Analysis: Armenia and Azerbaijan hold the OSCE to ransom

Both countries have used the veto procedure to block aspects of the work of the OSCE, despite widespread frustration and consternation in the international community

There is widespread frustration and consternation in the international community as a result of squabbles in the permanent council of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which has seen both Armenia and Azerbaijan exercising their veto power in order to block aspects of the work of the organisation. Although this is not the first time the two countries have engaged in this sort of brinkmanship diplomacy, political observers feel that the current disputes are more serious than usual.

The latest incidents started when Azerbaijan objected to the inclusion of mine clearance projects as part of the mandate of the OSCE Office in Yerevan. Its diplomats insisted that this was an activity related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and needed to be addressed within the framework of the Minsk Group. Azerbaijan subsequently vetoed the budget of the OSCE office in Yerevan. In what was seen as a tit-for tat action, Armenia subsequently threatened to veto the budget of a number of OSCE offices and missions.

The Austrian Foreign Minister, who currently holds the chairmanship of the OSCE, engaged with the two sides at various levels in order to try to resolve the impasse. Armenian Foreign Minister, Eduard Nalbandian was in Vienna on Friday, 27 January for meetings with the Chairmanship, and with the OSCE Secretariat.  A meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, the organisation's governing body where all the 57 member states are represented, took place the same day

A spokesperson for the OSCE told commonspace.eu that "at the meeting of the Permanent Council a decision was taken to extend mandates of the OSCE Observer Mission at the Russian Checkpoints of Gukovo and Donetsk , the Centre in Bishkek and the Project Co-ordinator in Uzbekistan".

In a statement on the same day, the Austrian OSCE Chairmanship stressed "the importance of renewing all remaining decisions on open mandates, namely the Office in Yerevan as well as the Office in Tajikistan, in order to allow the OSCE to function effectively and efficiently through its field operations".  The statement added that "consensus has yet to be reached on the formal decision for that due to outstanding decisions on other issues.  The statement added that "the OSCE Chairmanship continues to remain actively engaged with a view to finding early agreement."

A spokesperson for the OSCE in Vienna told commonspace.eu that "pending agreement on the remaining mandate extensions by the participating States, the field operations remain open and will continue administrative, non-mandate-related work."

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment that "the diplomatic language hides a sense of frustration and consternation in the international community at the attitude of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the OSCE structures. The use of veto is not a new tool in the OSCE councils, and has been used by countries large and small in the CSCE/OSCE framework before. Even the signing of the Helsinki Final Act was threatened way back in 1975, by one of the smallest member states. But now the veto is becoming the main tool in the strategy of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the OSCE framework, and diplomats are concerned that the problem is spilling over from issues related to the Karabakh conflict, and may affect other aspects of the OSCE work. Part of the problem is that there is very little public or media scrutiny of the work within the OSCE, and so very little political cost for member states in answering to their actions. But diplomats fear that the OSCE's already fragile existence may be put to further risk if the organisation is deemed to be dysfunctional. On the other hand there is no appetite in diplomatic circles for removing the veto right of member states - complete consensus was the principle on which the Helsinki Final Act was built, and to remove that is considered as a step weakening the legitimacy of the OSCE and its work.

So diplomats are expected to continue working patiently so that the work of the OSCE in Armenia and Tadjikistan can be resumed as soon as possible."

source: commonspace.eu with osce.org and agencies

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Armenian and Azerbaijani officials seek to defuse tension

Armenian and Azerbaijani officials seek to defuse tension

Armenian and Azerbaijani senior officials have moved to reduce tensions that erupted following an outcry in Armenia after a visit by foreign diplomats to Karabakh and surrounding regions, and a subsequent reaction in Azerbaijan. Armenia’s Security Council Secretary Alen Simonyan has said that following the events that took place at Gandzasar Monastery, he spoke by phone with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s Assistant Hikmet Hajiyev. Responding to a question about whether he plans to publicly respond to Hajiyev’s statements regarding Gandzasar, Simonyan said at a press briefing that not all statements necessarily need to receive a public response. “I think everything has been said, and not everything that is said always needs a response. We need to realize whether this will change something or not. I can say something sharp now, respond in some way, we can all feel good for 15 minutes, but by doing so I could harm the negotiations,” Simonyan said. He stressed that the peace process requires a cautious approach. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)