ALL NOISE AND NO SUBSTANCE

In all the 15 years of talks on Karabakh this may have been the quickest shift in Azerbaijan from apparently well-founded hope to painful disappointment. The statements made in Baku by Minsk Group co-chairmen Yuriy Merzlyakov and Bernard Fassier that the OSCE Minsk Group recognizes Nagornyy Karabakh as a constituent part of Azerbaijan and that the seven occupied districts should first be liberated before discussion can begin on issues directly concerning Nagornyy Karabakh, as was to be expected, was perceived as a long-awaited shift by the Minsk Group from "let's be friends" diplomacy to a clear-cut position. That is why Azerbaijan had reason to expect that the co-chairmen would set out a clear-cut settlement plan on behalf of their countries and that in the near future the liberation of seven districts and return of refugees would become a reality.

However, the co-chairmen then went to Armenia and made quite different statements. The Russian OSCE Minsk Group co-chairman, Yuriy Merzlyakov, told a press conference in Yerevan that Russia does not recognize Karabakh as an independent state, but that that does not mean that it recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan. Then he mused that the de jure status of Karabakh is not yet determined, adding that at the start of the negotiating process Nagornyy Karabakh was seen as an autonomous part of the Azerbaijani SSR. Merzlyakov also said that in time the Karabakh conflict grew from an internal state conflict to an international one and Karabakh turned from the subject of the conflict into its object. "Nagornyy Karabakh is not recognized as an independent state on the international level today. Our country has also not recognized the independence of Karabakh and recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. However, this does not mean that we recognize Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. Nagornyy Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan and before that part of the Russian Empire," the Russian diplomat was quoted as saying by the media.

Baku made it plain that they would find out the accuracy of the Armenian media reports on the remarks by the Russian Minsk Group co-chairman. "We don't know yet whether this statement is genuinely as reported by the press and media," Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov said. "We will find out the circumstances. If Merzlyakov did make the statement, then it completely contradicts the norms and principles of international law and the officially stated position of the Russian Federation; it contradicts the positions of the Minsk Group and the understanding of the functions of the mediators which should not be violated." The diplomat also stressed that he found it "difficult to believe that Mr Merzlyakov made such a statement. If this statement was made, then we will question the activity of Mr Merzlyakov and his responsibility for these remarks, as this is a violation of all the accepted norms and functions of a mediator. Besides, we consider this a most irresponsible provocation before Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's meeting with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan, scheduled in St Petersburg."

Russia's ambassador to Azerbaijan, Vasiliy Istratov, tried to save the day. "I can give assurances that the Russian co-chairman did not make these remarks. Russia's position on Azerbaijan's territorial integrity is well-known; it is set down in a number of documents, beginning with bilateral Russian-Azerbaijani documents. This clear-cut position remains unchanged."

To sum up, either Merzlyakov made a slip of the tongue, or all the journalists had a collective hallucination or the co-chairmen decided to say in all the capitals what people most wanted to hear from them.

The OSCE Minsk Group's French co-chairman, Bernard Fassier, pointed out that not only is Karabakh not recognized by the OSCE Minsk Group's member countries, it is not recognized by Armenia itself. "I think that this is a question of international law," Fassier said.

Meanwhile, the OSCE Minsk Group's US co-chairman, Matthew Bryza, denied media reports that he allegedly said that seven territories under the control of Karabakh forces would be returned and that Azerbaijani refugees would go back home. "We discussed the general principle of the return of territories, but did not talk about when these territories would be returned," the diplomat explained. He stressed that the fundamental principles were discussed during the talks and preferred not to go into detail.

By the time of the 9 June meeting between Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharyan during the informal CIS summit in St Petersburg, both sides had a collection of statements by the co-chairmen and denials of these statements made in the opposite capital. This in itself deprived the meeting of any chance of success from the outset. And this is what happened.

The two leaders first had a tete-a-tete meeting in the Konstantin Palace, then the talks were continued with the inclusion of the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers and the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen. There were no statements for the press from the presidents after the three hours of talks. Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told journalists that the sides had discussed "the main principles that will be the foundation for a lasting peace in the region". The talks will be continued.

However, Elmar Mammadyarov also described as unconstructive the statements by Armenian officials that the status of Nagornyy Karabakh must be decided first during the talks on a Karabakh conflict settlement. "If the Armenian side again starts to take as a basis its previous position that the status of Nagornyy Karabakh must be resolved first, this does not correspond at all to the sides' discussions in the negotiations, neither to the Prague process, nor to a phased settlement of the conflict," the minister said. Mammadyarov also drew attention to the fact that both the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides and the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen had said many times that the withdrawal of Armenian troops must come first. "Then a peace-keeping contingent must be based there, the territory (Nagornyy Karabakh) must be rehabilitated, infrastructure restored, Azerbaijani forced migrants must return to their places of permanent residence and only after this should the status of Nagornyy Karabakh be considered. If the Armenian side is again raising the issue of determining status first and then the resolution of other problems, this is an unconstructive position. This means annulling the entire negotiating process that has gone before," the Azerbaijani foreign minister said.

It is significant that against this backdrop both Azerbaijani and Armenian political scientists display a surprising unanimity: the mediators are dealing with anything but a real settlement. "The prevailing situation shows once more that the mediators, especially the Western ones, have quite a bad grasp of the real situation in the region and of the positions of official Yerevan and Baku," said Stepan Grigoryan, head of the Analytical Centre for Globalization and Regional Cooperation. 

"The visits of the Minsk Group co-chairmen have turned into a protocol ritual. Recently these visits have differed from the past in that far-reaching promises are made, opinions are voiced that the issue is practically decided, just one or two points remain outstanding. But I would not be so optimistic in my assessment of the results of their meetings, as we have to be realists," the head of the Association to Promote the Development of Civil Society in Azerbaijan, political scientist Fikrat Sadixov (Ekho newspaper), said.

Something else seems much more dangerous, however. The leaders of the Nagornyy Karabakh separatists periodically make very tough statements. After talks with the co-chairmen, the "president" of Nagornyy Karabakh, Arkadiy Gukasyan, reflected at great length that "Karabakh's patience does not justify hopes", that they could ask Armenia to leave the talks process, etc. Moreover, immediately after the co-chairmen had been talking about the withdrawal of troops, threatening statements could be heard from Karabakh. 

First the local "chairman of the parliamentary commission on foreign relations", Vagram Atanesyan, said that he personally thinks that the status of the "NKR" (these and subsequent inverted commas are ours - Ed) and the fate of the territories around the former Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region should be decided by the people of the "NKR", as only they have the authority to do this.

Then "deputy foreign minister" Masis Mailyan took up the mantle of newsmaker-in-chief. He decided not to beat about the bush and said right out that 15 per cent of the territory of the so-called "NKR" remains to this day under Azerbaijani occupation. "Official Baku often quotes the international recognition of the Azerbaijani Republic within 'its internationally recognized borders' which it has arbitrarily interpreted for its own benefit and this does not reflect the true situation," Masis Mailyan said. According to Karabakhi "diplomats" under international law the recognition of a state does not mean the automatic recognition of the borders that it declares to be its own. Mailyan continued, "It is obvious that our country cannot develop independently and ensure its military or food security in the enclave borders of the former Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region, which were illegitimate from the outset. When discussing territories and borders, we must constantly remind people that 15 per cent of the territory, on which the 'Nagornyy Karabakh Republic' was declared, remains to this day under Azerbaijani occupation." Mailyan went on to say that "the cease-fire between Azerbaijan and the 'NKR' is holding exclusively thanks to the system of a military-political balance of forces between the sides in which the territories liberated during the war that was forced upon us play a strategic function." Many analysts do not rule out the possibility that Yerevan is simply preparing the ground to hide behind its Karabakhi puppets; they will demonstratively refuse to withdraw troops or will resume military operations, demanding that the issue be resolved with them. 

It is in any case hard to believe that the Karabakh separatists make such tough statements just because of the peculiarities of their regional mindset.