FRAGILE SUPERIORITY

The foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed to meet in April 2007 and in late May to pave the way for negotiations by the presidents of the two countries. Elmar Mammadyarov and Vardan Oskanyan reached this agreement in Geneva on 14 March. 

In their joint statement, the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group said that the ministers had held sincere and constructive talks on the issues raised by the sides after the presidents' meeting in Minsk on 29 November 2006. "During the meeting the foreign ministers presented to each other their substantiated positions on issues that concern them. This will help the sides to continue the negotiations on the main principles of the Karabakh settlement that have been proposed by the co-chairmen and still remain the core of the negotiations."

Thus, in their meeting Mammadyarov and Oskanyan were actually discussing a document based upon the principles of the settlement prepared by the Minsk Group co-chairmen. Russian co-chair Merzlyakov said that these basic principles mean the solution of two main issues - the withdrawal of Armenian troops from districts around Karabakh and an interim status for the unrecognized republic until a referendum on its status is conducted. "We are working on an interim status that would preserve the situation as it actually is and at the same time make it possible for Nagornyy Karabakh to have contacts with international organizations where no legal standing is required," Merzlyakov said.

Meanwhile, there are serious disagreements between Yerevan and Khankandi over the Karabakh problem. At a news conference on the results of a meeting with French co-chairman Bernard Fassier, the president of the unrecognized republic, Arkadiy Gukasyan, said that "there is a problem because we are not a party to the negotiations and thus do not have the opportunity to grasp all the subtleties of the negotiating process". At the same time, he said that there are both minor and serious disagreements between Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh over the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. "It is probably not right on my part to speak about these disagreements because that is our internal affair. But we still hope that we will manage to persuade Armenia on issues where our positions do not coincide," he said. 

To all appearances, the main disagreement between Yerevan and Khankandi is about the basic principles of the Karabakh settlement, particularly the withdrawal of Armenian troops. In fact, after the troops are withdrawn, the separatists will lose a so-called security zone. Their borders will narrow, whereas the determination of the status of Nagornyy Karabakh will be put off for an indefinite period of time. 

In addition, the world community intensifies its pressure on Yerevan as parliamentary and presidential elections approach. The West, in the form of the USA and, to some extent, the European Union, is showing its interest in a speedy settlement of the conflict. The South Caucasus is of interest to them as a transit corridor to Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, the region is important for the West from the point of view of alternative routes for fuel supplies and transport routes. And because Azerbaijan's geopolitical position makes it important for the West and the USA, the interests of the country cannot but be taken into account. It is worth noting that in its annual report on human rights, the US State Department described Nagornyy Karabkah and the territory under its control as occupied territory. However, official Yerevan tried to present this as a "misunderstanding". As soon as the report was made public, the Armenian foreign minister met the US charge d'affaires in Yerevan and voiced Armenia's disagreement with the wording. Oskanyan also voiced the hope that the mistake would be corrected in the next report.

In turn, the US embassy in Armenia made a statement to respond to Armenia's disagreement with the wording. The statement said that the US position on Nagornyy Karabakh has not changed: the USA supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and believes that the status of Nagornyy Karabakh should be decided through talks. "As a country that co-chairs the OSCE Minsk Group, we are working hard to reach an agreement on the basic principles of the conflict settlement," the embassy said in the statement. Actually, in its annual report, the US State Department described Nagornyy Karabakh as a territory occupied by Armenia, thus showing that for the USA the issue of Nagornyy Karabakh is the issue of Armenia's territorial claims on Azerbaijan. As is known, the peaceful settlement of the conflict is based on two principles - territorial integrity and a nation's right to self-determination. However, in its report, Washington mentioned just one principle - territorial integrity.

It is strange that Oskanyan described the wording of the report as a mistake. It is clear that there cannot be mistakes in the US State Department's reports on such important issues. In the 2005 report, the US State Department mentioned the determination of the status of Nagornyy Karabakh as a means of reaching a peaceful solution. Now they clearly said in the report that Karabakh is occupied by Armenia and that the USA views its return to Azerbaijan as a means to reach peace. In fact, that was a very serious change in US policy.

The head of the analytical centre for globalization and regional development, Stepan Grigoryan, said that any peace agreement on Nagornyy Karabakh would be distressing because the people in the two counties are totally unprepared for it. He said that issues such as the status of Nagornyy Karabakh and the Lachin corridor, to guarantee Karabakh's close and secure link with Armenia, should be decided not by the ministers, but by the presidents, to be precise, through nation-wide referendums and voting in the parliaments. He added that the EU and the USA did not understand very well the situation around the Karabakh conflict. "They think that all the global issues have already been settled, and wonder what else can hinder the persuasion of Armenia and Azerbaijan?" he said.

In his opinion, the West and the USA have actually given Robert Kocharyan carte blanche in the parliamentary election on condition that he signs a peace deal immediately after the election. "Some tendencies, particularly amendments to the Election Code which, in my view, are not very democratic but were suddenly approved by the Venice Commission, show that Kocharyan has been given certain advantages. I can say that our authorities will use this carte blanche, i.e. the election will be far from democratic, but they will not sign anything. They will not do this, not because they are bad or good, but because they have no reason to do it. Neither the Armenian authorities nor the Azerbaijani authorities will dare take a move that may put in question their future, i.e. they will not dare to make unpopular moves," Grigoryan said.

Of course, one can say in this situation that the negotiations on Nagornyy Karabakh have been set in favour of Azerbaijan. We should not forget how fragile this superiority is. It is clear that the USA has intensified its activity in the South Caucasus to achieve superiority in the struggle for spheres of influence. It is no secret that Washington has seized a big part of this sphere from Russia. As evidence, there is the US law supporting Georgia's and Ukraine's admission to NATO. A similar struggle is now going on for Azerbaijan and the country should seek from the USA and the West not just routine statements about strategic partnership, but real assistance for a peaceful settlement.