Monday Commentary: Has there been a gear-change in the Karabakh talks?

MONDAY COMMENTARY

The meeting in Krakow between the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan did not lead to a breakthrough, and none was expected. But there appears to be a change of gear in the negotiations, says Dennis Sammut in this week's Monday Commentary

Another meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan took place on Friday (18 January) in the Polish city of Krakow. This was the umpteenth meeting of these two men in the last decade, as part of a process to try to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - a process facilitated by the international community represented by diplomats from France, Russia and the United States who go under the name of the "Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Process"

Elmar Mammadyarov and Eduard Nalbandian have sat down together in dozens of European cities, sometimes enthusiastically, often reluctantly, and in a perverse kind of way their encounters have been considered as a soothing re-assurance that one of the nastiest unresolved conflicts in contemporary Europe is not about to boil over. On one or two occasions there were hopes that they may be close to a deal, but harsh reality soon dampened the optimism. Yet those in the know tended to be more worried when the two Ministers were not meeting, then when they were meeting and disagreeing. Expectations from Thursday's meeting were close to non-existent, and even the most ardent aficionados of diplomacy failed to be excited by the prospect of what could emerge from it.

Prima facie they were not disappointed. The usual terse statement by the international mediators immediately after the meeting did not exactly hail a historic breakthrough. Yet something has changed. It is certainly not a change in the position of the sides: these keep being re-affirmed on a daily basis by the leadership of the two countries; nor is it a change in the format of the negotiations: it remains the same: two negotiating countries, three mediators and one supporting act; it looks however that there has been a change of gear.

One could notice this first from the picture of the meeting tweeted as the proceedings started. Six men in suits, but with an open collar, sitting around a homily table - no ties, no flags, no army of journalists. Was this a signal that the long-standing posturing was coming to an end, and that the two sides have finally sat down to deal with the nitty gritty tasks of actually bringing this conflict to some kind of resolution?

One would have been tempted to dismiss the informality to perhaps the central heating in Krakow being too high, forcing participants to take of their ties, had it not been for the fact that on closer scrutiny the statement issued by the mediators after the meeting was also unlike many of the others issued earlier. Over many years statements by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair tended to take the form "we came, we met, we left", leaving us none the more knowledgeable about the state of play. This latest statement whilst not revealing much, gave us a clue or two.

You may read the statement on the OSCE website here

It had five points:

First, it dealt with issues that one or the other sides say was agreed in meetings between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents on 2016. This has been a sticking point particularly for the Armenians who made it a condition for returning to the negotiating table. One issue is related to more international presence in the conflict zone. "The Foreign Ministers agreed in principle to the Co-Chairs' revised concept paper for implementing the expansion of the Office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office with a view toward finalizing it as soon as possible", the statement said, indicating that we are closer (though not quite there yet) to seeing a small increase in the number of international monitors.

Second, the statement says that "the parties and Co-Chairs exchanged views on core sensitive issues contained in the working proposals currently on the table".  So, the sides are back to discussing substance, something the Azerbaijanis have been insisting upon.

Third, "The Co-Chairs also called for pursuing trust-building measures as an important contribution to the negotiation process". It seems the sides are not ready for this yet, but there is hope. To make it more palatable the mediators are now calling confidence-building measures (CBMs), "trust building measures", hoping that those who rejected CBMs in the past may take to the new name.

Fourth, "The Ministers and the Co-Chairs acknowledged the relative calm on the Line of Contact, and the Co-Chairs urged the parties to reinforce this positive trend." This is a star for good behaviour. Often the co-chair countries have had to express concern about incidents on the line of contact separating the thousands of soldiers of the two sides in the Karabakh conflict zone. Incidents have been much fewer and less serious in the last three months, and this needed to be said.

Fifth, "the Co-Chairs indicated to the Ministers their interest in further discussing the possibility of conducting a follow up to the 2010 assessment mission to the territories affected by the conflict". This idea has been floated for some time. The fact that it is now being mentioned in a formal statement indicates there is a basis to hope it would be possible to have such a mission, possibly in the autumn. It also enables the possibility of a public debate on the composition of the mission and what it can achieve ahead of its deployment.

For those, if they existed, hoping for a breakthrough in the talks in Krakow, none was forthcoming. However, those, especially in the communities directly affected by the Karabakh conflict, frustrated by years of unsuccessful diplomatic negotiations, may take heart in what looks like a change of gear in the discussion. It raises a little hope that things may change for the better, and that dialogue will prevail over war. But then again, this is far from certain.

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research). His Monday Commentary appears weekly on commonspace.eu

photo: The Co-Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group (Igor Popov of the Russian Federation, Stephane Visconti of France, and Andrew Schofer of the United States of America), together with the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Andrzej Kasprzyk, with Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian and the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov at their meeting in Krakow on 18 January 2018. (Picture courtesy of the twitter feed @HikmetHajiyev)

 

 

 

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)