Armenia inclined to stage-by-stage Karabakh settlement – OSCE ex-mediator
Ekho web site, Baku
2 Apr 05
The parties to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict should give up
categorical demands and statements and start the process of a
stage-by-stage settlement, which stands to yield better results in
the negotiations, Vladimir Kazimirov, Russian diplomat and former
co-chairman of the Minsk Group of the OSCE, has said in an interview
with the Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho. At the same time, Kazimirov
touched on the recent hearings in the Armenian parliament and said that
more people in Armenia start accepting the stage-by-stage option. He
also gave the newspaper an open letter to the OSCE chairman-in-office,
Dimitrij Rupel, in which he urges the OSCE to take more effective
steps towards mediation in the conflict. The following is the text of
N. Aliyev’s and R. Orucov’s report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho web
site on 2 April headlined “Vladimir Kazimirov: ‘Yerevan is talking
about a stage-by-stage plan'” and subheaded “The former Russian
co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group had an argument with deputies in
the Armenian parliament”. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
The Armenian parliament this week organized hearings on ways of
settling the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. They were supposed to result
in the elaboration of a consolidated approach of all the actions of the
National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia to the method of settling
the frozen conflict. As well as members of the Armenian government,
Vladimir Kazimirov, Russian diplomat and former co-chairman of the
OSCE Minsk Group, took part in these sessions.
Armenian hearings useful
[Journalist] What impressions did you get from these hearings?
[Kazimirov] It was important for the Armenians in the sense of
relations between the authorities and the opposition, as well as for
public opinion. Of course, no-one disclosed any particular secrets
there, yet public opinion got some degree of satisfaction with the
fact that no work is under way in secrecy from the people in the
interests of settling the conflict. So in this sense, the hearings
achieved their goal. However, part of the opposition avoided taking
part in them because they decided that this was some sort of show,
but some other representatives of the opposition did make speeches
and, incidentally, there were people among them who only criticized
the authorities for their unsatisfactory work on the settlement of
the conflict. But this was relatively constructive criticism and was
not aimed at undermining the foundations of the authorities’ position
on the settlement. I have the impression that this was useful anyway.
Armenia tends towards the stage-by-stage option
[Journalist] Were some new thoughts voiced at the hearings? Was some
possible compromise discussed?
[Kazimirov] Thoughts about the acceptability of the stage-by-stage
settlement were voiced more often than before. If in the previous
years we heard exclusively: “package deal, package deal”, this time
around, without a single mention of the package deal option at all,
many people expressed the general idea that if things keep going
as before, we will not be able to guarantee any more that combat
operations will not resume in the future. This fully coincides with
what I have been writing all the time, supporting the idea of the
stage-by-stage settlement. I have been openly telling this to the
Armenians for a long time. A package deal is a very difficult thing,
whereas a stage-by-state approach is a subtle matter.
[Journalist] Why?
[Kazimirov] Because even a small failure at any stage will immediately
thwart the whole process, and work will be suspended. Punctuality and
the fulfilment of obligations are required from both sides here. I
compare this process with the idea of spinning cog-wheels. If two
cog-wheels spin and two cogs fall out, that’s it, the mechanism
stops. It is impossible to fix it. That’s why the stage-by-stage
settlement is impossible without firm guarantees that all the issues
will be resolved exclusively by using peaceful means. Because judging
from a purely pragmatic point of view, even with some tinge of
cynicism – who will give up more convenient positions on the ground
in order to find himself embroiled in combat operations afterwards,
but already on less convenient positions. Still, despite the fact that
the stage-by-stage settlement is more advantageous to the Azerbaijani
side, one cannot avoid it.
[Journalist] There were reports that you criticized the Armenian side
at the hearings for its use of terminology. For example, for describing
the occupied territories as “liberated”. How did they react to this?
[Kazimirov] Variously. One of the esteemed deputies deliberately
started to make his return speech in Russian, and kept
trying to prove that presumably, these were actually liberated
territories. Unfortunately, I did not get the opportunity to reply
from the rostrum, so I had to talk to him in the corridor. I noted
that Armenians are settling in and outside Nagornyy Karabakh and asked
him whether he wanted to go back to the Middle Ages, for if he did,
then we should start rebuilding Gengiz-Khan’s empire and ancient
Rome. We should think about what is real and what is not. There is
no need to restore some imaginary borders, people have already been
evicted from there.
Armenia is a party to the conflict
[Journalist] Was anything said about the possibility of direct
negotiations between Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh? Or about
Karabakh’s involvement in the current negotiating process?
[Kazimirov] I heard these sorts of statements from [Nagornyy Karabakh
separatist President Arkadiy] Gukasyan, but he did not take part in
the hearings. He voiced the opinion that sooner or later Azerbaijan
will be forced to hold talks with Nagornyy Karabakh. Others too spoke
in this vein, but it is my point of view that all the parties to the
conflict should be involved in the talks. I spoke to the organizer of
the hearings MP [Armen] Rustamyan. He came up with the theory that
Armenia is not a party to the conflict, but only a guarantor of the
security of Nagornyy Karabakh.
I said that the purpose of my visit was not to take part in the
arguments about the “sign boards” behind which this or that party
to the conflict was hiding. I think that Armenia is a party to
the conflict. One can say that Armenia took part in all the combat
operations. I reminded them that our side has always urged Armenia not
to hide behind wordings, since as early as President Ter-Petrosyan’s
time. Especially as the Republic of Armenia is a signatory to the
cease-fire agreement.
Limits of possible concessions
[Journalist] Did you sense where the limits of possible concessions
by the Armenians side were?
[Kazimirov] [Armenian Foreign Minister] Vardan Oskanyan asked this
question. He said that he would not talk about possible concessions,
but could say that Armenia would not make any. They are not ready to
stop protecting ethnic Armenians in Nagornyy Karabakh and are not
ready to agree that Nagornyy Karabakh will remain an enclave under
the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan.
[Journalist] Hearings are scheduled for May in Moscow. What sort of
event is that?
[Kazimirov] It will be dedicated to the anniversary of signing
the cease-fire agreement. We have held these sorts of events twice
already. On 16-17 May, we will discuss in Moscow the origins of the
Karabakh problems and settlement issues. The hearings are held in the
form of analytical consultations, and are conducted by former Soviet
Foreign Minister Aleksandr Bessmertnykh, Association of Russian
Diplomats and World Peacekeeping Organization [as published]. At
the last event of this type, Azerbaijan was represented broadly –
Eldar Namazov [political analyst, the president of the public forum
For Azerbaijan and former presidential aide], Tofiq Zulfuqarov
[former foreign minister] and other well-known figures. Armenians
were less well represented, but they promised to behave this time
around. [Interview ends]
Open letter to OSCE chairman-in-office
In addition, Vladimir Kazimirov handed to Ekho the text of an open
letter to incumbent OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Slovenian Foreign Minister
Dimitrij Rupel.
“As I am visiting Yerevan on the very eve of your visits to Armenia
and Azerbaijan, I would like to voice my concern about the stagnation
in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict and a number of ideas that
aim at unblocking it.
1. The OSCE has been actively involved in this for 13 years now,
but both nations have not thus far felt any results, except for the
observance of the cease-fire since May 1994. Quite a few decisions
have been adopted both by the UN Security Council and under OSCE
sponsorship, but they largely remain on paper. Failure to implement
UN Security Council resolutions in a timely fashion and betting
on the strong-arm method of settling the conflict have created the
existing anomalies in the area, as well as the deformation of the
negotiating process and its stalling. One of the sides has blocked the
convention of the Minsk conference of the OSCE. Both the parties to
the conflict and the OSCE structures have travelled quite far from
the most comprehensive solution to Karabakh, which was adopted 10
years ago at the Budapest summit (with the personal participation of
the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan). This decision has never
been cancelled or reviewed, and it was the foundation for giving a
mandate to the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen.
It is widely known that they were asked to hold talks as soon
as possible between the parties to the conflict. Occasional
meetings between the foreign ministers and even more rare meetings
between the presidents of the two countries can hardly even be
called negotiations. Now consultations are seldom held to find
(again!) initial points of common interests. New pauses are drawing
near due to the elections. In short, the existing imitation of the
negotiating process, when it struggles to survive, is not consistent
either with the OSCE decision in Budapest or with the importance of
the settlement in Karabakh for both nations and for the entire region,
or with the expectations of millions of people suffering from this.
2. I think that the co-chairmen might as well not limit themselves
to “servicing” rare bilateral meetings – it is important to direct
the discussions towards the realistic goal of mutual compromises,
rejecting maximalist requests by the sides and arguments that
they have reached the limit of concessions – this is not right at
all. They might also propose that the sides (openly or implicitly)
recognize Nagornyy Karabakh and its status as the reason and the
main disputable problem of the conflict, which should be eliminated,
as should be eliminated its dire consequences.
3. The series of armed incidents that take place periodically along
the line of contact between the sides in Karabakh, and especially the
spin that is zealously put on them in propaganda campaigns to increase
tension create a strange impression. It is also strange because on
6 February 1995, the agreement on the regulation of incidents that
was officially signed at the initiative of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairmen came into effect. The OSCE is also keeping silent about
this, although this was the only agreement on its record that was
signed by all the parties.
4. There is an obvious systematic bellicose campaign and direct
threats of strong-arm revenge, which are regularly uttered by the
most high-level officials under the slogan “at any price”. However,
no-one has the courage to venture to tell this “price” to the people
in terms of the extent of new troubles, thousands of human lives, or
tens or hundreds of thousands of new internally displaced people. No
matter if they explain this by citing domestic political needs or
much as they might comfort themselves with the thought that this is
but rhetoric and unrealistic for now, the damage from this campaign
is obvious and diverse.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress