Commentary: Little hope for a negotiated solution to the Karabakh conflict in the short-term

Armenian and Azerbaijani societies continue to prepare for war despite the prospect of a presidential summit in the autumn. The best-case scenario is a continuation of low intensity conflict along the line of contact says Dr Benyamin Poghosyan in this commentary.

On July 11, 2017, the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers met in Brussels for another round of negotiations on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen and the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, also participated in the meeting. According to the available information no breakthrough has been reached.

In their July 12 statement, the OSCE Co-chairmen mentioned that during the meeting the Ministers agreed to pass to their Presidents their proposal for a high-level meeting later this year, and to meet again in New York in September on the margins of the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbandian reiterated the importance of implementation of the Vienna and St. Petersburg Summit agreements, especially regarding the creation of mechanism for investigation of the ceasefire violations. In his speech during the informal Ministerial Meeting of the OSCE, Nalbandian emphasized that Azerbaijani backtrack from the Vienna and St. Petersburg agreements questions its credibility for being a party to negotiations.

The Armenian President during his TV interview a few days after the meeting mentioned that next high-level Armenia - Azerbaijani summit may take place in autumn 2017, but added that has no expectations from this meeting as no serious preparations have been done.  

As for Azerbaijan, the President Ilham Aliyev in his speech during the Azerbaijani Government meeting of July 12 emphasized that since April 2016 Armenia has put forward preconditions for resuming the substantive negotiations. The Azerbaijani President reiterated that this approach was absolutely unacceptable for Azerbaijan, and that Armenia was forced to retreat from this position and negotiations were re - launched as a result of the July 11 Ministerial meeting. Ilham Aliyev once again stated that any solution to the Karabakh conflict can only be reached within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.  

In his July 17 interview to Russian Ria Novosti news agency the Azerbaijani Minister of Foreign Affair once again emphasized the necessity of substantive negotiations and the change of status quo.

After April 2016 escalation on the line of contact, the negotiation process, which had not been active since the failed Kazan June 2011 summit, has been stalled. Armenia firmly believes that negotiations have no sense without the creation of a mechanism for investigation of the ceasefire violations, since Azerbaijan attempts to use the possibility of launching new military operations as leverage for putting additional pressure on Armenia.

The vague reaction to the April 2016 events by the three Co-chair States, especially by Russia, which has always been perceived in Armenia as a strategic ally, and main guarantor of the country's security,  increased the sense of vulnerability in Armenia. Given the low effectiveness of international/bilateral security guarantees, a majority of Armenian society firmly believes that the only viable tool to provide the necessary level of security is a modern and strong army. The Ukraine crisis, with de facto denunciation of international guarantees given to Ukraine by in the 1994 Budapest memorandum, adds to the skepticism towards any possible conflict solution based on international guarantees, even if backed by the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in return for the withdrawal from at least some parts of the security zone around Nagorno Karabakh.

This widespread perception within Armenian society makes it less likely that a compromise-based solution is welcomed, and hardens the approach to the possible ways of conflict resolution. The April 2016 escalation also reinvigorated the debate within Armenian society on the urgent necessity to launch reforms and modernise the state, as only a modern and well-functioning state is capable to deter  potential threats.

The coincidence of military escalation in 2016 with a deteriorating economic situation in Azerbaijan,  is understood in  Armenia  as a readiness of the Azerbaijani authorities to use the conflict as an effective tool in diverting  society's attention from domestic problems and unite it around the ruling elite for the defense of the motherland. Taking into account the absence of any major improvements in the Azerbaijani economy, new military escalation, is perceived from the Armenian point of view as quite possible. Azerbaijan's refusal to launch ceasefire violation investigative mechanisms is also perceived in Armenia as another proof of Azerbaijan's intention to launch another large-scale attack.

From Azerbaijani point of view, any ceasefire violations investigative mechanisms put along the current line of contact will only foster the status quo, and will be another step in the transformation of the line of contact into a de facto border. Azerbaijan seems ready to discuss the launch of such mechanisms only within the context of a changed status quo, which means the withdrawal of Armenian forces from at least part of the security zone around Nagorno Karabakh and deployment of such mechanisms along the new line of contact. Meanwhile, according to the Azerbaijani side, the relative success of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces during the fighting in April 2016, has destroyed the myth of an invincible   Armenian Army. Part of Azerbaijani society believes that the Azerbaijani Army during 4 days of April achieved more than   Azerbaijani diplomacy did during the previous 22 years of negotiations. These perceptions do not bode well for a compromise-based solution, since for many Azerbaijanis a military solution is becoming a viable and effective way to solve the conflict.

In the current circumstances there is a little hope that in the short term negotiations will succeed. The two societies continue to prepare for war. The 2018 Presidential elections in Azerbaijan, and the finalisation of Armenia's transformation into a parliamentarian republic in April of the same year, with looming change in the leadership, creates additional obstacles for any step forward in negotiations. The best-case scenario will be the continuation of low intensity conflict along the line of contact and the Azerbaijan - Armenia border, with no large scale escalation till the end of 2017.

This commentary was prepared for commonspace.eu by Dr Benyamin Poghosyan, Executive Director of the Political Science Association of Armenia

photo: Foreign Minister nalbandian of Armenia and Foreign Minister mammadyarov of Azerbaijan (archive meeting)

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

srael’s parliament approved a bill on Monday that would allow the execution of Palestinians convicted on terror charges for deadly attacks, a move that has been criticized as discriminatory and immediately drew a court challenge. Sixty-two lawmakers, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, voted in favor and 48 against the bill, championed by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. There was one abstention and the rest of the lawmakers were not present. Ben Gvir in the run-up to the vote had worn a lapel pin in the shape of a noose, symbolising his support for the legislation. “We made history!!! We promised. We delivered,” he posted on X after the vote. The bill would make the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank found guilty of intentionally carrying out deadly attacks deemed “acts of terrorism” by an Israeli military court. The bill says that the sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment under “special circumstances.” Palestinians in the West Bank are automatically tried in Israeli military courts. Meanwhile, under the bill, in Israeli criminal courts anyone “who intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of harming an Israeli citizen or resident out of an intention to put an end to the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” Criminal courts try Israeli nationals, including Palestinian citizens and residents of east Jerusalem. The bill sets the execution method as hanging, adding that it should be carried out within 90 days of the sentencing, with a possible postponement of up to 180 days. - ‘Parallel tracks’ - The bill appears to conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination, and shortly after it was passed, a leading human rights group announced that it had filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the legislation’s annulment. “The law creates two parallel tracks, both designed to apply to Palestinians,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said in a statement. “In military courts — which have jurisdiction over West Bank Palestinians — it establishes a near-mandatory death sentence,” the rights group said. In civilian courts, the law’s stipulation that defendants must have acted “with the aim of negating the existence” of Israel “structurally excludes Jewish perpetrators,” the group added. The association argued the law should be annulled on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds. During the debate in parliament, opposition lawmaker and former deputy Mossad director, Ram Ben Barak, expressed outrage at the legislation. “Do you understand what it means that there is one law for Arabs in Judea and Samaria, and a different law for the general public for which the State of Israel is responsible?” he asked fellow parliamentarians, using the Israeli name for the West Bank. “It says that Hamas has defeated us. It has defeated us because we have lost all our values.” - ‘Discriminatory application’ - Lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech from Ben Gvir’s party, who years ago survived an attack by Palestinian militants in which her husband was killed, urged fellow parliamentarians to approve the bill. “For years, we endured a cruel cycle of terror, imprisonment, release in reckless deals, and the return of these human monsters to murder Jews again ... And today, my friends, this cycle has come full circle.” The Palestinian Authority condemned the law’s adoption, saying that “Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land.” “This law once again reveals the nature of the Israeli colonial system, which seeks to legitimize extrajudicial killing under legislative cover,” it added. In February, Amnesty International had urged Israeli lawmakers to reject the legislation, citing its “discriminatory application against Palestinians.” On Sunday, Britain, France, Germany and Italy expressed “deep concern” over the bill, which they said risked “undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.” While the death penalty exists for a small number of crimes in Israel, it has become a de facto abolitionist country — the Nazi Holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichmann was the last person to be executed in 1962. Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 and violence there has soared since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the Gaza war. (read more by clicking the image above).

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)