caucasus after they declared their independence. Russia fully respects them as states that are entitled to choose their partners. Therefore, the interests, which the United States, European countries and other countries have in Central Asia and the Caucasus, are also dictated by the importance of these regions in terms of expanding terrorist threats and drug challenges that affect Russia, Europe and the United States. The talk is about energy and transport communications that pass there and connect the East and West. We understand these interests, but we want the objective interests of non-regional players to be realized in this geopolitical area with respect for the interests of these states themselves and the Russian Federation."

But, apparently, Washington has already made its choice in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, and that choice involves the intensification of its own role and the role of its allies. Let's look at the facts. During the last month, the US sponsored several events in Washington with the participation of representatives of Azerbaijani and Armenian NGOs and civil society in order to establish mutual trust between the societies of the conflicting parties. It is also expected that the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagornyy Karabakh will meet in late November in Berlin.

Another positive development in the tactics of the US and its allies is that while preserving the format of the OSCE Minsk Group, the European Union has become active in the peace process, although until recently there was speculation about the possibility of France being replaced with the EU. But it is clear that the West has chosen more subtle tactics. Leaving France in the ranks of the co-chairs and advancing its primary role in the settlement process, the West is also involving Brussels in the settlement of the problem as a serious assistant. In this context, the visit to the South Caucasus by the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, is of special importance.

An important factor is also the recent positive notes in the rhetoric of Paris, which is traditionally characterized by its pro-Armenian position. During discussions on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict at a session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, it was precisely the French co-chair Bernard Fassier who demonstrated a rather objective and constructive attitude. "Nagornyy Karabakh is Azerbaijan's territory. Nagornyy Karabakh, including the seven surrounding districts, is occupied by Armenia. There are one million refugees. Despite the existence of several options to resolve the conflict, the parties do not accept them. Azerbaijan does not support nations' right to self-determination, while Armenia wants to gain time by delaying the conflict resolution," said the French co-chairman of the Minsk Group.

In turn, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in a letter to Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, expressed confidence that if necessary, Sargsyan will be able to take a risk for peace for the sake of Armenia and the region's prosperity, thus leaving his own stamp on the future of his country. In other words, Armenia's closest ally (French President Nicolas Sarkozy has repeatedly noted that France and Armenia are twin sisters) is encouraging it to take a constructive approach and to take an important first step in this direction. Although it is likely that the call was made at Washington's insistence, it should not be underestimated.

It is noteworthy that the West intends to involve Turkey in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict settlement. According to the newly elected secretary general of the OSCE, Lamberto Zannier, Turkey is an important player in the region. It can offer political support in resolving the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. However, he said, Ankara's involvement in the process should not be formal. "I'm not talking about a formal role in the negotiations, but its real expression. Turkey borders on both countries involved in the conflict," the new secretary general of the OSCE said.

The Arab TV channel Al Jazeera does not exclude that in 2012, the initiative in the Karabakh peace process will be taken by Washington. The TV channel's analysts suggest that another meeting of the presidents, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan, will take place on the initiative of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. All this suggests that the West, which has a vested interest in alternative energy supply routes to Europe, is well aware of the need to resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, which is the main stumbling block along the way. It is the unresolved status of this conflict that does not allow it to strengthen its geopolitical influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. And in a game where bets are more than high, the US and its allies are not going to sacrifice their interests for the sake of Armenia's aggressive policy.

It is possible that by putting "soft pressure" on Yerevan, the West is hinting that the political leadership of Armenia should take a constructive position on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict in exchange for favourable regional cooperation, especially as Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan did not hide at the Eastern Partnership summit in Warsaw that Yerevan is interested in participating in regional projects and considers it expedient to build energy routes through its territory.

Withdrawal from the occupied Azerbaijani lands in exchange for regional economic cooperation is gaining increasing importance for Armenia, taking into account that Azerbaijan has been elected a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.

A clear statement by the US ambassador to Armenia, John Heffern, can also be called a manifestation of the West's "soft pressure" on Yerevan. "We hope, and that's why we are working together in this direction, that the elections expected in Armenia in 2012 and 2013 will be the best of all the past elections and will fully comply with international standards. I hope that positive developments will continue ahead of the upcoming elections. The United States is ready to render all possible assistance in this way," the American diplomat said. According to some experts, in this regard Washington's position will depend on the further steps of the current Armenian authorities and on how they meet US geopolitical interests in the region. And Yerevan's appropriate steps in response to the proposals of the West in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict will act as a litmus test in this context, because, apparently, the West believes that it has made Armenia an offer that will be difficult to refuse.