Mediators note progress and new hurdles

Baku gives an ultimatum, threatens war

Yerevan warns that it could recognize NKR’s independence

by Tatul Hakobyan

Published: Friday November 27, 2009

Presidents Serge Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev in Munich. Armenian president’s press office.

Yerevan - When President Ilham Aliyev and other high-­ranking Azerbaijani officials announce that the primary theme of negotiations with Armenia is the return of territories under the supervision of Karabakh forces to Azerbaijan and the return of refugees, they are not being truthful.

Nor is it likely, as some officials in Armenia have claimed, that the only theme of the negotiations is the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Those who have carefully followed the details of the negotiation process and are familiar with the modified Madrid document, the document on the negotiating table, understand that Yerevan and Baku are not arguing about how to eliminate the consequences of the war - return of territories, return of refugees, international security guarantees, etc. - nor are they talking about the future status of Nagorno­-­Karabakh, i.e., the proposed referendum.

With regard to the status issue and the elimination of the consequences of the war, Yerevan and Baku are more or less on the same page. For the past five years now, since the Prague process gave birth to the document on the table (which is constantly being altered and modified), Yerevan and Baku have not been able to come to an agreement on three specific issues. It is exactly for this reason that the sides reiterate that the modified Madrid document is acceptable as a base for negotiations; the devil is in the details, they add.

The devil in the details

The three details about which the sides have been arguing for the past five years are: whether and how the return of Kelbajar will be linked to the recognition of the status of Karabakh; the status of the Lachin corridor; and the terms for the return of the rest of Lachin.

When the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group made note of "progress" in their statement following the four-hour meeting between Mr. Sargsyan and Mr. Aliyev in Munich on November 22, it must be understood that there has been progress on one of the three contentious issues.

"During this meeting, the sixth such meeting this year, the two presidents engaged in a detailed and in-depth discussion of the most important unresolved points in the co-chairs' proposals. The talks, which lasted almost four hours, were constructive. In some areas, progress was made. At the same time, some issues still remain open," the joint statement read.

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassadors Yury Merzlyakov of Russia, Bernard Fassier of France, and Robert Bradtke of the United States, made some optimistic comments for the press. Mr. Fassier said, "Some important progress has been reached; at the same time we have identified some difficulties." Mr. Fassier declined to publicize the details, saying that the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan should do that.

An ultimatum

However, Yerevan and Baku, instead of providing details, are making statements that will appeal to their societies. On the eve of the Munich talks, Mr. Aliyev once again threatened to resort to war.

"Azerbaijan is spending billions on buying new weapons, hardware, strengthening its position on the line of contact. We have the full right to liberate our land by military means," he said.

Following the Sargsyan-Aliev meeting, while talking to reporters, the co-chairs responded, "war is not an option."

One day after the Munich meeting, the Armenian president's press secretary announced that "Armenia can recognize the independence of Nagorno Karabakh," if Azerbaijan resorts to military operations.

"Azerbaijan will never agree to the independence of Karabakh," Mr. Aliyev said before leaving for Munich.

The negotiations that took place between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan were not smooth and simple, but progress was made around certain issues, Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said.

"The sides succeeded in preserving positive tendencies," over the course of eight meetings during the past year and a half, he said.

Public reactions

Following the Munich talks, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation's (ARF) organization in Artsakh issued a statement: "The noticeable movement surrounding the Madrid Principles bear witness that there is mounting pressure on the Armenian side regarding the issue of Artsakh. However no pressure or threat of war can force Armenians to retreat from national interests. The honorable victory that was achieved on the battlefield through pan-Armenian efforts is not a bargaining chip."

Armenia's opposition is critical of official Yerevan's Karabakh policy. Vahan Hovhanessian, one of the leaders of the ARF, during a press briefing said that everything is being done to extort some kind of concession from Armenia with the objective of facilitating the ratification of the Armenia-Turkey protocols in Turkey's parliament.

Heritage, another opposition party, which has on several occasions submitted legislative proposals in parliament to recognize the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, announced that Armenian authorities should have recognized NKR before they recognized Kosovo, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia; NKR should have been the precedent.

International analysts are inclined to believe that Mr. Aliyev's war-mongering is a message to the international community and Turkey that without progress in Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey has embarked upon a process of normalizing relations with Armenia. Others believe that Turkey will not ratify the protocols as long as there has been no change in the status quo in Karabakh.

Turkey and Russia

An impression is being created that movement in the Karabakh process is being imposed so that Turkey will be able to ratify the two Armenia-Turkey protocols in parliament. In other words, in order for the Turkish side to ratify the protocols and end the blockade of Armenia, Turkey and the international community expects Armenia to make concessions in Karabakh.