Tweet
ICG RELEASES THE RECURRENT REPORT ON NAGORNO KARABAKH
armradio.am
14.11.2007 15:55
The International Crisis Group issued the recurrent report on Nagorno
Karabakh.
The report calls on Azerbaijan and Armenia should halt their dangerous
arms race and restrain their belligerent rhetoric and instead renew
efforts to find a negotiated settlement for the Nagorno-Karabakh
region.
Nagorno-Karabakh: Risking War, the latest report from the International
Crisis Group, examines the dangers of ignoring the conflict both for
the region and for the wider international community. Oil money has
given Azerbaijan new self-confidence and the means to upgrade its
armed forces.
Armenia has done surprisingly well economically and is increasing its
own military expenditures. With both countries now building military
capacity, neither believes it is time to compromise.
"The international community needs to take the threat of war
seriously," says Magdalena Frichova, Crisis Group Caucasus Project
Director. "The risk of armed conflict is growing, and the dangers of
complacency enormous."
"Armenians and Azerbaijanis went to war over the mountainous province
in the early 1990s, causing some 22,000 to 25,000 deaths and more than
one million refugees and displaced persons in both countries. Today,
most of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as considerable adjacent Azerbaijani
territory, is occupied by ethnic Armenian forces.
Hope for diplomatic progress has been consistently undermined by
the parties' lack of political will and insufficient international
resolve. Over the past few years, the leaderships of both countries
have turned their publics increasingly against compromise, while
boosting military expenditures. Both trends must be reversed.
The current negotiations - the Prague process, facilitated since
April 2004 by the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and led by France, Russia and the US -
can provide the framework for a negotiated settlement. Elections in
both Azerbaijan and Armenia will complicate the political environment
in 2008, however, so the sides should agree on a document of basic
principles, even one that specifies where disagreements remain,
before the polls. Such a result would secure what has been agreed
upon so far and maintain the process during the year.
The Minsk Group co-chair and the wider international community
should coordinate efforts to impress on both countries the need
for progress. The EU and the U.S. should make the resolution of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict a key element of relations with the
parties. The role of the EU special representative for the South
Caucasus (EUSR) should be strengthened and European Neighborhood
Policy (ENP) reviews and funding should be used to promote confidence
building, in addition to institution building and human rights,"
the report reads.
"The international community needs to pressure hard for peace," says
Sabine Freizer, Crisis Group's Europe Program Director. "Conditionality
should be used with financial aid instruments, and active diplomacy
should focus both sides on the costs of continued stalemate and
confrontation, which far outweigh those of an early compromise."
armradio.am
14.11.2007 15:55
The International Crisis Group issued the recurrent report on Nagorno
Karabakh.
The report calls on Azerbaijan and Armenia should halt their dangerous
arms race and restrain their belligerent rhetoric and instead renew
efforts to find a negotiated settlement for the Nagorno-Karabakh
region.
Nagorno-Karabakh: Risking War, the latest report from the International
Crisis Group, examines the dangers of ignoring the conflict both for
the region and for the wider international community. Oil money has
given Azerbaijan new self-confidence and the means to upgrade its
armed forces.
Armenia has done surprisingly well economically and is increasing its
own military expenditures. With both countries now building military
capacity, neither believes it is time to compromise.
"The international community needs to take the threat of war
seriously," says Magdalena Frichova, Crisis Group Caucasus Project
Director. "The risk of armed conflict is growing, and the dangers of
complacency enormous."
"Armenians and Azerbaijanis went to war over the mountainous province
in the early 1990s, causing some 22,000 to 25,000 deaths and more than
one million refugees and displaced persons in both countries. Today,
most of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as considerable adjacent Azerbaijani
territory, is occupied by ethnic Armenian forces.
Hope for diplomatic progress has been consistently undermined by
the parties' lack of political will and insufficient international
resolve. Over the past few years, the leaderships of both countries
have turned their publics increasingly against compromise, while
boosting military expenditures. Both trends must be reversed.
The current negotiations - the Prague process, facilitated since
April 2004 by the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and led by France, Russia and the US -
can provide the framework for a negotiated settlement. Elections in
both Azerbaijan and Armenia will complicate the political environment
in 2008, however, so the sides should agree on a document of basic
principles, even one that specifies where disagreements remain,
before the polls. Such a result would secure what has been agreed
upon so far and maintain the process during the year.
The Minsk Group co-chair and the wider international community
should coordinate efforts to impress on both countries the need
for progress. The EU and the U.S. should make the resolution of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict a key element of relations with the
parties. The role of the EU special representative for the South
Caucasus (EUSR) should be strengthened and European Neighborhood
Policy (ENP) reviews and funding should be used to promote confidence
building, in addition to institution building and human rights,"
the report reads.
"The international community needs to pressure hard for peace," says
Sabine Freizer, Crisis Group's Europe Program Director. "Conditionality
should be used with financial aid instruments, and active diplomacy
should focus both sides on the costs of continued stalemate and
confrontation, which far outweigh those of an early compromise."