Tweet
NEGOTIATING A BLACK HOLEARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN ARE TRYING TO END THE STALEMATE IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH, AND THE EU MUST HELP THEM
Alexandros Petersen
guardian.co.uk
Saturday June 7 2008
The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan are meeting in St Petersburg
to discuss the now two-decade-old conflict in the South Caucasus
over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. After a bitter war during the
breakup of the Soviet Union, Armenian forces occupied the mountainous
region within Azerbaijan with the intention of protecting ethnic
Armenians in the area.
The simmering stalemate pits Armenian Christians against Azerbaijani
Muslims, with several lives lost on either side every year. But why
should an obscure ethno-religious conflict concern us, and why is
today's meeting more significant than the numerous failed negotiation
attempts of the past 20 years?
Nagorno-Karabakh is a so-called "frozen conflict", meaning that
large-scale fighting has not occurred for years, but no progress has
been made towards any resolution of the always tense and often violent
situation. Armenian forces and their local militia allies control
seven "buffer" territories around the disputed region. Karabakh itself
claims to be an independent state, but could never survive without
Armenian protection and economic aid.
All eight areas are internationally recognised parts of Azerbaijan.
This highly militarised and uncertain status means that the conflict
zone serves as a haven for a number of transnational threats that
directly affect citizens of the European Union. Along with other
frozen conflicts in the region, Karabakh presents a governance black
hole that attracts arms, drug and human trafficking, money laundering
and organised crime. Chances are that the heroin on London's streets,
illegal weapons in the Paris banlieue, and the underage prostitutes
in Berlin either came through a conflict zone such as Karabakh,
or were trafficked by a network that uses the area to facilitate
its operations.
Should a transnational terrorist group such as al-Qaida ever get its
hands on former Soviet nuclear material, it is almost a given that a
territory such as Karabakh will be involved. The defence doctrines
of the United Kingdom and almost every other European state cite
ungoverned spaces as a primary security threat. While Nato forces
battle in Afghanistan to stave off transnational threats, the EU
should work to mitigate similar threats closer to home.
The high-level meeting on Saturday in St Petersburg presents an
opportunity to do just that. The talks are noteworthy because it
will be the first time that Armenia's new president, Serzh Sargsyan,
will meet his Azerbaijani counterpart to discuss the conflict. After
his election saw violence and martial law on the streets of Yerevan,
Armenia's capital, Sargsyan seems to be more open than his predecessor
to achieving peace in Karabakh. As a native of the region, he holds
authority to achieve change on what is a highly charged issue in the
Armenian public debate.
This change of leadership comes at the right time for Azerbaijan. With
a presidential election looming in October, the resolution of
Karabakh has shot to the top of the agenda. At the same time, the
oil-rich nation's defence budget has soared to eclipse Armenia's
entire national budget. The plight of almost 1 million displaced
Azerbaijanis from the conflict zone keeps constant pressure on the
government to bring an end to the conflict sooner rather than later.
France, a co-chair of the stalled negotiating framework for Karabakh,
should formulate an EU-guided road map to achieve peace, complemented
by European development and governance assistance for the conflict zone
as incentive. As the upcoming holder of the EU presidency, Paris is
particularly well-placed to put the conflict on the EU's agenda. But,
such an effort will require concerted support from the UK, Germany,
Italy and other EU heavyweights.
Europe cannot afford a Balkan-style full-scale war on its periphery. An
uncertain and dangerous status quo is also not an option. It behoves
Brussels and the influential capitals of the EU to learn their lessons
from Bosnia and Kosovo: ignoring conflicts in one's neighbourhood -
particularly in an age of increased transnational threats - does not
make them go away.
Alexandros Petersen
guardian.co.uk
Saturday June 7 2008
The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan are meeting in St Petersburg
to discuss the now two-decade-old conflict in the South Caucasus
over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. After a bitter war during the
breakup of the Soviet Union, Armenian forces occupied the mountainous
region within Azerbaijan with the intention of protecting ethnic
Armenians in the area.
The simmering stalemate pits Armenian Christians against Azerbaijani
Muslims, with several lives lost on either side every year. But why
should an obscure ethno-religious conflict concern us, and why is
today's meeting more significant than the numerous failed negotiation
attempts of the past 20 years?
Nagorno-Karabakh is a so-called "frozen conflict", meaning that
large-scale fighting has not occurred for years, but no progress has
been made towards any resolution of the always tense and often violent
situation. Armenian forces and their local militia allies control
seven "buffer" territories around the disputed region. Karabakh itself
claims to be an independent state, but could never survive without
Armenian protection and economic aid.
All eight areas are internationally recognised parts of Azerbaijan.
This highly militarised and uncertain status means that the conflict
zone serves as a haven for a number of transnational threats that
directly affect citizens of the European Union. Along with other
frozen conflicts in the region, Karabakh presents a governance black
hole that attracts arms, drug and human trafficking, money laundering
and organised crime. Chances are that the heroin on London's streets,
illegal weapons in the Paris banlieue, and the underage prostitutes
in Berlin either came through a conflict zone such as Karabakh,
or were trafficked by a network that uses the area to facilitate
its operations.
Should a transnational terrorist group such as al-Qaida ever get its
hands on former Soviet nuclear material, it is almost a given that a
territory such as Karabakh will be involved. The defence doctrines
of the United Kingdom and almost every other European state cite
ungoverned spaces as a primary security threat. While Nato forces
battle in Afghanistan to stave off transnational threats, the EU
should work to mitigate similar threats closer to home.
The high-level meeting on Saturday in St Petersburg presents an
opportunity to do just that. The talks are noteworthy because it
will be the first time that Armenia's new president, Serzh Sargsyan,
will meet his Azerbaijani counterpart to discuss the conflict. After
his election saw violence and martial law on the streets of Yerevan,
Armenia's capital, Sargsyan seems to be more open than his predecessor
to achieving peace in Karabakh. As a native of the region, he holds
authority to achieve change on what is a highly charged issue in the
Armenian public debate.
This change of leadership comes at the right time for Azerbaijan. With
a presidential election looming in October, the resolution of
Karabakh has shot to the top of the agenda. At the same time, the
oil-rich nation's defence budget has soared to eclipse Armenia's
entire national budget. The plight of almost 1 million displaced
Azerbaijanis from the conflict zone keeps constant pressure on the
government to bring an end to the conflict sooner rather than later.
France, a co-chair of the stalled negotiating framework for Karabakh,
should formulate an EU-guided road map to achieve peace, complemented
by European development and governance assistance for the conflict zone
as incentive. As the upcoming holder of the EU presidency, Paris is
particularly well-placed to put the conflict on the EU's agenda. But,
such an effort will require concerted support from the UK, Germany,
Italy and other EU heavyweights.
Europe cannot afford a Balkan-style full-scale war on its periphery. An
uncertain and dangerous status quo is also not an option. It behoves
Brussels and the influential capitals of the EU to learn their lessons
from Bosnia and Kosovo: ignoring conflicts in one's neighbourhood -
particularly in an age of increased transnational threats - does not
make them go away.