Tweet
NAGORNO-KARABAKH: MAKING THE CASE FOR PEACE IN THE LAST BATTLEFIELD OF EUROPE
by Hovhannes Nikoghosyan
http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2011-06-02-nagorno-karabakh-making-the-case-for-peace-in-the-last-battlefield-of-europe
Published: Thursday June 02, 2011
Armenian serviceman guarding the peace on the Line of Contact. Melik
Baghdasarian / Photolur
Yerevan - The disagreement on the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh
continues to occupy the security agenda for the region.
Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have numerously declared their principal
positions on the ongoing talks and their bottom-line expectations.
Thus, Azerbaijan, at least publicly, seeks to reintegrate
Nagorno-Karabakh as a "highest level" autonomy inside its sovereignty
(as unrealistic it is sounds for a non-democracy); while Armenia
remains the sole guarantor of peaceful and independent existence of
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, respecting their right to elect their
own political leadership.
Since the formal proclamation of independence - September 2, 1991
- nearly in parallel to Armenia and Azerbaijan - the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh have forged ahead "in the pursuit of happiness"
with regular elections of executive and legislative authorities,
adopted a Constitution in December 2006, and today possess most common
attributes of a sovereign statehood, except for formal recognition.
But prospects for a lasting settlement with Azerbaijan remain dim. In
all past discussions two key parts of conflict settlement have been
missing. (1) How a final resolution would exclude a resumption of
armed hostilities and policies of ethnic cleansing, and (2) What will
be the nature of "international guarantee" to seal a viable peace
in Nagorno-Karabakh?
Answers to these two key points are perhaps even more urgent than
public discussions about the future status of Karabakh.
Inevitably, the solution of whatever character, speaking in terms of
"realpolitik", should be a result of consensus between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, as well as among all the known international stakeholders
represented by the mediators. But this solution of whatever character
should be at maximum in line with the aspirations of the local
population, i.e. citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh de facto Republic.
Here is the Gordian knot - the solution should not compromise their
security, as well as that of Armenian and Azerbaijani refugees who
will return to their homes. When offered by Azerbaijan "a meaningful
or high-level autonomy inside Azerbaijan", Armenians usually point
to the experience of Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan -
now completely rid of its Armenian population and heritage.
Armenian officials also argue that Azerbaijan forfeited its right
to govern people it considered its citizens when it unleashed a war
against them.
Having shared this, with all the relevant and irrelevant statements
of the sides, including the outstanding bellicose rhetoric looming
over the peace talks, the second key issue has to do with real
international guarantees to secure whatever agreement reached
among the conflict parties. Of course, many international actors -
both states and organizations - claim they will spare no effort in
assisting peace accord implementation in the future. In reality we
have daily sniper shooting on the border.
It's hard to doubt that all the stakeholders clearly realize it now
that the situation at the Line of Contact, i.e. situation at the border
between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan is increasingly alarming and
challenging to any international effort. Only six ceasefire monitors,
dispatched by OSCE, with ambiguous mission and limited resources at
their disposal can hardly watch the peace at the last battlefield
of Europe.
If the international community and the OSCE Minsk Group "troika"
want meaningful momentum - they need to continue insisting on the
pull-back of snipers, conclusion of a non-use of force agreement among
all warring sides, and delegate a more sound mission, better equipped
personnel of ceasefire monitors to observe the regime of non-use
of force, subsequently creating a climate for confidence-building
measures to emerge. The existing environment only encourages those
who mastermind a new war.
These two key issues should occupy the minds of mediators in their
mission, if they are committed to encouraging peace and preventing war.
This is the priority for today: not to turn back to chaos.
by Hovhannes Nikoghosyan
http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2011-06-02-nagorno-karabakh-making-the-case-for-peace-in-the-last-battlefield-of-europe
Published: Thursday June 02, 2011
Armenian serviceman guarding the peace on the Line of Contact. Melik
Baghdasarian / Photolur
Yerevan - The disagreement on the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh
continues to occupy the security agenda for the region.
Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have numerously declared their principal
positions on the ongoing talks and their bottom-line expectations.
Thus, Azerbaijan, at least publicly, seeks to reintegrate
Nagorno-Karabakh as a "highest level" autonomy inside its sovereignty
(as unrealistic it is sounds for a non-democracy); while Armenia
remains the sole guarantor of peaceful and independent existence of
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, respecting their right to elect their
own political leadership.
Since the formal proclamation of independence - September 2, 1991
- nearly in parallel to Armenia and Azerbaijan - the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh have forged ahead "in the pursuit of happiness"
with regular elections of executive and legislative authorities,
adopted a Constitution in December 2006, and today possess most common
attributes of a sovereign statehood, except for formal recognition.
But prospects for a lasting settlement with Azerbaijan remain dim. In
all past discussions two key parts of conflict settlement have been
missing. (1) How a final resolution would exclude a resumption of
armed hostilities and policies of ethnic cleansing, and (2) What will
be the nature of "international guarantee" to seal a viable peace
in Nagorno-Karabakh?
Answers to these two key points are perhaps even more urgent than
public discussions about the future status of Karabakh.
Inevitably, the solution of whatever character, speaking in terms of
"realpolitik", should be a result of consensus between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, as well as among all the known international stakeholders
represented by the mediators. But this solution of whatever character
should be at maximum in line with the aspirations of the local
population, i.e. citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh de facto Republic.
Here is the Gordian knot - the solution should not compromise their
security, as well as that of Armenian and Azerbaijani refugees who
will return to their homes. When offered by Azerbaijan "a meaningful
or high-level autonomy inside Azerbaijan", Armenians usually point
to the experience of Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan -
now completely rid of its Armenian population and heritage.
Armenian officials also argue that Azerbaijan forfeited its right
to govern people it considered its citizens when it unleashed a war
against them.
Having shared this, with all the relevant and irrelevant statements
of the sides, including the outstanding bellicose rhetoric looming
over the peace talks, the second key issue has to do with real
international guarantees to secure whatever agreement reached
among the conflict parties. Of course, many international actors -
both states and organizations - claim they will spare no effort in
assisting peace accord implementation in the future. In reality we
have daily sniper shooting on the border.
It's hard to doubt that all the stakeholders clearly realize it now
that the situation at the Line of Contact, i.e. situation at the border
between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan is increasingly alarming and
challenging to any international effort. Only six ceasefire monitors,
dispatched by OSCE, with ambiguous mission and limited resources at
their disposal can hardly watch the peace at the last battlefield
of Europe.
If the international community and the OSCE Minsk Group "troika"
want meaningful momentum - they need to continue insisting on the
pull-back of snipers, conclusion of a non-use of force agreement among
all warring sides, and delegate a more sound mission, better equipped
personnel of ceasefire monitors to observe the regime of non-use
of force, subsequently creating a climate for confidence-building
measures to emerge. The existing environment only encourages those
who mastermind a new war.
These two key issues should occupy the minds of mediators in their
mission, if they are committed to encouraging peace and preventing war.
This is the priority for today: not to turn back to chaos.