HOMEWORK FOR A FLUNKER

It is enough to recall the agenda of the OSCE Minsk Group to be convinced that the 44-day war in Daghlig Garabagh completely changed the political reality in the region. Regardless of intentions of various political circles in the region and outside it, all issues that had once been in the focus of the Minsk Group before the war are now the artefacts of the past. But even under these conditions, unfortunately, not everyone agrees with the current state of affairs. They still cherish the idea of bringing political reconciliation back to September 27, 2020. They propose to discuss the topics that have lost their relevance and under no circumstances will be revived.

The situation as it is

Azerbaijani authorities have repeatedly made these forces know that they were not willing to obey external instructions and will defend their own position based on the real state of affairs. One of the last such messages came from the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev in mid-April, when he said that Azerbaijan did not yet know what the Minsk Group would be doing. He added that he was expecting creative ideas from the group. The next day, the Minsk Group reacted to Mr. Aliyev’s statement by limiting themselves to general phrases, as if making it clear that they had heard the message of the Azerbaijani side.

The statement of the OSCE Minsk Group only contained obvious facts, providing a general assessment of the situation. At the same time, the statement showed the signs of previous approaches of the group to the settlement of the conflict, as well as the absence of a differentiated attitude towards the parties to the conflict. In particular, the group apparently puts an equality sign between the persons detained in the liberated territories after the signing of the November 10 trilateral statement and those detained before the end of the conflict. Co-chairs drew attention to the need to return “all prisoners of war and other detainees in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law”, regardless of whether they were detained during the military campaign or were captured as a result of sabotage after the war.

For Azerbaijan, in accordance with the same international law, all of them are saboteurs deployed in the rear of the Azerbaijani army to carry out terrorist operations against both military and civilians. They do not fall under the category of prisoners of war, but terrorists. And to be even more precise, the definition of ‘nationalist terrorists’ pursuing specific separatist goals can be safely applied to them. And it is a big question if international humanitarian law can be applied to these terrorists.

The same statement also mentions the "preservation and protection of religious and cultural heritage", which also causes confusion in Azerbaijan. Before the war, the OSCE Minsk Group did not particularly care about the state of monuments in the occupied Azerbaijani territories. Baku's repeated appeals to international humanitarian institutions had been completely ignored. The Minsk Group did not even attempt to force Armenia to abandon the destruction of Azerbaijani monuments and religious sites in the occupied lands.

And also because of such a silent agreement, not a single Muslim monument remained in the liberated territories. But the Armenian monuments hastily created by the invaders to confirm the alleged authenticity of their territorial claims are proposed to be protected. Apparently, the objective is to give the separatists a chance to "try their luck" again.

Armenian dreams

While Baku was analysing the essence of the statement made by the Minsk Group, which, by the way, also contained pragmatic appeals, the Armenian side preferred to make a number of hasty statements. In essence, these were appeals to the Minsk Group to demand Azerbaijan abandon its "destructive policy". It is unclear what Yerevan meant by "destructive" behaviour of Azerbaijan, but there clearly was an attempt to lay the blame on Azerbaijan. For example, the Armenian leadership turned a blind eye to the direct hints of the co-chairs urging to exchange all the data necessary for effective demining of regions, as well as to promote direct contacts and cooperation between communities, and other measures to build confidence between people. In both cases, Baku has been insisting on such proposals. And the Minsk Group actually confirmed that it fully agrees with the proposals of Azerbaijan.

But the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ara Ayvazyan believes that the final solution to the Garabagh conflict is possible only with the determination of the status of the region based on the principle of the right to self-determination.

But apparently the Armenian dreams cannot go beyond the post-war geopolitical realities dictated by the intention of all the main regional actors to finally close the page of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Daghlig Garabagh conflict.

Thus, the Minsk Group faced a dilemma. They need either follow Yerevan's lead and implement the old agenda in new conditions, or agree with post-conflict realities, proposing a more realistic agenda that meets the expectations of other regional players.

By the way, there was not even a hint of the status of the region in the latest statement of the Minsk Group. This can be considered an encouraging evidence that the group has perspectives for better future and does not want to look back.

A historic chance for rehabilitation

In the past, the Minsk Group has made many mistakes, which later had a very negative impact on its efficiency and reputation as a whole. It is not surprising that none of the significant issues discussed with this structure have materialised. If we assess the activities of the co-chairs on a five-point scale, rest assured it can get two points only. There are those who would give them even a lower mark but these are nuances that do not change the overall picture. Today the group has a real chance to correct its “bad” by successfully completing the homework assignment to save its face.

Back in February 2021, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko suggested that at the current stage the OSCE Minsk Group and its co-chairs "could be active in strengthening confidence-building measures between Armenians and Azerbaijanis." In his opinion, only "a dialogue with the civil society can contribute to the overall improvement of the situation in the region and create prerequisites for further steps on the political track."

By definition, the Minsk Group should proceed with its mandate given by the OSCE. And one of the important principles of the OSCE is the principle of respect for the sovereignty and inviolability of the borders of the member states. Inside the Minsk Group these include not only three co-chairing countries, but also other states, the overwhelming majority of which support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. It is suffice to recall that during the 44-day war the presidents of Russia and France repeatedly confirmed that military operations were taking place on the territory of Azerbaijan. Turkey, Belarus and Italy openly supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speaking at the last PACE session, openly said that “it is important to observe the laws adopted jointly. These laws should be applied in the event of a threat to peace. These laws should be applied when there is no respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. For example, in Garabagh.” Thus, she confirmed that it was the violation of Azerbaijan's sovereignty that led to a conflict in Garabagh.

Since any attempt to encourage irredentism and separatism can be qualified as a lack of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, then the use of the OSCE as a platform for such attempts is unacceptable. And since the signing implementation of the trilateral statement on November 10, 2020 triggered a series of processes aiming at establishing a lasting and long-term peace in the region, OSCE Minsk Group can become an institutional instrument for creating effective conditions for establishing such a peace in the region.

For example, there are great prospects for working with Yerevan and Baku in matters related to ensuring a peaceful life not only and not so much for the Azerbaijani and Armenian population of Garabagh, but for Armenians and Azerbaijanis in general. It is important that the dialogue, to which Baku has been tirelessly repeating for so many years, takes place in new realities. It is important to ensure that the processes aimed at bringing peace to the region to are implemented at a faster pace. Therefore, the provision of Azerbaijan with a map of minefields turns from a political issue to an important humanitarian step.

The Minsk Group insists on the resumption of the activities of the OSCE MG Special Representative. Meanwhile, life has shown that the mission of the special representative, who is only committed to "see nothing, hear nothing, not telling anyone", is not the most successful period in the activity of this organization. If we want to ensure efficiency, then it is probably better to start getting rid of old habits. Whether the Minsk Group will be able to fulfil this task, we will see in the future.