WILL THE OUTCOME BE PEACEFUL?

The presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia held a trilateral meeting on 5 March to find a way to break the deadlock in the Karabakh conflict. It was the eighth meeting in this format in recent years. A joint statement was released after the completion of the talks, which read: "having discussed the practical implementation of the trilateral statement adopted in Astrakhan on 27 October 2010, the presidents have agreed to take, in addition to the measures set out in that statement, the following steps towards building trust:

1.To complete the exchange of prisoners of war in the nearest future.

2.To strive to resolve all disputes peacefully and investigate possible incidents along the ceasefire line with participation of the parties to the conflict under the aegis of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and with the assistance of the special representative of the incumbent OSCE chairman.

The presidents noted the importance of regular contact on regulation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and agreed to continue meeting in this format as a supplement to the work of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs."

The official part of the meeting was not particularly lengthy. Informal conversations between the presidents during their ski trip and working lunch turned out to be more important and useful.  In addition to the top level talks, the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also held individual meetings with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.

Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev found time to discuss not only the Karabakh issue, but also other problems in the bilateral format.  Because the Russian leader had recently met Serzh Sargsyan in St Petersburg, the conversation with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was longer.

The document adopted in Sochi can hardly be called overloaded with content.  But the exchange of opinions which took place during the meeting apparently inspired some optimism on the possibility of rapprochement between the parties to the conflict.  Statements made by high-level Armenian and Azerbaijani officials infer this.

The Novosti-Armenia news agency reports that Serzh Sargsyan said during a meeting with members of the Armenian diaspora in Riga on 10 March:  "Just one week ago, I would have said that I did not expect any results, any positive outcome on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.  But after the meeting in Sochi on 5 March, it can be said that there are some changes in the positions of the Azerbaijani side."

Positive comments were made in Baku too.  Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said at a news conference that constructive positions were voiced in the Sochi meeting, after which the parties will continue negotiations.  "On the recommendation of the presidents, a trilateral meeting of foreign ministers will take place soon.  The OSCE MG co-chairs will arrive in Baku on 15 March and then fly to Yerevan from here", said the Azerbaijani foreign minister.

This is an important statement because last year's results did not inspire optimism about a resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Although a joint statement by the heads of delegations of the OSCE MG co-chairing countries was adopted at the OSCE summit in Astana (and presidents Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev signed it too) there has been no general breakthrough in the talks.

Against the backdrop of increased military preparations and confrontational rhetoric, it seemed that a top level meeting was not to be expected any time soon. The Azerbaijani side announced unequivocally that meetings for meetings' sake and the imitation of a dialogue which did not lead to peaceful regulation made no sense, so Azerbaijan had no intention to continue with this.

Incidents resulting in deaths or injuries to military or civilians have become more frequent on the front line.  Authoritative foreign media, analytical centres and diplomats warned that, with a deadlock in the negotiations on Karabakh, the probability of a spontaneous resumption of hostilities would increase.  Russian leader Dmitriy Medvedev's initiative to hold the Armenia-Azerbaijan summit in Sochi was seen by many as a desire to avoid a negative scenario and neutralize military risk.

Armenian analysts and some of their Russian parrots in Russia drew the erroneous conclusion that the prevention of military operations implies strengthening the status quo or, in everyday language, an indefinite continuation of the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territory.

Sergey Minasyan, Deputy Director of the Caucasus Institute, described the Sochi statement as all but a "quasi-pact of non-aggression."  In his opinion, cited by the Regnum news agency, this was facilitated by both the coordinated position of the OSCE MG co-chair countries and the Russian leader's direct input.

But these are Armenian wishes rather than reality.  Novruz Mammadov, head of the foreign relations section of Azerbaijan's Presidential Administration, told Trend that "the statement cannot and does not contain any commitment by Azerbaijan to guarantee peace.  A non-military solution, in other words, a guarantee of peace, will only be possible after the complete liberation of our lands.  I think that this is the categorical position of Azerbaijan's president."

It is difficult to guarantee even a truce, let alone lasting peace, in the current situation.  No sooner was the ink dry on the Sochi statement, in which the parties expressed their intention to consolidate the cease-fire, than on 8 March, Fariz Badalov, a 9-year-old boy from the village of Orta was hit in the head by a bullet fired from the Azerbaijani village of Sixlar which is occupied by the Armenian Armed Forces; he died on the way to hospital. The retaliation came soon enough. On 10 March, an Armenian conscript, Artur Agababyan, was killed in a shootout on the front line. These sad facts demonstrate compellingly that interim statements without any actual progress in towards peaceful regulation and a start to the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied Azerbaijani territories cannot guarantee lasting peace and security.

The unwillingness of the Armenians to do this and the endless procrastination in implementing the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, force Azerbaijan to inject a practical dimension into exercising its right to defend itself using armed force.

Baku's military preparations have not gone unnoticed but, despite the Armenian calls to curb them, they have not brought any palpable reaction from the international community.  Moscow, Brussels and Washington continue their military cooperation with Azerbaijan on defence.  There is no shortage of weapons suppliers, including Armenia's allies Russia and Belarus.

Some mass media reported earlier that advanced S-300 air defence systems have already been delivered, and that maintenance personnel are about to complete training in Russia.  Information emerged from sources close to military circles that the assembly in Azerbaijan of Tigr advanced Russian armoured vehicles, the supply of 24 multi-role assault helicopters and other aspects of military-technical cooperation are under discussion.

Armenia's financial and economic situation precludes it from full-scale military competition with Azerbaijan.  Converted into US dollars, Armenia's GDP is only 80% of that in pre-crisis year 2008, even after some increase last year.  According to the CIS Interstate Statistical Committee, the inflation rate in Armenia in January 2011 was 2.8%, and this is the highest figure in the post-Soviet area.  Armenia is also 'leader' in the number of registered unemployed.  Armenia's negative trade balance exceeded $1.8 billion in 2010.  This is the second worst result in the CIS, after Belarus, but taking foreign trade into account, Armenia's figures are the worst.

Armenian analysts believe that Serzh Sargsyan's government has no way out.  There is no income for the budget.  The authorities are afraid of tackling the semi-criminal oligarchs who are the main support base for the current regime and undermining their monopolies.  The sacking of Moscow Mayor Yuriy Luzhkov has put an end to a scheme by which hundreds of corrupt millions were sent to Yerevan to be laundered for use in building upscale housing, shopping and office properties.  The arrest of ethnic Armenian criminal groups in the USA has cut the supply of funds stolen from US taxpayers to Armenia.  As punishment for the authorities' failure to oppose these activities and for their support for these criminal groups, Washington reduced assistance to Armenia.

The Sargsyan-Kocharyan clique is losing the trust of the wealthy Armenian diaspora.  It is symptomatic that 93-year-old US billionaire Kirk Kirkorian announced that he was closing his Lincy Foundation and donated the remaining $200 million to the University of California in Los Angeles.  To put the importance of this fact into perspective, in the 22 years of its operations, the fund supplied $1 billion in charitable assistance to Armenia.

The difficult social and economic situation resulted in a new wave of emigration from Armenia.  Last year, 60,000 people left the country and in 2011, 10,000 Armenians have been emigrating every month to find new lives away from their "selflessly loved" motherland.  If the pace of migration does not slow down, the Armenian generals will soon be left without cannon fodder.  All this strengthens the protests from a population tired of hopeless misery and criminal excesses by the ruling elite.  The onset of opposition rallies in Yerevan testifies to this.

The reliance on endless financial, political and military support from Russia is also gradually waning.  Moscow is not particularly keen to jeopardize its own interests and the benefits it could draw from Azerbaijan and the region in general just to satisfy excessive Armenian ambitions.  Especially as Armenia's unconstructive behaviour creates risks not only for mutually beneficial and successfully developing Azerbaijan-Russia relations, but also for Azerbaijan-Turkey relations.  The 10 March ratification by the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey of the Agreement on Strategic Partnership and Mutual Assistance between Azerbaijan and Turkey was a strong response to the forces which dream of a rift between Ankara and Turkey.

To summarize, imitating the talks, trying to inveigle Azerbaijan into repeated discussions on issues which have previously been agreed, showing readiness to compromise and then backtracking and perpetuating the status quo is hardly a productive tactic.  Azerbaijan is not winding down its emergency programme to increase its military potential, and it was allocated additional funds in last year's budget.  This is not done for show.  Liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories is on this year's agenda.  It will be good if the outcome is peaceful.