FORMAT REMAINS UNCHANGED

On 29 March, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinian held a meeting in Vienna thanks to the mediation and participation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. This was the first official meeting of leaders after a one-year break caused by perturbations in Armenia. The leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia first held a one-on-one conversation that lasted more than two hours. Then negotiations continued with the participation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and the ministers of foreign affairs. All participants noted that the meeting was constructive. The meeting was followed by a joint statement of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs on the Nagorno-Karabakh Settlement—Igor Popov (Russia), Stefan Visconti (France) and Andrew Schaefer (USA), which  stated that Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinian stressed the importance of taking steps for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, confirmed the existing communication mechanism and agreed on a number of humanitarian measures. Noting the previous meeting in Dushanbe, President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinian confirmed their readiness to strengthen the ceasefire. The countries also reached agreement on a number of humanitarian measures. Also, the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia ordered foreign ministers to meet with the co-chairs in the near future and agreed to continue the direct dialogue.

Responding to questions of the TASS news agency immediately after the meeting, President Ilham Aliyev stressed that he discussed with Mr. Pashinian the issues related to strengthening confidence-building measures, as the negotiation process should also be supported by humanitarian actions. "But I think that the important thing is that the format of the talks has remained unchanged. For many years, we have held the talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Secondly, the negotiation process is given a new incentive. This is also important. We highly appreciate the statement of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group made on March 9, which also underlined that the change in the negotiation format can only take place with the consent of the two parties. The Azerbaijani side, of course, did not agree to change the format. Therefore, in principle, we returned to the situation when it is necessary to continue substantive negotiations," President Aliyev said in his interview with TASS. He also stressed that the negotiation process should be result-oriented. For Azerbaijan, the issue of utmost importance is the de-occupation of its internationally recognised territories under international laws, the Helsinki Final Act and four resolutions of the UN Security Council, which required the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian military from the occupied territories.

The format of negotiations has become almost an obstacle for the resumption of the negotiation process. The new Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinian tried to change the format by introducing a representative of the puppet separatist regime of Nagorno-Karabakh. Indirectly, this would reset everything done over the last two decades thanks to the mediation efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group, and would stall the negotiation process. Neither OSCE or nor the European Union supported the confusing and unconvincing arguments of the Armenian Prime Minister. Apparently, Moscow also advised Armenian Foreign Minister Mnatsakanian not to insist on this proposal on the eve of the Vienna meeting, since the Armenian side would be responsible for the breakdown of the negotiations.

Nikol Pashinian however, continued mumbling that he was not authorised to speak and make decisions on behalf of Nagorno-Karabakh and that without their representatives there would still be no progress in a peaceful settlement. However, realising that it was dangerous to delay negotiations on a far-fetched pretext, he arrived to Vienna. As usual, Pashinian spoke confusingly and somewhat disappointedly: "I can’t say that there was a break in the negotiation process, or a revolution, or some super-event. But it is very important that the process has begun, which gives us a chance to talk about our agendas, ideas, and tasks. When I say that I perceive the meeting as a positive development, I do not mean that someone lost or won," Pashinian said at the meeting with the Austrian Armenian diaspora. After returning to Yerevan, Nikol Pashinian made a live broadcast on Facebook and noted that in Vienna he raised the question of interpreting certain provisions of the well-known Madrid principles, indirectly confirming the fact that he did not succeed in evading the negotiating platform developed through the OSCE Minsk Group.

Summarizing the assessments of the participants in the Vienna meeting, as well as the final statement of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, one can say that a new negotiation round on the peaceful settlement of the conflict was launched in Vienna; the strengthening of the cease-fire regime, the implementation of confidence-building measures and humanitarian actions will go along with substantive negotiations. The foreign ministers of the conflicting parties and the co-chairs of the Minsk Group in close contact should maintain an energetic pace of negotiations and conduct preparatory work for the next meeting of the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia.

International community highly praised the Armenian-Azerbaijani summit. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini noted that the efforts of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian in Vienna and their readiness to strengthen the truce inspires hope. Official statement of the EU diplomatic service reads: "The recommitment by the leaders to strengthening the ceasefire and to promoting an environment conducive to peace, as well as their stated readiness to take further steps toward result-oriented negotiations, is encouraging." UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also welcomed the first official meeting of the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Vienna on March 29. This is reported on the organisation's website. He supported the parties' desire to strengthen the ceasefire and address humanitarian issues, as well as to continue the dialogue for the peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Certainly, it is too early to assume that the path to peace is laid and it is up to diplomats and mediators to bring together positions and find mutually acceptable statements for the relevant peace agreement. Alas, it is not the case for the moment being. Although politicians and I, by virtue of my membership in the parliament, are supposed to be optimistic, the experience of previous negotiation rounds under the Minsk Group format gives rise for scepticism. Moreover, before and even during the Vienna meeting, a number of high-ranking members of the Pashinian government have made provocative and irresponsible statements.

It is enough to recall the head of the National Security Service, Vatsinian, who said in Nagorno-Karabakh that Armenians would not leave a single inch of the occupied lands and plan the construction in the occupied Fizuli region bordering with the Araz River a settlement for Armenian displaced persons. Armenian Defence Minister David Tonoyan went even further at the meeting with the Armenian community of New York saying that "the formula ‘territories for peace’ will no longer exist, and we will reformulate it as ‘new war – new territories; and there will be no concessions, but compromises are possible". According to the Voice of America, Mr. Tonoyan then continued to disclose his aggressive plans as follows: "We will emerge from the trench warfare situation, a permanent state of defence. We will increase the number of units that can take military action to the enemy’s territory."

This bellicose statement of a high-ranking Armenian official sounds bitterly ironic. After all, Armenia, which is experiencing a large shortage of demographic and financial resources, has no real potential to implement these plans. The loss of population, especially young men of draft age, is increasing. Armenia’s foreign debt has long reached the critical line of 60% of GDP. In the coming years, foreign borrowing will hardly be enough to pay off previous debts; they will not get into the economy and budget. Both Brussels and Washington, which Pashinian visited to get support for 'Armenian revolution' received a meagre financial assistance, as he was explained that that without advancing the Karabakh settlement and opening the borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey, Yerevan should not expect an increase in aid and large-scale direct investments.

However, one should not underestimate the dangerous adventurism of the new Armenian rulers. Even without sufficient resources for a long-lasting war, it is quite able to organise a dangerous provocation. It is impossible to impose on Azerbaijan a peace that would legalise, at least partially, the occupied territories in favour of Armenia. On the one hand, preservation of the present state of status quo indefinitely by Armenia becomes difficult, and on the other hand, enlarges the gap between economic and military parity in favour of Baku. Therefore, Armenian leaders may have a dangerous desire to blow up the situation believing that "a terrible end is better than an endless horror". That is why Azerbaijan has strengthened its military power and, in contrast to defiant Armenian politicians, demonstrates its potential not with loud statements, but with real purchase of state-of-the-art weapons and holding large-scale military exercises. In other words, peace negotiations, confidence-building measures and humanitarian actions are good, but it is better to keep the powder dry.