Tweet
A NEW APPROACH TO THE SOLUTION OF THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT
by Nasrin Suleymanli, JTW
Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 26 2012
As is known, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the
South Caucasus on June 4-6. Considerations regarding the results of
this visit, comments and forecasts are still continuing.
As expected, one of the main themes of this trip was the subject of
negotiations in the discussion of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Currently, the U.S. is the co-chair of the Minsk group which is
responsible for the solution of the conflict, and mediation and its
position in the field of conflict resolution is essential.
Despite twenty years of cease-fire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
the resolution through the mediation of the Minsk Group has not been
achieved yet. Thus, the official visit of the Secretary of State to
the region is expected to be interesting. Recent violations of the
cease-fire between Azerbaijan and Armenia and losses on both sides of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict once again demonstrated the importance
of attention to the separation.
Hillary Clinton's tour of the South Caucasus began with Armenia.
Either in Armenia or Azerbaijan, she stated that a military solution
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is unacceptable.
In Azerbaijan, Clinton gave an interesting statement. She said that
they have to find way to establish peace as soon as possible.
The Secretary of the State added that within the planned meeting with
two ministers in Paris, she will try to research new approaches. She
further added that there is no military solution to this conflict
and they will do everything to achieve a peace agreement. Clinton
finally mentioned that she will do everything for it personally.
On June 18, a meeting of the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and
Armenia will be held in Paris with the mediation of the Minsk Group
co-chairs. İt is expected that new approaches will be presented to
the parties of the conflict during the meeting.
This statement by Clinton appealed to the politicians and media
correspondents, and they tried to analyze it.
In particular, the Armenian media and politicians manifested more
extensive and active attitudes and stated that the "new approaches"
put forward many different versions. Chairman of the Public Chamber
of the Nagorno-Karabakh Foreign and Security Policy Mais Mailyan
hopes for the Armenian position in this statement.
In her opinion, the Madrid Principles for the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the non-realistic proposals were
discussed, and the U.S. leadership understood that the new approaches
will need to be demonstrated.
In fact, the question of the Madrid Principles will undoubtedly be
revived here.
The return of the occupied territories of Nagorno-Karabakh as well
as the territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic according
to the Madrid Principles with the participation of the U.S. in recent
years have been re-adopted in authoritative documents.
For example, on May 21-22 the final declaration of NATO heads of
state at the Chicago summit meaningfully supported the territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan and expressed the importance of the settlement
of ethnic conflict within the framework of the U.N. Charter, Helsinki
Final Act and international law.
İt is noted in the U.S. State Department's report on human rights
for 2011 that Armenian separatists with the help of Armenia still
continue to occupy Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding districts.
The official position of the U.S. in accordance with Clinton's approach
will probably confer a high status on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
in the context of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.
Such an approach is not in accord with the Armenian politicians,
thus, M. Mailyan declared that if this approach does not meet the
interests of Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenia and the legal Armenia, it
will not be accepted.
An article issued on Armenia's Panarmenian website stated that
Clinton's approach reflected the official position of the government
and stemmed from the interest in Azerbaijan's fuel reserves. It then
mentioned that the U.S. must be careful about the forthcoming U.S.
presidential elections in fall.
Author Naira Ayrumyan analyzed whether the essence of the Clinton
statement draws attention to the one by Russian Ambassador Vyaceheslav
Kovalenko.
The Russian ambassador indicated that for the prevention of bloodshed
on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border, we need to sign an agreement on
the resolution process of the conflict through a negotiation process
and an establishment of good ground.
The author analyzes that instead of signing such an agreement it is
possible to return a few of Azerbaijan's occupied districts, but the
Armenian politicians cannot accept it.
The Azerbaijani side has repeatedly said that if the framework
agreement for the settlement of the conflict is difficult to obtain,
a complete work on the development of a reconciliation agreement
may commence.
It has been taken into account that during the visit of Clinton to
the region, the Armenian-Turkish relations, Caspian Sea oil reserves
and safe transportation to the West were allocated as special matters,
thus, it is reasonable to believe that the new approach will be based
on cooperation between the parties. For now, it is difficult to speak
without a resolution process for the conflicts about reliable peace
and stability in the South Caucasus. At least the West and the U.S.
are interested in stability in the region for a simple reason:
transportation of Azerbaijani and Caspian basin resources to the West.
by Nasrin Suleymanli, JTW
Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 26 2012
As is known, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the
South Caucasus on June 4-6. Considerations regarding the results of
this visit, comments and forecasts are still continuing.
As expected, one of the main themes of this trip was the subject of
negotiations in the discussion of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Currently, the U.S. is the co-chair of the Minsk group which is
responsible for the solution of the conflict, and mediation and its
position in the field of conflict resolution is essential.
Despite twenty years of cease-fire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
the resolution through the mediation of the Minsk Group has not been
achieved yet. Thus, the official visit of the Secretary of State to
the region is expected to be interesting. Recent violations of the
cease-fire between Azerbaijan and Armenia and losses on both sides of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict once again demonstrated the importance
of attention to the separation.
Hillary Clinton's tour of the South Caucasus began with Armenia.
Either in Armenia or Azerbaijan, she stated that a military solution
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is unacceptable.
In Azerbaijan, Clinton gave an interesting statement. She said that
they have to find way to establish peace as soon as possible.
The Secretary of the State added that within the planned meeting with
two ministers in Paris, she will try to research new approaches. She
further added that there is no military solution to this conflict
and they will do everything to achieve a peace agreement. Clinton
finally mentioned that she will do everything for it personally.
On June 18, a meeting of the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and
Armenia will be held in Paris with the mediation of the Minsk Group
co-chairs. İt is expected that new approaches will be presented to
the parties of the conflict during the meeting.
This statement by Clinton appealed to the politicians and media
correspondents, and they tried to analyze it.
In particular, the Armenian media and politicians manifested more
extensive and active attitudes and stated that the "new approaches"
put forward many different versions. Chairman of the Public Chamber
of the Nagorno-Karabakh Foreign and Security Policy Mais Mailyan
hopes for the Armenian position in this statement.
In her opinion, the Madrid Principles for the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the non-realistic proposals were
discussed, and the U.S. leadership understood that the new approaches
will need to be demonstrated.
In fact, the question of the Madrid Principles will undoubtedly be
revived here.
The return of the occupied territories of Nagorno-Karabakh as well
as the territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic according
to the Madrid Principles with the participation of the U.S. in recent
years have been re-adopted in authoritative documents.
For example, on May 21-22 the final declaration of NATO heads of
state at the Chicago summit meaningfully supported the territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan and expressed the importance of the settlement
of ethnic conflict within the framework of the U.N. Charter, Helsinki
Final Act and international law.
İt is noted in the U.S. State Department's report on human rights
for 2011 that Armenian separatists with the help of Armenia still
continue to occupy Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding districts.
The official position of the U.S. in accordance with Clinton's approach
will probably confer a high status on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
in the context of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.
Such an approach is not in accord with the Armenian politicians,
thus, M. Mailyan declared that if this approach does not meet the
interests of Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenia and the legal Armenia, it
will not be accepted.
An article issued on Armenia's Panarmenian website stated that
Clinton's approach reflected the official position of the government
and stemmed from the interest in Azerbaijan's fuel reserves. It then
mentioned that the U.S. must be careful about the forthcoming U.S.
presidential elections in fall.
Author Naira Ayrumyan analyzed whether the essence of the Clinton
statement draws attention to the one by Russian Ambassador Vyaceheslav
Kovalenko.
The Russian ambassador indicated that for the prevention of bloodshed
on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border, we need to sign an agreement on
the resolution process of the conflict through a negotiation process
and an establishment of good ground.
The author analyzes that instead of signing such an agreement it is
possible to return a few of Azerbaijan's occupied districts, but the
Armenian politicians cannot accept it.
The Azerbaijani side has repeatedly said that if the framework
agreement for the settlement of the conflict is difficult to obtain,
a complete work on the development of a reconciliation agreement
may commence.
It has been taken into account that during the visit of Clinton to
the region, the Armenian-Turkish relations, Caspian Sea oil reserves
and safe transportation to the West were allocated as special matters,
thus, it is reasonable to believe that the new approach will be based
on cooperation between the parties. For now, it is difficult to speak
without a resolution process for the conflicts about reliable peace
and stability in the South Caucasus. At least the West and the U.S.
are interested in stability in the region for a simple reason:
transportation of Azerbaijani and Caspian basin resources to the West.