Op-ed: Karabakh: Time for pause and reflection.

In this op-ed for commonspace.eu Dennis Sammut says the next three months should be a time for reflection on the Karabakh conflict, but a pause in hostilities should also be accompanied by the reinvigoration of the peace efforts.

The US co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Process - the diplomatic mechanism mandated by the international community to help bring about a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - has been quoted by the news agency APA as saying that they  "are hopeful that the sides will respect the ceasefire during upcoming holidays, commemorations, and international events in the region". Ambassador James Warlick added that "While we have no means to monitor or verify these commitments, such stability would create a more positive dynamic for negotiations". Last week Warlick and diplomats from the other two co-Chair countries, France and Russia, briefed the full Minsk Group, consisting of Belarus, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, and Turkey, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan, on the current situation

In April Armenia will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the massacres in Anatolia, sometimes characterised as the Armenian Genocide; in June Azerbaijan will host the 1st European Games in Baku; and in May both countries will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in which tens of thousands of Armenians and Azerbaijanis lost their life in the common struggle against fascism. These three months will therefore be the time when in both Armenia and Azerbaijan people will be thinking about the pains of the past, and wondering about the hopes for the future. This is therefore indeed a time for a pause in hostilities, and of reflection on where the process to resolve the painful and costly Karabakh conflict is, and where it is going.

The daily incidents that have been ongoing for the last year, and which increased since the new year, prove nothing except the failures of all the sides to bring this pain on their people to an end. No amount of medals to the deceased, or rhetoric, is going to change that.

However, slowly but surely, people in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and in the conflict zone itself, are starting to question the present reality. In these tightly controlled societies, where public opinion is often stifled, or at best muffled, just to what extent there is a demand for peace will never be completely clear. But what is certain is that the daily toll of casualties on both sides is starting to unsettle even the most cold-hearted.

How could this period of reflection, if it was to happen, be used?

Whilst there should be a pause in the hostilities, there should be no pause in the efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully. Everybody needs to reflect, including the co-Chair, who should no longer expect unquestioned acquiescence by the international community. Once this period of reflection ends they need to be ready with new and creative initiatives to help the sides snap out of their current impasse. The sides need to be extracted out of the dangerous and unsustainable comfort zone in which they have dug themselves in.

Is the present Minsk Process mechanism able to do this? The answer is yes if it is used properly. This process has not yet exhausted itself, but it needs to be reinvigorated. This is not going to happen on its own. The process needs to be put under the constant scrutiny of the international community and international public opinion. The OSCE as the organisation under whose mandate the Minsk Group operates needs also to be held to account, as do the member countries of the Minsk Group themselves. Up to know they have all shrugged off responsibility pointing to the three co-Chair countries. Yet what the co-Chair do (or do not do), is being done (or not done), in their name.

In the end however the two persons that need to reflect most during this time are president Serzh Sargsyan and president Ilham Aliev. The political systems that they preside over give them both plenty of scope and authority to make things better. So far they may have considered intransigence as their best policy. It is time they give compromise a chance.

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research). He contributed this op-ed to commonspace.eu. dennis@links-dar.org.
photo: A full meeting of the OSCE Minsk Group held in Vienna on 31 March 2015 (picture courtesy of @AmbJamesWarlick)

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

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)