US STATE SECRETARY CONCLUDES REGIONAL VISIT WITH WARNING AGAINST “DISASTROUS WAR” BETWEEN ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN
by Lilit Gevorgyan
Global Insight
June 7, 2012
US State Secretary Hillary Clinton’s shuttle diplomatic mission
to the three South Caucasus ended with an alarming warning of the
“disastrous consequences” of a potential Armenian-Azerbaijani war.
Overshadowed Agenda of Peace
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was greeted by news of deadly
clashes on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan on 4 June as
she landed in the Armenian capital Yerevan as part of her three-day
tour of the region. Her diplomatic trip was to deliver US foreign
policy priorities regarding the three South Caucasian republics and
to reiterate the region’s strategic importance, given its proximity to
Iran and Syria. Clinton’s trip was also a reminder of the shortcomings
in economic policies and democratic developments in the respective
countries in Washington’s opinion.
Clinton’s visit had a bad start. Her first stop in Armenia came with
news from the Armenian defence ministry that three of its soldiers
were killed and dozens, including several civilians, were hospitalised
after Armenian forces had repelled a group of Azerbaijani commandos
who had staged an incursion in the north-eastern Tavush region of
Armenia bordering Azerbaijan. The civilians were reportedly shot while
working in the farmlands near the border. Local media outlets showed
top Armenian military officials and international monitors visiting
Tavush region, but the Azerbaijan defence ministry denied that any
clashes had taken place.
The news broke as Clinton was preparing for a press conference together
with her Armenian counterpart Eduard Nalbandyan. Asked about the
border incident, Clinton stated, “while I had only just learned of
these incidents, I am very concerned about the danger of escalation
of tensions and the senseless deaths of young soldiers and innocent
civilians. The use of force will not resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, and therefore force must not be used… I assured the
president that I would make these points in Baku when I am there the
day after tomorrow.” The US, Russia and France lead the Minsk Group,
an Organisation for Security and Cooperation in European (OSCE) body
in charge of the peace process over the status of the mainly Armenian
Nagorno-Karabakh region, which declared its independence from Soviet
Azerbaijan over 20 years ago. The ensuing war between Azerbaijan and
Armenian forces led to 30,000 deaths. With OSCE mediation an armistice
was signed in 1994, but there are no international peacekeepers
deployed, which makes peace rather precarious. Concluding her remarks
on the NK Clinton stated, “the United States believes that a peace
settlement must be based upon Helsinki principles, the non-use of
force or the threat of force, territorial integrity, and the equal
rights and self-determination of peoples.” It is an important message
that reflects all basic principles of international law to be used
in finalising NK’s status. These are different from the traditional
Western emphasis on the principle on territorial integrity often
used in relation to Georgia’s problems with its breakaway entities
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Aside from the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, Clinton welcomed the progress
made during May’s parliamentary elections but urged Armenia to use the
opportunity extended by next year’s presidential vote to streamline
the democratic process. Improvement of the business environment was
another call, although these important issues slipped off the radar
due to the border tensions.
Strategic Partnership with Georgia
The traditionally friendly rhetoric in Georgian-US relations was
also reflected in Clinton’s message to Georgian president Mikhail
Saakashvili during her visit on 5 June. She reiterated the US support
for Georgia’s territorial integrity and called for Russian troops’
withdrawal from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, although these calls
are not likely to be heeded in Moscow. On a more interesting note,
Clinton urged the Georgian government to centre its attention on
conducting free and fair parliamentary elections in October and not be
concerned with the upcoming Kavkaz 2012 Russian-led military exercise
in the North Caucasus. Saakashvili had branded the military drill as a
provocation by Russia ahead of October’s vote to intimidate Georgian
voters and potentially start a new war. Clinton tried to quell these
concerns, adding that, “Yes, there will be military manoeuvres but
the really important events in the fall will occur inside Georgia and
the people of Georgia cast their votes… It is Georgia’s elections
and that will speak louder than any military exercise.”
Strong Message in Baku
Clinton was careful to spend as much time in Azerbaijan as she spent
in Armenia. Her trip came with reports from the Armenian defence
ministry that a second border incursion had taken place in roughly
the same area. Armenia stated that up to 20 Azeri military had tried
to attack the village of Voskepar in Armenia’s Tavush province, but
the counterattack left five of them dead. In a separate incident one
Armenian soldier was killed, this time on the Line of Contact between
Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan blamed Armenia for staging
an incursion and stated that four of its soldiers had been killed. As
expected, Clinton stated once again that onlya peaceful resolution
will be an acceptable way of solving this conflict and warned that
the escalation of violence will be very dangerous.
Azerbaijan’s failing human rights record was another issue on the
agenda. Prior to Clinton’s visit the Azeri authorities had released
a youth political activist, but the message from the US was that
Azerbaijan has to do far more than that. Human rights groups say
that there are dozens of political prisoners in Azerbaijan, including
prominent opposition parties figures and journalists. The question is
if the US has the determination to induce a significant improvement
in human rights in Azerbaijan. By now the Azerbaijani government
led by President Ilham Aliyev has learned that it is very rare for
the US to take action other than statements calling for improvement
of the political environment. The energy-rich country is gearing up
for a presidential election in 2013 which the incumbent is set to win
unchallenged. Aliyev inherited his office from his father in 2003 and
since then has removed the constitutional limits on presidential terms.
Outlook and Implications
Clinton’s message was not going to be uniform as all three countries
are at different levels of political and economic development. Armenia
and Georgia are more advanced in their Western integration, with both
countries currently in talks with the EU on a Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement and Association Agreement. Both have improved
their election processes, although they are still far from fully
meeting Western standards. Azerbaijan on the other hand appears to
have embarked on a political path similar to the largely authoritarian
regimes in Central Asia, with no genuine political opposition present
in the parliament or indeed in mainstream politics. Economically, all
three countries have different state of affairs, with again Armenia
and Georgia as non-energy states having less economic growth while
Azerbaijan, thanks to its energy sector, is enjoying much more robust
growth figures. In terms of the business environment and economic
policies there is a wide gap between all three of them with Georgia at
one end of the spectrum with its successful reforms while Azerbaijan
trails behind with widespread corruption and oligarchic structure of
the economy.
Security, and the potential for another war, remains deeply worrying,
especially considering that not the Line of Contact but the border
between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been violated. Armenia is part of
the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) led by Russia, while
Azerbaijan is not. Any serious and sustained attack on Armenia would
involve the CSTO as well. The question remains whether the military
rearmament of Azerbaijan which topped USD10 billion in the past five
years, five times more than Armenia’s, will actually be used to force
thede factoindependent region under Baku’s control. For a long time
there was an understanding that given the vested economic interests
of Azerbaijan, and particularly the ruling elite, a new war would
jeopardise their interests, but the continuing militaristic rhetoric
and frequent clashes on the border may make the situation unmanageable.