"At this point a meeting between the Presidents will only happen if the Russians push enough for it" - Dennis Sammut

The Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research), Dennis Sammut spoke to the Azerbaijan news portal 1news.az about the chances of war and peace in Karabakh. We publish the full text of the interview.

What do you expect from the meeting in Hamburg? Would it mean any positive or negative step in NK process or just another expressing of commitments?

2016 has been a rather eventful year in the context of the Karabakh conflict and conflict settlement process. First there was a sharp escalation of violence on the line of contact leading to the April events. This was followed by intensive diplomatic dialogue, including two meetings between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Vienna and St Petersburg. Russia was particularly active this year, pushing the so called "Lavrov ideas". On the other hand, Germany had the chairmanship of the OSCE in 2016 and German diplomacy also tried to explore some new approaches to resolving the conflict.

As usual, the Foreign Ministers of the 57 member states of the OSCE will meet in the last month of the year, this time in Hamburg, to review the overall security situation in the OSCE area. It is expected that the foreign ministers of the three Minsk group co-chair countries will meet with the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan on the margins of the OSCE Ministerial in a 3 + 2 format. Whilst the format is agreed there is still not much optimism that the substance of these discussions can lead to a breakthrough in the negotiations. At best in Hamburg we can expect some follow up on what has already been agreed in Vienna and St Petersburg, and it will become clear if another meeting between the two presidents is possible in the near future. At this point I feel a meeting between the Presidents will only happen if the Russians push enough for it.

In a recent analytical piece on CommonSpace.eu you write that there are all the conditions for another violent flare-up in Nagorno Karabakh, even larger than the war in April. Please, shortly describe what makes you think so, and what can prevent that kind of scenario?  

The line of contact between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone is presently one of the hottest spots in Europe, with high risk of escalating violence. Both sides have the means to inflict heavy blows on the other using modern weaponary that they have recently acquired at great expense. In the absence of a meaningful peace process the chance of an upsurge in violence is at the moment very high. There are frustrations on both sides with the current status quo, and both sides may see some advantage in conducting a lightning military strike, although the danger this will spiral into bigger hostilities is evident to everyone.

The sides therefore need to push ahead with the negotiations in order to try to find a lasting and peaceful solution. However I feel that for this to happen there needs to be a new approach, both by the mediators, as well as by the sides in the conflict. This requires a change in the dynamic of the peace process, including formalizing it with a fixed time table, widening the circle of those involved in the negotiations to bring the discussions to a more practical level, an intensification of people to people contacts in order to prepare public opinion, and an intelligent and time tabled programme of military and civilian confidence building measures running in tandem with the negotiations. There are some risks in implementing such an approach, but the risk of doing nothing is even higher.

Do you link any hopes in NK peace process with the new figure at the position of the President of the United States? 

I do not see the new US administration taking a position on the Karabakh issue that is very different from the current one. What remains to be seen is whether the Trump White House will want to engage more with the Caucasus region, or less. In any case it will take some time - perhaps one or two years - until such policies come into play, and the region does not have the luxury to wait

source: commonspace.eu. This is the full text of the interview of Dennis Sammut with 1 news.az on 1 December 2016. A shortened version of the interview in Russian) was published by 1 news.az on 2 december 2016. You can read it here.

photo: The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan at one of their earlier meetings (archive picture)

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
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!

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)