ISN, Switzerland
March 10 2006
Minsk Group fails in Nagorno-Karabakh talks
The co-chairs of the OSCE’s Minsk Group — France, Russia, and the
United States – have issued a statement after two days of meetings in
Washington D.C. on March 7 and 8 expressing their regret that the
Minsk process “has not moved forward in recent weeks” despite “ample
opportunity to do so.” There was no announcement of a date for
another high-level presidential summit between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. The tensions between Yerevan and Baku has been escalating
lately, with an increasingly testy exchange of words between the two
countries’ presidents, since they met in the Paris suburb of
Rambouillet in February but failed to reach agreement over the
disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and other issues.
By Julie A. Corwin for RFE/RL (10/3/06)
In their statement, the co-chairs called “upon the government of each
country to take steps with their publics to prepare them for peace
and not for war.” The co-chairs’ next meeting is scheduled for March
20 in Istanbul.
The Minsk group, which consists of 13 OSCE countries, has provided a
forum for negotiations to settle the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh
since 1992.
As part of that effort, the co-chairs of the group — France, Russia,
and the United States — held two days of meetings in Washington this
week to press for a new meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani
presidents.
In the runup to this week’s sessions, the U.S. co-chair expressed
optimism that progress could be made.
U.S. Ambassador Steven Mann said this year could bring a breakthrough
in the impasse over Nagorno-Karabakh because neither Armenia nor
Azerbaijan are holding an election in 2006.
A Window Of Opportunity, Closing
But some other observers were less hopeful.
Corey Welt, deputy director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at
the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies,
told RFE/RL that Ambassador Mann’s emphasis on achieving an agreement
this year stems “more from desperation than optimism.”
“He’s trying to emphasize that it’s important that an agreement be
reached this year because if not the fear is that the window of
opportunity will be closed because domestic politics will then take
over in both countries in the lead up to election periods in 2007 and
2008,” Welt said. “So what they’re trying to do is, in a sense, put
pressure on the parties almost to convince them that now is the time
to reach an agreement. If they do not, it is unlikely they will be
able to get their houses in order and they will be unlikely to really
be able to get full outside support.”
Welt suggests that it might be wiser to keep expectations from this
week’s meeting low.
“It’s a troubling road to take when you put that kind of pressure and
that [many] expectations on a process within one year. It’s going to
be a tough battle and if they don’t accomplish what they set out to
accomplish this year then there is a danger of a self-fulfilling
prophecy, making further efforts at reconciliation impossible.”
Political Will Needed For Settlement
The Minsk Group talks follow an exchange of heated words between
Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev. Aliyev said on March 1 that talks with Armenia were at a
“dead end” and called for freeing Nagorno-Karabakh “no matter what it
takes.” The next day, Kocharian declared that if Azerbaijan drops out
of further negotiations then Armenia will formally recognize
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Liz Fuller, RFE/RL Caucasus analyst, suggests that Aliyev’s words
were “nothing new” but said some of the realities on the ground may
have changed.
“There is also the question of whether the Azerbaijani Armed Forces
have improved over the past decade to the point that they could
defeat the Armenian army. Armenia’s Defense Minister Serge Sarkisyan
said that he considers Azerbaijani statements as being more in the
realm of pressure or blackmail than a real threat. And he made the
point that if you are going to launch a surprise attack on your
adversary then you don’t go round beforehand saying that we’re going
to do it.”
Fuller suggests that the failure of the Rambouillet talks to produce
an agreement represents a “minor setback,” not a “major disaster.”
She characterizes the Minsk process overall as a positive one, which
almost produced a peace agreement in 2001.
“The current progress dates back just about two years to when Elmar
Mammadyarov replaced Vilayet Guliev as Azerbaijani foreign minister
and the two foreign ministers began meeting regularly first in Prague
and then in other European capitals,” Fuller explained. “And it’s
primarily thanks to them with some input from the three co-chairmen
that they have gradually reached agreement on the [seven out of nine]
basic points that would form the sort of skeleton of a future formal
peace agreement.”
Given the political will, Fuller suggests, that it might still be
possible to reach agreement on the basic points of a peace settlement
this year.