GRIM REALITY

The last few weeks have seen quite intensive efforts to find a way out of the impasse in the process towards a peaceful settlement to the Karabakh conflict. The Minsk Group co-chairmen visited the region for the second time since the beginning of the year, and are soon to have a meeting with US State Secretary Hillary Clinton. The second meeting this year between the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia was held in Moscow on 22 April. All this activity points towards tangible progress at the tripartite meeting of Presidents Aliyev, Sargsyan and Medvedev expected in early summer.

This is important for several reasons. Many local and foreign analysts believe that 2011 will be the last opportunity for serious progress towards a Karabakh settlement. Next year will see parliamentary and then presidential elections in Armenia. Presidential elections will also be held in 2012 in all three co-chairing countries of the Minsk Group, and summit mediators will have other things on their minds than the problems of Karabakh. In 2013 presidential elections are due to take place in Azerbaijan. Everyone is aware that progress must be made this year, because one cannot rely on constructiveness from the Armenian side or on attention from the broker countries.

Unless there is real progress at the talks, the military route to liberation of Azerbaijan's occupied territories could easily turn from hypothesis to reality. It is no secret that, in parallel with the development of its own economy, Baku, among other projects, is also strengthening its defensive capabilities, having allocated a record sum - over 3bn dollars - to this end. This is exceeds not only Armenia's total budget expenditure, but even the annual military budget of Ukraine, a large country with a developed military-industrial complex. Yerevan, overstraining its already meagre financial resources, has also added about ten per cent to its military expenditure. It is also symptomatic that just before the Minsk Group co-chairmen arrived in the region, Armenia again held provocative military exercises in the occupied territories. At the same time that President Ilham Aliyev was receiving the co-chairmen, Safar Abiyev, Azerbaijan's Defence Minister, responded to Armenia's front-line exercises, which involved the use of assault aircraft and helicopter gunships. Thus, on this occasion the OSCE's Minsk Group mediation proceeded to the rumble of military hardware.

We must thank God that so far it is just the rumble of tank and aircraft engines and not the explosions of bombs and shells. But there is a very fine line here, especially as artillery fire is exchanged on a daily basis, and hardly a week goes by without casualties on both sides. The verbal warnings of the great powers and international organizations about the need for restraint may come to nothing, and any military interference in the conflict by third parties is weighed against the potential risk to their own interests.

The broker countries, Russia first and foremost, are aware of the risks of fruitless talks. And they would prefer to see even a minimal indication of progress, for example an agreement on the basic principles of a settlement; in other words, to get the sides sufficiently close together to prevent the situation sliding towards military confrontation. A statement published on the results of the co-chairmen's recent visit to the region, which notes that the time has come for the sides to accept the Madrid principles and to turn to working directly on a framework peace agreement, is one indication.

One might get the impression that the 2+1 format, i.e. Armenia-Azerbaijan with Moscow mediating, has almost pushed the other two mediators - Washington and Paris - into the background. This is partly true. The presidents of the US, France and Russia outlined the general contours of a Karabakh settlement in their statements in L'Aquila and Muskoka. As for leading the sides to compromise, this mission was offered to Russia, as the country which is closest to the region, knows it better and has trust-based partnership relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

However, in order to achieve even minimum progress, pressure must be increased on the Armenians from all sides; and this has been happening of late.  In a report published by the Minsk Group's Field Assessment Mission with experts from the Department of the UN's Supreme Commissar for Refugees, the rough edges were smoothed a little and it refrained from wording which might antagonize either side. But there is no mistaking the facts and they could not be concealed behind the well-oiled diplomatic wording of the Minsk Group co-chairmen, however much they would have liked to do so. A resume of the report states that "…towns and villages which existed before the conflict have been abandoned and are almost totally in ruins". About 14,000 people have been settled in the occupied territories (primarily in Lachin and Kelbajar), allegedly from among Armenian refugees (this has not been confirmed by documents) from other districts and towns in Azerbaijan. Despite all Armenian efforts, this number has not increased recently. They do not have the demographic resources to settle in the occupied territories, nor are they in a position to rebuild the economy and infrastructure and create minimally acceptable living conditions. Therefore, the report points out that "the grim reality of the situation on these territories has strengthened the opinion of the co-chairmen that the status-quo is unacceptable, and prospects for settling the conflict can only be achieved by peace talks".

Baku makes no secret of the fact that the report published by the Field Assessment Mission will be used to trigger discussion at a session of the UN General Assembly if talks fail to make progress, and also when the liberation of the occupied territories becomes a practicality.

This is making Yerevan jittery. At a meeting with the Minsk Group co-chairmen on 11 April, Eduard Nalbandyan, Armenia's Foreign Minister, persistently tried to draw attention to Azerbaijan's supposed attempts to distort the essence of the Field Assessment Mission's report on the occupied territories and to use the document to try to justify its bellicose rhetoric and preparations. But this whimpering by the head of Armenia's foreign ministry failed to provoke a reaction.

The US State Department's annual global report on human rights also did nothing to improve the Armenians' mood. In the section describing the situation in Armenia, as distinct from previous years, it states clearly: "Ethnic Armenian separatists, with Armenia's support, continue to control a large part of the Nagornyy Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and seven adjacent Azerbaijani territories." The Americans did not confine themselves to verbal pressure. The US ambassador to Yerevan recently declared officially that Armenia's funding from the 'Millennium Challenge' programme had come to an end. And this was no small sum for a country which has driven itself into isolation. I will remind you that Yerevan had earlier already received about 180m dollars from this programme. The Dashnaks and other critics of Serzh Sargsyan's regime reproach the incumbent government for its diplomatic failures. But this is not just a consequence of Yerevan's bungled foreign policy; it is also the result of changing attitudes in the world towards the Armenians, their territorial ambitions and their destabilizing role in the region.

In France, the third country co-chairing the Minsk Group, the Senate's Constitutional Commission rejected a draft bill for the punishment of individuals who publicly challenge the 'Armenian genocide', stating that the bill runs counter to the constitution and freedom of thought and could lead to a breakdown in relations with Turkey if passed. Commentaries on this finding point out that, unlike the Jewish genocide, there is no international document or decision on the 'Armenian genocide' which is legally binding. It also pointed out that punishing individuals who challenge the alleged genocide runs counter to the principles of freedom of speech and thought in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Georgia's annulment of the 2006 agreement with Moscow, which allowed the transit of Russian military freight across its territory to the Gyumri base in Armenia, has also exacerbated Yerevan's military-political situation. This agreement virtually ceased to be effective in the summer of 2008.

I will conclude with yet another irritant in the search for a Karabakh settlement - the announcement of a proposed May opening of Khojaly airport in Nagornyy Karabakh. Following Baku's extremely negative response to these plans, the ICAO international aviation organization rejected the Armenian plan. Clearly, there can be no question of international transportation. Not a single country will permit itself to ignore Azerbaijan's objections.

The Armenians may at their own fear and risk organize demonstration flights from Yerevan to Khankandi. However, even here, Armenia will, firstly, be openly ignoring international law and ICAO recommendations. Secondly, in view of the short distance involved, such transportation will make significant losses. For comparison, this is precisely why there are no regular flights from Yerevan to Tbilisi.

As a consequence of the blockading of Naxcivan, the Azerbaijani government, in order to make flights affordable for its citizens, subsidizes 50 per cent of the cost of tickets. Armenia's meagre coffers are hardly in a position to take on extra freight in order to maintain the required frequency of flights from Yerevan to Khankandi. Without this the upkeep of the airport in Nagornyy Karabakh will become completely uneconomical and it will be forced to shut down. In light of all that has been said, it could be claimed that the airport is being rebuilt with the aim of achieving peace, or for military purposes in the event of a resumption of war. In the end, all the fuss and bother over this airport also shows that the hour of choice is nigh.