TERRITORIAL BARGAIN IS UNACCEPTABLE

Almost 15 years have passed from the moment when the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia went into a suspended state of "neither war, nor peace". Much has been written since about the damage, often irreparable, done to Azerbaijan as a result of the Armenian aggression and occupation of Nagornyy Karabakh and seven surrounding districts.

However, over the same period there have been many changes which can serve as grounds for real optimism of Azerbaijan. It would take long to list those aspects, but they can be expressed concisely in two main formulas: Azerbaijan has shifted the economic and military balance in its favour and has managed to change the attitude of the West which once was sceptical and biased on everything concerning the occupation of Karabakh. And this can be regarded as a major diplomatic success.

In the latest issue we already wrote that Baku had managed to change in a matter of just three to four years in its favour the position of one of the chief players in the world politics, the USA, by getting Washington to officially recognize Armenia's aggression against Azerbaijan and its occupation of Nagornyy Karabakh and seven surrounding districts. Now we can also state that European bodies unequivocally and without any "buts" acknowledge Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and recognize Karabakh as its territory which has been occupied.

Certainly, in addition to being the result of painstaking diplomatic efforts some "credit" for these foreign policy victories of Baku ought to be given to Armenians themselves and to the government in Yerevan. They failed to realize in time that the "political wind" is changing in the unfavorable direction and carried on with their policies. They had believed that it is all over and all that is left to do is to officially register the result.

The readers probably remember that the 10 February 2006 talks between presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharyan in Rambouillet were the first signs of weakening of Armenia`s position. To recap, the Armenian leader failed to give any solid arguments and used a banal excuse (which we will not describe for ethical reasons) to suddenly leave the table. He later refused to come back to the dialogue. We can presume that unlike mediators, who were rather surprised by "childish conduct", Ilham Aliyev himself did not find the behavior of his opposite number unusual.

But the chief aspect is that the dialogue between the presidents in Rambouillet stalled when it came to issues related to the stage-by-stage liberation of the districts surrounding Nagornyy Karabakh which have been occupied by Armenia and to staging a referendum in Karabakh on the future status of the enclave. This is that very "package solution" supported by Yerevan. But Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev opposed this. Baku has so far and continues to champion the stage-by-stage resolution of the problem: first Armenia returns without any pre-conditions occupied Azerbaijani territories; refugees return, and only then is the status of Nagornyy Karabakh discussed.

Thus the "window" (purportedly suitable for reaching agreement) as defined for the parties in the conflict by mediators in 2006, has in effect closed. Again there is talk of a stalemate, another dead end in the talks, as it was after the Lisbon summit, exactly 10 years before Rambouillet, when Heydar Aliyev for the first time managed to secure the passing of a concluding statement which recognized Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and the possibility of granting wider autonomy to Karabakh but only within Azerbaijan.

However, when comparing the situation with the principles of settlement in the mid-1990s it becomes clear how much the situation has changed in favor of Azerbaijan.

The public could only learn about the course of the negotiations process bit by bit and in very general terms. Periodically either co-chairs or one of the sides "fed" more specific information to journalists. There were two reasons for that: to sound out the public opinion if co-chairs had made new proposals aspects of which could stir the public, or to pursue propagandist objectives and influence domestic politics, for example in the run-up to elections. 

Since the deputy state secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs became the US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the number of such statements shot up. They started with the first interview given to the mass media by Matthew Bryza in the capacity of the co-chairmen. From there things went from bad to worse. But the most interesting fact is that these remarks not always reflected the essence of the matter. The sides often had to clarify the remarks by the deputy state secretary. The latest incident is very interesting: what Bryza said was not quite the same as what the State Department did. This happened after Matthew Bryza confirmed that the pro-Armenian changes to the US State Department, which initially described Nagornyy Karabakh as Azerbaijan's territory occupied by Armenia, were "true" and "justified". However, Washington reckoned that Bryza's words are just words and restored the report in its original version. 

But this is one aspect of the issue, which remains rather odd not only for Azerbaijan, but for Armenia as well. True, it is not quite clear for Baku why would a high-ranking official of the foreign policy body make blithely statements. And it hurts Armenia to realize that despite all the efforts of Yerevan diplomats and the Armenian lobby the USA dealt such a strong "blow to the back" at such an important moment for Armenia - in the run-up to the parliamentary elections. 

It must be especially noted in this connection that it were the Armenian authorities who effectively gave up on the active stage of the negotiations at this period, citing the domestic political factor. Azerbaijan displayed that it understands the situation. It turned out that both sides had strong reasons for doing this.

In essence, this gives rise to a question: if the negotiations are proceedings in the direction which benefits Armenia, they why would its officials seek to distance themselves from Karabakh settlement issues while preparing for elections, when they might use this as an extra bonus in their election campaigns. This is not logical…

But naturally the Armenian leadership could not keep completely quiet before its voters on this crucial "pan-Armenian issue". Ambitious statements were made about the negotiations being at a stage which makes Karabakh's independence only a matter of time. As for the liberation of the occupied territories around Karabakh, the talks were about only five of those districts, leaving aside Lacin and Kalbacar. Most important, Matthew Bryza tried to play along. He made this in that very ill-fated interview regarding the report of the State Department. The further action of the State Department itself demonstrated the worth of this interview.

Finally, the Azerbaijani president's ran out of patience when he saw the obvious exaggeration and Armenia's repeated attempts to bend the rules of the game. The well-known saying about the lie being a dream caught in the act is the best description of Ilham Aliyev's response to the remarks of Armenian officials.

The plain-spoken statement which Ilham Aliyev made at the opening of a refugee settlement in the village of Ramani has in effect put the full stop.

"The negotiations were to be held confidentially and we agreed and complied with the proposal of the Minsk Group on maintaining the confidentiality, which is the secrecy, as this was the general approach. But despite this recently various incorrect versions and proposals related to the course of negotiations have been aired. There are claims that the sides have reached agreement on the basis of some principles.

This information is completely false and wide of the mark. The source of these reports is known. As the domestic situation in Armenia deteriorates officials put forward incorrect versions in order to calm down their people or to achieve their goal at the forthcoming parliamentary election. They distort the issues discussed at the talks and seek to present this in a favorable light for themselves.

I have already spoken about this: if this is so, then why would Armenia call for suspending the negotiations on the eve of the parliamentary elections in the country? Why? If the course of the talks is beneficial for them, then for the sake of improving the domestic political situation the authorities would on the contrary be interested in speeding them up. That is, this call in itself is proof that the negotiations are proceeding within the framework of Azerbaijan's positions. This is our position. But considering that both the Minsk Group officials who dealing with the issue and Armenians are putting forward various theories, I would like to once again tell you the stance of Azerbaijan and also the principles on the basis of which the negotiations are conducted. I believe that it makes sense to make this statement right now, at the opening of this settlement.

Our demands are that all the occupied territories have to be freed unconditionally. True, at the previous stages of negotiations the proposals envisaged liberating five districts and delaying the freeing of Lacin and Kalbacar districts, making them subject to future talks. We never agreed to this as we will never allow the return of Lacin and Kalbacar to Azerbaijan being linked with any conditions. Hence an agreement has been reached at the current phase of the negotiations that the occupying forces will withdraw and seven districts will return to Azerbaijan. We certainly realize that this can only be implemented stage by stage, but this stage should not be dragged out for too long.  

We demand that following the signing of a peace agreement the seven districts be completely freed in the course of several years. After that Azerbaijanis who used to live in Nagornyy Karabakh must be returned to their native land. This is our principled stance. Our position on this issue has received significant support. Mediators tackling the issue and Armenians already accept this. I am not interested in what they are telling to their people, what lies they are making. I am disclosing to you the principal aspects of the negotiations exactly because the opposite side has breached the confidentiality. We had no affairs that were secret from our people, no plans which we were hiding from the people. I have stood by and will always stand by what I have said.

In a nutshell, on the one hand the seven districts have to be returned unconditionally, and on the other, Azerbaijanis must return to Nagornyy Karabakh, including in Susa. The future status of Nagornyy Karabakh may then be defined. How? Nagornyy Karabakh will not receive any status without our consent," Ilham Aliyev said.

The head of the Azerbaijani state also said that the military and political balance of forces completely favours Azerbaijan and this advantage will keep on increasing in line with the economic growth of Azerbaijan, the economy of which is seven times bigger than that of Armenia. The head of state again said that Azerbaijan is committed to peaceful methods of resolving the conflict, but again emphasized that the patience of the people is not limitless. "The policy which we are carrying out in several directions to tackle the issue, our diplomatic efforts, active position at bilateral negotiations, effective cooperation with international organizations, economic and military superiority and the build-up of our military potential to its highest level allow us to conduct a military operation on our territory at any moment, without committing an act of aggression against another country," the president said.

As always, the response of Armenia was, to put it mild, obscure. What is more, the Armenian Foreign Ministry did not even deny the fact that the talks are being held regarding the liberation of all seven districts surrounding Karabakh, and dubbed them "derivative".

As for Karabakh's status, the president himself provided a clear description of changes in this regard: "Considering that during the USSR Nagornyy Karabakh was an autonomous region, and that it had a status, it can now have a higher one now. We have stated that we are ready to give any kind of autonomy status which currently exists in the world and which will satisfy them, but as part of Azerbaijan. This is the foremost condition. We will not budge a single step from this stance. It is good to know that international organizations, and in particular the OSCE Minsk Group which directly deals with the issue, share our position." In this connection the president also pointed out the recent developments related to the State Department report. "Today we are waging a struggle against the Armenian lobby and this struggle has been successful so far. Recently we thwarted the efforts of the Armenian lobby and Azerbaijan's territorial integrity was confirmed once again and the occupation policy of Armenia against Azerbaijan has been condemned again. It was stated again that Armenia had occupied not only seven districts, but Nagornyy Karabakh as well. This is a big political victory for us because many important bodies and organizations directly dealing with the issue never used these expressions in the past years. In the first years one could even get the impression that some mysterious Armenian forces occupied Azerbaijani lands. After that our efforts led the international organizations to state in their documents that Armenia occupied Azerbaijani lands as a result of ethnic cleansing carried out against Azerbaijanis."

The truth has been completely restored today and it is shown that Armenia occupied Nagornyy Karabakh too. This is all necessary in terms of determining the framework of a possible agreement. That is, no accords or peace treaties are possible and will never materialize beyond these frameworks. This is the essence of Azerbaijan's unequivocal policy," Ilham Aliyev said 

It is clear today that Armenia is obviously on the losing side at the international stage as well. And all attempts to revert the international opinion to its former state regarding settlement of the Karabakh war elicit aversion for as Oscar Wilde put it, "a man can believe in the impossible, but he will never believe in the unbelievable"…