Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Taleh Ziyadov: Nagorno-Karabakh peace process: Will it succe

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Taleh Ziyadov: Nagorno-Karabakh peace process: Will it succe

    Taleh Ziyadov: Nagorno-Karabakh peace process: Will it succeed?

    TDN
    Saturday, May 21, 2005

    OPINIONS


    Taleh ZIYADOV*

    The expectations are high since the presidents of Armenia and
    Azerbaijan, Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev, respectively, met on
    the sidelines of the Council of Europe summit in Warsaw on May 16.

    Shortly after the meeting of the presidents, the foreign minister
    of Azerbaijan, Elmar Mammadyarov, announced that Armenia is ready to
    return seven occupied areas surrounding the former Nagorno-Karabakh
    (NK) autonomous region. Armenian troops currently occupy NK.

    For almost a year, the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan
    have been engaged in a series of major talks in Strasburg and Prague,
    trying to find a common solution to one of the longest-standing
    conflicts in the former Soviet Union.

    The talks between the foreign ministers were held in strict secrecy,
    but the parties appeared to have come to some sort of initial
    agreement, which led Organization for Security and Cooperation in
    Europe's (OSCE) Minsk Group co-chairs from France, Russia and the
    United States to introduce their "new" peace proposal in London on
    April 15.

    Yuri Merzlyakov, Russian co-chair of the Minsk Group, announced that
    "the parties seem to have reached a point where a meeting of the
    presidents should give a new impetus to negotiations."

    Despite numerous attempts in the past by the Minsk Group and direct
    talks between the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the parties
    have not been able to soothe their differences. This time, however,
    the Minsk Group co-chairs were convinced that the parties were at a
    "sensitive juncture" and that is why the meeting between Aliyev and
    Kocharian was so important.

    Since the signing of a ceasefire agreement in 1994, Armenia and
    Azerbaijan have crossed many "sensitive junctures" they thought would
    lead them to a final agreement. And yet, they are still negotiating. Is
    it because the proposals by the Minsk Group did not fully satisfy
    one or the other party, or is it because they all are driving in the
    wrong direction?

    While analysts and diplomats have claimed the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
    is complex and difficult to resolve, the Minsk Group co-chairs have
    consistently called on both parties to make "painful compromises,"
    confusing the already puzzled populations of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

    The phrase "painful compromise" has a different resonance in the ears
    of Armenians and Azerbaijanis. For Armenians it may imply going back
    to the situation in the 1990s when the region had loose autonomy. For
    Azerbaijanis it may entail ceding a part of their territory. For both,
    the aforementioned compromises are nightmares.

    The nightmare for the international community, however, stems from the
    conceptual debate of the issue. It is a clash between the concepts of
    self-determination and territorial integrity that makes international
    organizations such as the United Nations, Council of Europe and OSCE
    reluctant to act more effectively on adopted resolutions.

    When the two concepts clash, international law gives preference to
    territorial integrity. But lack of enforcement mechanisms on the
    part of the international community and the vaguely defined and
    controversial term of self-determination make a solution for the
    conflict almost impossible.

    For more than a decade, Armenia and Azerbaijan have viewed the NK
    conflict from a perspective of where self-determination meant secession
    -- thus a breakup of the existing state. Indeed, secessionism has
    been one of the major obstacles to peace in the region.

    Professor of International Relations at Michigan State University
    Mohammed Ayoob argues that the term "self-determination" should be
    "de-linked from secession and should be defined in terms of empowering
    those segments of the population that have been denied access to
    political and economic power. In other words, self-determination
    should be perceived as synonymous with democratization (and its
    attendant power-sharing arrangements) rather than with the breakup
    of existing states."

    Dr. Ayoob's definition is even more relevant to the Caucasus region,
    which is a melting pot of hundreds of multi-ethnic and multi-religious
    societies. It is also true for Armenians and Azerbaijanis whose
    integration into larger European and international organizations
    is inevitable.

    If only the international community would have stood firmly behind its
    principles and the conflicting parties could have looked at the issues
    from a problem-solving perspective rather than a maximalist bargaining
    approach, the nightmares could have been avoided a long time ago.

    Today, the two states realize that the longer the conflict continues to
    sit unresolved, the more dangerous and problematic it may become. In
    particular, it threatens regional and global security by sustaining
    uncontrolled "grey zones." It hinders both states' regional integration
    and keeps Armenia out of regional energy projects. More importantly,
    the status quo does not preclude Azerbaijan from using force to
    restore its territorial integrity.

    Therefore, reaching an agreement to bring along the withdrawal
    of Armenian troops from occupied Azerbaijani lands and opening
    communication between the two states is vital to the entire NK
    peace process. It will allow for the beginning of dialogue between
    official Baku and the Armenian community of NK and the start of the
    reintegration process of the exiled Azerbaijani community.

    Furthermore, it will settle the issue of Internally Displaced Persons
    (IDP) for Azerbaijan, while Armenians can receive guarantees of a
    non-resumption of war.

    Indeed, the resolution of the NK conflict is complicated as is the
    resolution of all other ethnic and territorial conflicts around the
    world, but it is not impossible. With a little more attention from
    the international community and interested parties, the NK conflict
    is solvable.

    For Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the 21st century should not be a
    century of occupation, ethnic hatred and isolation, but a century of
    peace, reconciliation and integration.

    * Taleh Ziyadov is a graduate fellow at the Center for Eurasian,
    Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University's Edmund
    A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
Working...
X