EU must up its game in Karabakh, say experts in Brussels

Following heavy fighting in Nagorno-Karbakh earlier this month, policy experts and MEPs, debated what the EU can do to help at a meeting in the European Parliament on Thursday.

Fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the worst violence for two decades, began on April 2. It left dozens dead and many more wounded. A ceasefire was brokered on April 5, but since then, both sides have claimed numerous violations by the other side. 

The European Union must take a more active role, said Amanda Paul of the European Policy Centre (EPC) and Dennis Sammut of LINKS, who recently co-authored a policy paper together on the topic.

The discussion in Brussels was chaired by Ivo Vajgl MEP, a former foreign minister of Slovenia. Finding a solution in Nagorno-Karabakh is critical because a bigger outbreak of violence could lead to a humanitarian crisis, he said.

Panellists expressed their support for the European Partnership for the Peaceful Settlement of the Conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (EPNK), a civil society initiative.

Armenian and Azerbaijani representatives were also present, as were EU officials. Razvan Rab, the European External Action Service’s political officer for relations with Armenia, emphasized EU support for the Minsk process peace plan under the so-called ‘Madrid principles’.

His comments were echoed by Lawrence Meredith, director of the EU’s “Neighbourhood East,” noting the positive recent precedent of talks between Kosovo and Serbia.

RUSSIA’S ROLE

“If you have a security vacuum, Russia wants to fill it”, said Paul, who described the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh as the most volatile and dangerous it has been for years. More died in a few days than did in several years before April 2, she said, adding that the status quo is “gone forever”.

While Russia was quick on the scene, with foreign minister Lavrov and prime minister Medvedev visiting Yerevan and Baku, the EU acted like a “rabbit trapped in the headlights,” she said, with the situation as it stands remaining extremely dangerous. 

“Both sides have procured very high level weaponry, on the ground and in the air,” said Paul. Russia sells arms to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, though as Russia\'s ally in the Collective Treaty Security Organisation, Armenia buys arms at discounted rates. 

Both Paul and Sammut said the EU should not expend undue energy debating who was responsible for starting specific incidents, because both sides have committed violations and both sides are responsible for killing. Rather than getting bogged down in historical details it is best to look forward, said Sammut, who also emphasized the importance of person-to-person contacts.

“Civil society over the last few weeks has been under a lot of pressure from nationalistic sources that have accused people who engage and work for cross-community dialogue as being traitors,” he said. As the biggest player in the region overall, the EU is the best partner for civil society in Armenia and Azerbaijan, so EU engagement is vital, Sammut added. 

Although the two policy analysts were unwilling to get drawn on who started the latest clashes, Paul did say the status quo clearly favours Armenia more than Azerbaijan.

UNSOLVED CONFLICTS

As a result of this imbalance, Azerbaijan wanted to score a morale boost by winning back territory, which it successfully did to a small extent for the first time since the 1994 ceasefire, said Paul.

MEPs also played an active part in the discussion. Norica Nicolai, from Romania, disputed the role as both “peacemaker and warmonger” played by Russia. “The territory [of Nagorno-Karabakh] belongs to Azerbaijan,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Buglarian MEP Angel Dzhambazki, condemnded the role being played by Turkey, Azerbaijan’s close ally. Eldar Mamedov, a political advisor to the Socialists and Democreats group, also criticized Turkey’s role, accusing panelists of overstating the role of Russia at the expense of Turkey, noting that unlike Russia, Turkey did not call for an immediate ceasefire at the beginning of April.

However, according to the two panellists, focusing on Russia is important because, as has been shown in Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Syria, the country plays a very active role in the region’s unsolved conflicts. (Paul, like others on Thursday, criticized the term “frozen conflicts” as inappropriate when there have been so many deaths are still routine.)

This makes is all the more important for the EU to up its game, Paul and Sammut said.

“At the international level there is no other player that can play a counterpart to Russia in this region, because the United States is clearly not interested in engaging in another conflict on the European continent in an effective way,” said Sammut, arguing EU involvement is not just important, but absolutely essential. “Unless the EU engages with the resolution of the conflict, it’s very difficult to see how a change can happen,” he said.

An Azerbaijani policy analyst, Vugar Saidov, stressed the importance of choosing words carefully when discussing Nagorno-Karabakh, noting that the word “enclave” is not accepted by the Azerbaijani side. Armenian representatives firmly countered some of the points made by Saidov and other speakers.

THE EU’S ROLE

While the two governments do indeed share much of the blame for the status quo, realistically speaking, there will be no solution without two external factors, according to Sammut: a change in the international context, and a change in the way society engages with these issues in the two countries. 

“The EU must start with what it has already,” he said, praising the work done by Herbert Salber, the EU’s Special Representative for the South Caucasus, though adding the EU does not have sufficient resources to tackle such a huge and deeply rooted conflict.

In their paper published two weeks ago, Sammut and Paul also said the EU should be represented in the wider Minsk Group, such as through the EU member state holding the rotating EU presidency, a suggestion repeated at the Brussels round table.

They also expressed their support for inter-parliamentary initiatives between the EU and Armenia and Azerbaijan, such as Euronest.

In their paper, Sammut and Paul also suggested appointing EU military liaison officers in Baku and Yerevan, ensuring member state positions on Karabakh are better synchronised, and bringing the Karabakh conflict into closer focus, both in the EU’s dealings with Armenia and Azerbaijan, and in dealing with other stakeholders such as Russia, Turkey and Iran.

SOURCE: commonspace.eu

PHOTO: commonspace.eu

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)