In Karabakh talks, promise of a referendum in return for land

Secret details of the negotiations emerge

by Tatul Hakobyan

Published: Friday August 21, 2009

Matthew Bryza, the U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, during a July 27 visit to Yerevan. Photolure

Related Articles

Sides have not accepted the mediators’ proposal for Karabakh, Armenia’s foreign minister says

President Serge Sargsian urged not to endorse “updated Madrid Document”

Presidents of United States, Russia, and France issue Karabakh statement

Mediators play down prospects of early Karabakh settlement

The first point is about the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, which, according to the Madrid Document, must be decided by a plebiscite. Legally, a plebiscite differs somewhat from a referendum. If a referendum is legally binding, a plebiscite isn't necessarily so. And in the updated Madrid Document, the term "expression of will" is used, which isn't a legal term, although it is qualified as "legally binding." Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have neither rejected nor accepted the Madrid and updated Madrid Documents.

Kelbajar linked to referendum

Over the years since the failed 2001 Key West talks, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been arguing around three basic issues. The first was when Kelbajar would be returned. The second was how the region of Lachin – beyond the narrow corridor around the Goris-Stepanakert Highway – would be dealt with. The third was the status of the Lachin corridor.

Following the 1994 ceasefire, during all negotiations, the Armenian side has agreed in principle to return five of the seven regions that adjoined the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region. Former President Robert Kocharian was also not against the return of Kelbajar – but only after a referendum determining the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The February 2006 talks in Rambouillet, hosted by French President Jacques Chirac, came to an impasse for this very reason.

Azerbaijan insists that Kelbajar must be returned within a specific and determined time frame – three, five, or 10 years. Armenia insisted that the return of that region should be linked to the carrying out of the referendum. In other words, Armenia wasn't opposed to returning Kelbajar quickly – even within a year – as long as the referendum took place first. It was apparent to everyone that carrying out a referendum in the future was added to the document as a face-saving measure for the sides, and a referendum would never take place; thus, Azerbaijan insisted on a definite timeframe instead of a definite order of events.

Lachin: the region and the corridor

The second dispute was over the portions of Lachin that were not part of the land corridor. Azerbaijan demanded the return of the region of Lachin, with the exception of the Lachin corridor. The region of Lachin covers an area of 1,835 square kilometers and Azerbaijan does not want to give that up. During the negotiations, the Armenian side was trying very hard to ensure that the corridor be as wide as possible, at least 30-40 km. In this way, what remained disputed was when the region, minus the corridor, would be returned and how wide the actual corridor would be.

The third and most fundamental problem, around which the Armenians and Azerbaijanis had been arguing from 2004 to 2007, had to do with the status of the Lachin corridor. Armenia insisted that the Lachin corridor would have the same status as Nagorno-Karabakh. Another point of contention was the status of the Lachin corridor in the interim period between the signing of an agreement and the referendum to determine Nagorno-Karabakh's final status.

Azerbaijan was opposed to the Lachin corridor having the same status as Nagorno-Karabakh. Baku proposed several alternatives to be able to use the corridor simultaneously with the Armenians. Baku proposed that it belong neither to the Armenians nor to the Azerbaijanis, but rather be placed under the protection of the OSCE, or perhaps be rented the corridor to the Armenians. In this way, Azerbaijan did not want to sign a document that could place its ownership of Lachin into question.

Unanswered questions

When Robert Kocharian became president in 1998, he refused to continue the negotiations as they had been conducted in the previous years by Yerevan, Baku, and Stepanakert.

Armenia's third president, Serge Sargsian, continued the negotiations and ensured continuity in the negotiation process. The co-chairs, Yerevan, and Baku accept that in the last several months, the negotiation process has seen progress. It was even said that after the July 17 meeting of the two presidents in Moscow, an announcement would be made about an agreement over the Basic Principles – which did not happen. If progress has been made, the question is this: have the disputes surrounding Kelbajar, the region of Lachin, and the Lachin corridor been resolved? If so, what mutual concessions have the side agreed to?

Is it possible that President Sargsian and Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian have been able to ensure that Kelbajar will not be returned until a referendum is held? Is it possible that Yerevan has been able to secure a favorable resolution to the issues of the Lachin region and the status of the Lachin corridor? That remains to be seen.

Editor's note: For background on the negotiations and an informative table, see Tatul Hakobyan's November 21, 2008, report, "Mediators play down prospects of early Karabakh settlement."