Tweet
KARABAKH: OSCE CATCHES REGION OFF GUARD
Robert Parsons
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL
EurasiaNet, NY
July 1 2006
In an interview with RFE/RL on June 22, the US official tasked with
mediating peace talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave indicated he
and fellow diplomats had done as much as they could to foster a peace
agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Matthew Bryza, who serves
together with French and Russian co-chairs to the OSCE Minsk Group,
disclosed details about the framework agreement on the table and said
it was time for the countries' leadership to summon the "political
will" necessary to achieve a resolution. Bryza may have hoped his
comments would push both sides toward breaking the deadlock. But the
two sides seem no closer to an agreement.
It wasn't what Matthew Bryza said that caught Yerevan and Baku off
balance.
The surprise was that the OSCE had gone public.
Principles at Stake
Bryza's comments revealed the outline of the core principles under
discussion. They also revealed the Minsk Group's deepening frustration
at the failure of the two sides to make concessions more than a decade
after negotiations began.
There may have been hope Bryza's statement and a Minsk Group statement
issued the same day would provoke a more open debate in Armenia and
Azerbaijan on the future of Nagorno-Karabakh.
If so, the OSCE mediators may have been disappointed by the initial
flurry of mutual recrimination and blame between the two sides --
including a bellicose statement from Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev, who said international efforts on the talks were "hopeless"
and raised the possibility of a military solution.
In a follow-up interview on June 28, RFE/RL asked Bryza if he was
surprised by Aliyev's statement.
"Those statements have been more commonplace than they ought to be,
and I'd stand by what I said last Thursday, on June 22, that talk about
recapturing Karabakh by force, or any use of force by any party, is
simply not helpful," Bryza said. "It's not necessary, because there
is a viable framework on the table that just requires a little bit
more political courage on both sides to forge a compromise. Though
I stand by what I said -- it's not helpful."
Not helpful -- and surely not even a viable option for Azerbaijan,
whose oil-based economic recovery is dependent on stability in
the region.
Meek Group No More
The Minsk Group, which in the past has played a quietly supportive
background role, has a blunt new message: It's time for all parties
to the dispute to take responsibility for finding a solution.
As mediators, Bryza says, the co-chairs feel they have done all that
they can do.
"What we're saying in the statement is that there is no more room
for diplomatic creativity to make this piece of metal shine a little
bit more brightly," Bryza said. "It's honed and you have to decide
whether you want it or not. The trade-offs that would have to be made
are so significant politically that it requires the head of state to
make the trade-off. So we're saying OK, it's yours now."
But is anyone listening? The ball may be in Baku and Yerevan's court,
but neither side appears interested in concession.
One of the main points of dispute is over the terms of a referendum
to determine the final status of the enclave.
Azerbaijan says the form of the referendum has yet to be decided.
But Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian stirred controversy this
week when he claimed Bryza said the status of the enclave would be
determined by its current population -- which overwhelmingly comprises
ethnic Armenians.
This is not a conclusion supported by the Minsk Group statement.
Tom de Waal, an English expert on the region, says many crucial
questions remain about a potential referendum.
"Is this going to be a referendum just of the current population
of Karabakh, which is 99 percent Armenian? Is it going to be a
referendum of the prewar population of Karabakh, which was 25
percent Azerbaijani? Or is this going to be a referendum for the
whole population of Azerbaijan?" De Waal asked. "So I think this idea
of a referendum was possibly good to begin with, but people are now
beginning to ask much more difficult questions about the details."
Road to Peace
The Minsk Group says its has adopted a slow-but-steady approach aimed
and building trust on the way to a lasting peace.
But none of this will be possible, they say, while the two sides
continue to present the issues in mutually exclusive black-and-white
terms rather than preparing their publics for the concessions inherent
in a peaceful settlement.
For now, however, de Waal says he sees very little robust discussion
of the issue.
"I don't really see much discussion at all when I travel to the
region," De Waal said. "I don't see anyone in public in Azerbaijan
saying the most important thing is to solve this thing peacefully even
if this means very painful compromise. And I don't see that on the
Armenian side, either. When they say they want agreement, what they
are really saying is that they want victory. And of course you don't
get complete victory in a peace process -- you get half a victory,
you get a compromise."
Official Ambition
The issue is also complicated by the fact that Karabakh officials
themselves are eager to play a greater role in the negotiations.
Speaking this week in Washington, the speaker of the Nagorno-Karabakh
parliament, Ashot Ghulian, said including enclave officials as a party
in the peace process would "restore the correct format of negotiations
and neutralize accusations of Armenia as an aggressor and [diminish]
the tendency in regional policy to isolate Armenia."
For all parties involved, time for a quick breakthrough is running
out. The window of opportunity in 2006 brought by the current pause
in electoral activity in Armenia and Azerbaijan is rapidly closing.
The next election-free year would come only in 2009.
Robert Parsons
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL
EurasiaNet, NY
July 1 2006
In an interview with RFE/RL on June 22, the US official tasked with
mediating peace talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave indicated he
and fellow diplomats had done as much as they could to foster a peace
agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Matthew Bryza, who serves
together with French and Russian co-chairs to the OSCE Minsk Group,
disclosed details about the framework agreement on the table and said
it was time for the countries' leadership to summon the "political
will" necessary to achieve a resolution. Bryza may have hoped his
comments would push both sides toward breaking the deadlock. But the
two sides seem no closer to an agreement.
It wasn't what Matthew Bryza said that caught Yerevan and Baku off
balance.
The surprise was that the OSCE had gone public.
Principles at Stake
Bryza's comments revealed the outline of the core principles under
discussion. They also revealed the Minsk Group's deepening frustration
at the failure of the two sides to make concessions more than a decade
after negotiations began.
There may have been hope Bryza's statement and a Minsk Group statement
issued the same day would provoke a more open debate in Armenia and
Azerbaijan on the future of Nagorno-Karabakh.
If so, the OSCE mediators may have been disappointed by the initial
flurry of mutual recrimination and blame between the two sides --
including a bellicose statement from Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev, who said international efforts on the talks were "hopeless"
and raised the possibility of a military solution.
In a follow-up interview on June 28, RFE/RL asked Bryza if he was
surprised by Aliyev's statement.
"Those statements have been more commonplace than they ought to be,
and I'd stand by what I said last Thursday, on June 22, that talk about
recapturing Karabakh by force, or any use of force by any party, is
simply not helpful," Bryza said. "It's not necessary, because there
is a viable framework on the table that just requires a little bit
more political courage on both sides to forge a compromise. Though
I stand by what I said -- it's not helpful."
Not helpful -- and surely not even a viable option for Azerbaijan,
whose oil-based economic recovery is dependent on stability in
the region.
Meek Group No More
The Minsk Group, which in the past has played a quietly supportive
background role, has a blunt new message: It's time for all parties
to the dispute to take responsibility for finding a solution.
As mediators, Bryza says, the co-chairs feel they have done all that
they can do.
"What we're saying in the statement is that there is no more room
for diplomatic creativity to make this piece of metal shine a little
bit more brightly," Bryza said. "It's honed and you have to decide
whether you want it or not. The trade-offs that would have to be made
are so significant politically that it requires the head of state to
make the trade-off. So we're saying OK, it's yours now."
But is anyone listening? The ball may be in Baku and Yerevan's court,
but neither side appears interested in concession.
One of the main points of dispute is over the terms of a referendum
to determine the final status of the enclave.
Azerbaijan says the form of the referendum has yet to be decided.
But Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian stirred controversy this
week when he claimed Bryza said the status of the enclave would be
determined by its current population -- which overwhelmingly comprises
ethnic Armenians.
This is not a conclusion supported by the Minsk Group statement.
Tom de Waal, an English expert on the region, says many crucial
questions remain about a potential referendum.
"Is this going to be a referendum just of the current population
of Karabakh, which is 99 percent Armenian? Is it going to be a
referendum of the prewar population of Karabakh, which was 25
percent Azerbaijani? Or is this going to be a referendum for the
whole population of Azerbaijan?" De Waal asked. "So I think this idea
of a referendum was possibly good to begin with, but people are now
beginning to ask much more difficult questions about the details."
Road to Peace
The Minsk Group says its has adopted a slow-but-steady approach aimed
and building trust on the way to a lasting peace.
But none of this will be possible, they say, while the two sides
continue to present the issues in mutually exclusive black-and-white
terms rather than preparing their publics for the concessions inherent
in a peaceful settlement.
For now, however, de Waal says he sees very little robust discussion
of the issue.
"I don't really see much discussion at all when I travel to the
region," De Waal said. "I don't see anyone in public in Azerbaijan
saying the most important thing is to solve this thing peacefully even
if this means very painful compromise. And I don't see that on the
Armenian side, either. When they say they want agreement, what they
are really saying is that they want victory. And of course you don't
get complete victory in a peace process -- you get half a victory,
you get a compromise."
Official Ambition
The issue is also complicated by the fact that Karabakh officials
themselves are eager to play a greater role in the negotiations.
Speaking this week in Washington, the speaker of the Nagorno-Karabakh
parliament, Ashot Ghulian, said including enclave officials as a party
in the peace process would "restore the correct format of negotiations
and neutralize accusations of Armenia as an aggressor and [diminish]
the tendency in regional policy to isolate Armenia."
For all parties involved, time for a quick breakthrough is running
out. The window of opportunity in 2006 brought by the current pause
in electoral activity in Armenia and Azerbaijan is rapidly closing.
The next election-free year would come only in 2009.