Tweet
Turan News Agency, Azerbaijan
June 19 2012
Peace in exchange for talks
As expected, mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group the Armenian and
Azerbaijani foreign ministers paid a significant part of the 18 June
Paris negotiations to security and compliance with the cease-fire.
The co-chairs once again expressed their deep concern over the recent
incidents on the contact line and called for respect for the
cease-fire, dated from 1994, as well as establish a confidence
building mechanism for investigation of the incidents. Of course,
other issues related to the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace settlement were
also discussed, but they lost their importance after the exchange of
military strikes on 4-6 June on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border that
have resulted in dozens of dead and wounded, sparking another wave of
hysteria.
As a whole, it has become characteristic over the past two years that
the mediators and the sides to conflict bring to the fore the problem
of compliance with the cease-fire, leaving behind the process of
finding a solution to the Karabakh conflict. In this context, the
mediation efforts of the Russian president are looked through very
clearly, who, receiving his belligerent colleagues after some time,
encourages them not to pass on the military path. Typically, these
meetings end with tripartite declarations on commitment to the peace
process.
As usual, the situation on the contact line heats up dramatically
before and even during the important state visits, or mediation
initiatives, as it was during the latest meeting between the
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, mediated by Russian President
Dmitriy Medvedev on 23 January this year, or the visit by Secretary of
State [Hillary] Clinton to the South Caucasus on 4-6 June. The first
report on Azerbaijani reconnaissance sortie with losses from both
sides hit the alarm on 4 June when the state secretary was in Yerevan.
Instead of discussing a US-initiated "peace settlement plan in
conformity with the Helsinki Final Act", Clinton had to pay more
attention to preserving the truce. "As I previously stated in Yerevan,
I am very concerned in this regard and do not want to even greater
intensity around the conflict, as this can cause adverse effects.
Bloodshed must be stopped and all must work to save peace," Clinton
said in Baku on 5 June.
After the cease-fire of May 1994 [between Azerbaijan and Armenia] the
history of the Karabakh conflict settlement is saturated with
interlaced processes of military tension and peace negotiations. But
on the whole, the military line has always been a blocking factor of
all the peace initiatives emanating from Europe, the USA and Russia,
in addition to other countries and organizations.
Distracting military manoeuvres around the Karabakh conflict is the
only salvation medium for the warring parties, who are not willing to
compromise, made public by Clinton during her visit to the region.
Attempts to somehow connect the two mutually exclusive international
principle - the right of nations to self-determination and the
integrity of borders, yet do not meet the enthusiasm among the
conflicting parties, or rather more of the Armenian side, which in a
maximalist way insists on the freedom of Nagornyy Karabakh from
Azerbaijan. Baku, for its part, is exploring different models of such
hybrid, like the Aland model (Finland-Sweden) or the Tyrol
(Italy-Germany).
Although the international mediators are criticizing the warring
countries and even threatening them with sanctions, they yet cannot
offer a specific plan and above all, a mechanism for resolving the
conflict. Such a situation could mean that the relevant international
mediators themselves are not ready for a peaceful outcome of the
Karabakh knot. This was evident from the mediating steps of the
Russian president, the visit of the secretary of state and the latest
statement of the OSCE Minsk Group in Paris. The current latent state
in the Karabakh settlement process will continue in the near future,
given the presidential elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2013,
and parliamentary and presidential elections in neighbouring Georgia,
to which, according to Clinton, the US will pay particular attention.
As the experience of the recent history of the Caucasus shows, such
landmark events usually push the peace process into the background,
yielding it to verbal military-patriotic abuses of candidates, and
separate armed clashes with pettiest victories and defeats.
[translated from Russian]
June 19 2012
Peace in exchange for talks
As expected, mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group the Armenian and
Azerbaijani foreign ministers paid a significant part of the 18 June
Paris negotiations to security and compliance with the cease-fire.
The co-chairs once again expressed their deep concern over the recent
incidents on the contact line and called for respect for the
cease-fire, dated from 1994, as well as establish a confidence
building mechanism for investigation of the incidents. Of course,
other issues related to the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace settlement were
also discussed, but they lost their importance after the exchange of
military strikes on 4-6 June on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border that
have resulted in dozens of dead and wounded, sparking another wave of
hysteria.
As a whole, it has become characteristic over the past two years that
the mediators and the sides to conflict bring to the fore the problem
of compliance with the cease-fire, leaving behind the process of
finding a solution to the Karabakh conflict. In this context, the
mediation efforts of the Russian president are looked through very
clearly, who, receiving his belligerent colleagues after some time,
encourages them not to pass on the military path. Typically, these
meetings end with tripartite declarations on commitment to the peace
process.
As usual, the situation on the contact line heats up dramatically
before and even during the important state visits, or mediation
initiatives, as it was during the latest meeting between the
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, mediated by Russian President
Dmitriy Medvedev on 23 January this year, or the visit by Secretary of
State [Hillary] Clinton to the South Caucasus on 4-6 June. The first
report on Azerbaijani reconnaissance sortie with losses from both
sides hit the alarm on 4 June when the state secretary was in Yerevan.
Instead of discussing a US-initiated "peace settlement plan in
conformity with the Helsinki Final Act", Clinton had to pay more
attention to preserving the truce. "As I previously stated in Yerevan,
I am very concerned in this regard and do not want to even greater
intensity around the conflict, as this can cause adverse effects.
Bloodshed must be stopped and all must work to save peace," Clinton
said in Baku on 5 June.
After the cease-fire of May 1994 [between Azerbaijan and Armenia] the
history of the Karabakh conflict settlement is saturated with
interlaced processes of military tension and peace negotiations. But
on the whole, the military line has always been a blocking factor of
all the peace initiatives emanating from Europe, the USA and Russia,
in addition to other countries and organizations.
Distracting military manoeuvres around the Karabakh conflict is the
only salvation medium for the warring parties, who are not willing to
compromise, made public by Clinton during her visit to the region.
Attempts to somehow connect the two mutually exclusive international
principle - the right of nations to self-determination and the
integrity of borders, yet do not meet the enthusiasm among the
conflicting parties, or rather more of the Armenian side, which in a
maximalist way insists on the freedom of Nagornyy Karabakh from
Azerbaijan. Baku, for its part, is exploring different models of such
hybrid, like the Aland model (Finland-Sweden) or the Tyrol
(Italy-Germany).
Although the international mediators are criticizing the warring
countries and even threatening them with sanctions, they yet cannot
offer a specific plan and above all, a mechanism for resolving the
conflict. Such a situation could mean that the relevant international
mediators themselves are not ready for a peaceful outcome of the
Karabakh knot. This was evident from the mediating steps of the
Russian president, the visit of the secretary of state and the latest
statement of the OSCE Minsk Group in Paris. The current latent state
in the Karabakh settlement process will continue in the near future,
given the presidential elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2013,
and parliamentary and presidential elections in neighbouring Georgia,
to which, according to Clinton, the US will pay particular attention.
As the experience of the recent history of the Caucasus shows, such
landmark events usually push the peace process into the background,
yielding it to verbal military-patriotic abuses of candidates, and
separate armed clashes with pettiest victories and defeats.
[translated from Russian]