Op-ed: The two sides of the Karabakh coin. Dennis Sammut reflects on two events that highlighted the opposite ends of the NK conflict.

Dennis Sammut reflects on two events that occurred last week that highlighted the opposite ends of the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Last week two events happened, thousands of miles apart from each other, but both related to the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In their own way they represented the extreme opposite ends of where the situation around the conflict and its settlement is going, or can go. They reflected the two sides of the same coin.

On 11 November, at the University of Oxford, dozens of diplomats, academics, NGO activists and others gathered to discuss the Karabakh conflict and its resolution. In itself there was nothing remarkable about this meeting. Many such meetings have taken place in the two decades since a precarious cease fire halted hostilities between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in what was then considered a remote part of the post-Soviet space. Yet the Oxford Conference was significant in many ways.

First it brought together people from all the elements within the various Armenian and Azerbaijani stakeholders - the governments, those that oppose them, people from the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and those who think that this Republic should not exist at all and believe instead a solution based on reconciliation of two communities amongst others. They were joined by NGO representatives both local and European. The presence throughout the whole proceedings of the European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus, Ambassader Herbet Salber, and diplomats from Turkey and Russia offered an important international dimension to the meeting.

The second characteristic of the meeting was the dignified way in which participants contributed to the vibrant discussion. The idyllic surroundings of Oxford University helped, as did the symbolism of the fact that the event was held on Remembrance Day - the day when in Britain those fallen in war are commemorated. A two minute silence in honour of those who died in conflict was observed at the start of the meeting. Three Oxford Professors, Dan Healey, Roy Allison and Neil Macfarlane helped to give the meeting academic substance. But what was most striking was the dignity and lucidity with which Ambassador Khazar Ibrahim (Azerbaijan's Head of Mission to NATO), Ara Margarian (from the Armenian Embassy in London), and others such as Richard Giragosian, Masis Mayilian, Avaz Hasanov and  Orkhan Akbarov argued their cases, enabling participants to get a very good understanding of the arguments of all the sides.

The third important feature of the Oxford meeting was the great number of practical suggestions that came out from the presentations of both local and international participants. The expertise of Walter Kemp, Amanda Paul, Sabine Freizer, Craig Oliphant, Lawrence Broers and others helped bring out many interesting ideas on what can be done in the future. Practical ideas that are doable and that can be game-changers even in the current climate.

Participants left the Oxford meeting optimistic and energised. Few however had been able to reach their homes before the news of the second event started coming through.

On Wednesday 12 November it was reported that Azerbaijan had shot down an Armenian military helicopter killing the three pilots. Azerbaijan says its troops were responding to an attack; Armenia says that the helicopter was only participating in military exercises. The incident happened on the line of contact that separates thousands of soldiers from the two sides who are dug-in, in trenches, in a manner not dissimilar to World War I. This incident is very serious because it represents an escalation in the low intensity fighting that has been occurring in the last two decades. This has never been a frozen conflict, despite the 1994 cease fire, yet this was the first time an aircraft was shot down. Mutual recrimination has followed since. Armenia has promised reprisals, and daily cease-fire violations continue.

The helicopter incident is the latest in the serious of military actions that constitute a serious threat to peace in the South Caucasus. Many argue that the status quo is unsustainable and it is only a question of when, not if, a new war will start. In the meantime, the efforts of the international community to unblock the impasse in the peace negotiations have so far failed. The sides blame each other. Some also blame the mechanism itself (the OSCE Minsk process); others the failure of the sides to muster enough political will to embark on a serious peace process; and others still the geo political situation. Fine arguments can be made for and against all these possibilities, as indeed was done at the Oxford meeting. For the three pilots killed the day after, as indeed for all the other Armenians and Azerbaijanis that have died or suffered in this conflict, this is not an academic discussion but a cruel reality.

Both the Oxford Conference and the helicopter incident are part of the Nagorno-Karabakh reality  -  the two sides of the same coin. One representing the rational and peaceful approach that seeks to find a solution through discussion and mutual understanding; the other that sees hope only in force and violence.

For many it feels as if the Karabakh coin has been tossed in the air. Everybody has been waiting for years to see which side the coin will fall on. Who will win the toss, peace through dialogue or war?

It need not be like this, for this is too important to be left to chance. A peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is possible and that is what everybody needs to remain focused on.

Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS and is currently based at Oxford University. He may be contacted at dennis@links-dar.org.

The Conference "The impact of international and regional developments on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement process" was organised by LINKS and the Russian and Eurasian Studies Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford on Tuesday 11 November 2014. The conference was held in the framework of the EPNK partnership with the support of the European Union. A full report of the proceedings at the conference will be available on commonspace.eu shortly.

Photo: Some of the participants on their way to the Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh held at Oxford University on 11 November.

 

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)