Home / National

Armenia takes issue with Bush administration’s rhetoric on Karabakh

Recently modified language prioritizes “territorial integrity”

by Emil Sanamyan

Published: Thursday October 16, 2008

U.S. vice president Dick Cheney with Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian of Armenia in Washington on October 10, 2008. Armenian government photo

Washington - In a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington on October 10, Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian raised concerns on behalf of Armenia over the recently modified rhetoric of U.S. officials on Nagorno-Karabakh, the prime minister's office reported.

It is "extremely dangerous" to emphasize the principle of territorial integrity at the expense of self-determination when it comes to Karabakh, Mr. Sarkisian told Mr. Cheney in what amounted to the first publicly reported criticism of the revised U.S. policy language by Armenia.

The prime minister was referring, in particular, to remarks delivered in Baku by Mr. Cheney that a Karabakh settlement "must proceed" from the principle of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and only then "take into account other principles." The remarks were apparently drafted by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, the U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, which mediates in the Karabakh negotiations.

"If territorial integrity is prioritized, the peace process - all of the work the mediators have done - becomes meaningless," Prime Minister Sarkisian told the Armenian Reporter on October 14. "And this also provokes [Azerbaijan] toward war."

According to Mr. Sarkisian, Mr. Cheney in response reiterated U.S. support for the peace process.

Evolution of the peace process

According to sources familiar with the details of the peace process, since 1999 its focus has been on ways that would formalize Karabakh's separation from Azerbaijan and reunification with Armenia.

But with Azerbaijan increasingly belligerent, the Karabakh talks in recent years have shifted toward a "postponed status" for Karabakh, with an increasingly vague definition of a mechanism for determination of this status.

Still, while the United States has always voiced support for the principle of territorial integrity with regard to former Soviet republics, including Azerbaijan, it has also mentioned the need to reconcile that principle with other principles.

For example in an August 6, 2007, interview with Russia's Vremya Novostei newspaper, Mr. Bryza noted, "There are three main principles that influence our talks [on Karabakh]: refusal to apply force, recognition of the territorial integrity of the states, and the right for self-determination.

"A compromise should be found among these principles," he said, and added, "I represent [the United States,] a country founded by separatists."

In the case of Georgia, a close U.S. ally, the United States has spoken openly in support of Tbilisi's claims on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But U.S. officials - up until recently - have been careful not to use language that could be deemed to be prejudging the outcome of the talks on Karabakh's status.

As Azerbaijan continues to lobby for international support for its claim on Karabakh, Azerbaijani officials have become increasingly wary about international developments.

In February, the Azerbaijani government called the U.S. recognition of Kosovo "illegal" and pulled its troops from the NATO peacekeeping mission there.

Azerbaijanis were outraged by the U.S. vote against the UN General Assembly resolution on Karabakh proposed by Azerbaijan last March. Mr. Bryza told Azerbaijani media that the decision to oppose the resolution was one he "agonized and lost sleep over."

Adding to Azerbaijan's worries is the pledge of presidential candidate Barack Obama to work toward a Karabakh settlement "based upon America's founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination."

The Russian-Georgian military clash in August has also made the threat of Azerbaijani attack in Karabakh - its biggest leverage in talks - less credible.

The latest upset came with the decision of Turkey's president to visit Armenia last month; a number of current and former Azerbaijani officials portrayed this move as a "betrayal" of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan's "endangerment" and permutations of U.S. rhetoric

President Ilham Aliyev rushed to Moscow to pledge his loyalty soon after the Georgia war and the visit of the president of Turkey to Armenia.

Intimidated by Russia's military operations in Georgia, Azerbaijani officials began to suggest that they may reroute their energy exports, particularly natural gas, via Russia.

It has been a longstanding U.S. goal to challenge Russia's dominance of gas supplies to Europe. Azerbaijan, along with Georgia, provides a key transit corridor for that effort.

"If Azerbaijan tilts to Russia there goes 15 years of U.S. energy diplomacy," a Western diplomat based in Baku told Britain's Daily Telegraph on September 2.

In response, the United States appears to have sought to encourage Azerbaijan, which, in the words of Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried, was "endangered" in the wake of the Russian-Georgian war.

The first signs that U.S. officials were reconsidering their Karabakh policy language came on August 19. In a State Department press conference, Mr. Bryza said, "the principle of territorial integrity occupies the highest priority when we begin the process of conflict resolution, separatist conflict resolution. It simply is the fact of international law."

But, he quickly added, "If the two sides decide that they can reach a compromise that incorporates other elements of international diplomatic practice or international law like self-determination of peoples, terrific.