Tweet
KARABAKH TALKS GRIND TO A HALT - AGAIN
Rovshan Ismayilov
EurasiaNet, NY -
June 11 2007
It has become a familiar routine: the international community
launches into a figurative drum roll of anticipation ahead of a
meeting between the presidents of Azerbaijani and Armenia over the
future of Nagorno-Karabakh. Expectations continue to build over
the possibility of a breakthrough in stalemated negotiations. Then,
following the talks, there is nothing to celebrate.
On June 9, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his Armenian
counterpart Robert Kocharian met in St. Petersburg on the sidelines
of a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) summit; the pair met
first with their foreign ministers and the four chairmen of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Minsk Group,
which oversees the negotiations, and then tete-a-tete -- reportedly
for over three hours.
No statements about any breakthrough have been made, however.
At a press briefing following the meeting, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov stated only that the presidents had come across
details that require closer analysis, with participation by the OSCE
Minsk Group. Meanwhile, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
told reporters that the talks were "serious," while admitting that
it was "difficult to say" whether or not Kocharian and Aliyev would
meet again this year, according to a report broadcast on Armenian
public radio. The meeting was the two presidents' first encounter
since November 2006.
Some Azerbaijani experts suggest the negotiations are caught in a
fruitless cycle, with expectations continually dashed by geopolitical
realities. The 2008 presidential elections in both countries -- and the
recent May parliamentary elections in Armenia -- are not especially
conducive to a settlement, the experts suggest. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].
International mediators, these analysts contend, contributed to the
pattern of frustration by hyping the possibility of a settlement.
Optimism peaked during the weeks prior to Armenia's May
12 parliamentary elections after Matthew Bryza -- the US deputy
assistant secretary of state, as well as Minsk Group co-chairman --
indicated that the two sides appeared on the verge of breakthroughs
in several areas. Around the same time, Oskanian was quoted as saying
that "we have never been as close to a settlement." [For details,
see the Eurasia Insight archive].
That tone started to change during the run-up to the St. Petersburg
meeting, with various OSCE representatives sending mixed signals. For
example, OSCE Chairman-in-Office Miguel Angel Moratinos told a June 5
press conference in Baku that "[n]ever before have the parties been
so close to mutual consent," while Bryza stressed the next day that
"[n]othing is clear yet." Bryza attributed his earlier optimism to
"quality changes" in the negotiating process itself, adding that
"I am optimistic because I am a mediator and I work to regulate the
conflict," the Trend news agency reported.
Definitions of optimism, however, appear to vary: Bryza's French
colleague, Bernard Fassier, added that the Minsk Group co-chairs
will only be optimistic when the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign
ministers start work on a draft peace agreement.
Those not directly involved in the OSCE peace process seem to be
growing increasingly skeptical that a settlement can be reached in
the near future. "The co-chairs did not bring anything new [to the
CIS meeting] and all their statements are a [collective] bluff,"
commented Vafa Guluzade, a former foreign policy advisor to the late
Azerbaijani President Heidar Aliyev. "We are as far from peace now
as we were at the beginning of the process in 1994."
Ilgar Mammadov, a Baku-based independent political analyst, is
similarly downbeat. "The negotiation process and [any] peace agreement
have to answer the main question: Who will enjoy sovereignty over
Nagorno-Karabakh territory after a settlement? It is clear that any
decision that goes beyond the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is
unacceptable for Baku," commented Mammadov. "I cannot understand what
fuels so much optimism for the OSCE Minsk Group's co-chairs."
The chief sticking point in negotiations appears to be a mechanism for
determining Karabakh's future status. In 2006, Aliyev and Kocharian
reportedly agreed to a referendum in Karabakh that would determine
the territory's status. Since then, the referendum idea has stalled
amid discord over its scope and timing. It has now reached a point
where Azerbaijan's foreign minister, Mammadyarov, maintains that such
a vote is "unacceptable" to Baku.
Editor's Note: Rovshan Ismayilov is a freelance journalist in Baku.
Rovshan Ismayilov
EurasiaNet, NY -
June 11 2007
It has become a familiar routine: the international community
launches into a figurative drum roll of anticipation ahead of a
meeting between the presidents of Azerbaijani and Armenia over the
future of Nagorno-Karabakh. Expectations continue to build over
the possibility of a breakthrough in stalemated negotiations. Then,
following the talks, there is nothing to celebrate.
On June 9, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his Armenian
counterpart Robert Kocharian met in St. Petersburg on the sidelines
of a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) summit; the pair met
first with their foreign ministers and the four chairmen of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Minsk Group,
which oversees the negotiations, and then tete-a-tete -- reportedly
for over three hours.
No statements about any breakthrough have been made, however.
At a press briefing following the meeting, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov stated only that the presidents had come across
details that require closer analysis, with participation by the OSCE
Minsk Group. Meanwhile, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
told reporters that the talks were "serious," while admitting that
it was "difficult to say" whether or not Kocharian and Aliyev would
meet again this year, according to a report broadcast on Armenian
public radio. The meeting was the two presidents' first encounter
since November 2006.
Some Azerbaijani experts suggest the negotiations are caught in a
fruitless cycle, with expectations continually dashed by geopolitical
realities. The 2008 presidential elections in both countries -- and the
recent May parliamentary elections in Armenia -- are not especially
conducive to a settlement, the experts suggest. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].
International mediators, these analysts contend, contributed to the
pattern of frustration by hyping the possibility of a settlement.
Optimism peaked during the weeks prior to Armenia's May
12 parliamentary elections after Matthew Bryza -- the US deputy
assistant secretary of state, as well as Minsk Group co-chairman --
indicated that the two sides appeared on the verge of breakthroughs
in several areas. Around the same time, Oskanian was quoted as saying
that "we have never been as close to a settlement." [For details,
see the Eurasia Insight archive].
That tone started to change during the run-up to the St. Petersburg
meeting, with various OSCE representatives sending mixed signals. For
example, OSCE Chairman-in-Office Miguel Angel Moratinos told a June 5
press conference in Baku that "[n]ever before have the parties been
so close to mutual consent," while Bryza stressed the next day that
"[n]othing is clear yet." Bryza attributed his earlier optimism to
"quality changes" in the negotiating process itself, adding that
"I am optimistic because I am a mediator and I work to regulate the
conflict," the Trend news agency reported.
Definitions of optimism, however, appear to vary: Bryza's French
colleague, Bernard Fassier, added that the Minsk Group co-chairs
will only be optimistic when the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign
ministers start work on a draft peace agreement.
Those not directly involved in the OSCE peace process seem to be
growing increasingly skeptical that a settlement can be reached in
the near future. "The co-chairs did not bring anything new [to the
CIS meeting] and all their statements are a [collective] bluff,"
commented Vafa Guluzade, a former foreign policy advisor to the late
Azerbaijani President Heidar Aliyev. "We are as far from peace now
as we were at the beginning of the process in 1994."
Ilgar Mammadov, a Baku-based independent political analyst, is
similarly downbeat. "The negotiation process and [any] peace agreement
have to answer the main question: Who will enjoy sovereignty over
Nagorno-Karabakh territory after a settlement? It is clear that any
decision that goes beyond the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is
unacceptable for Baku," commented Mammadov. "I cannot understand what
fuels so much optimism for the OSCE Minsk Group's co-chairs."
The chief sticking point in negotiations appears to be a mechanism for
determining Karabakh's future status. In 2006, Aliyev and Kocharian
reportedly agreed to a referendum in Karabakh that would determine
the territory's status. Since then, the referendum idea has stalled
amid discord over its scope and timing. It has now reached a point
where Azerbaijan's foreign minister, Mammadyarov, maintains that such
a vote is "unacceptable" to Baku.
Editor's Note: Rovshan Ismayilov is a freelance journalist in Baku.