Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Commentary

OSCE Chairman-In-Office in Yerevan. Kozhara says all the usual things, but adds a Ukrainian twist.

16 July 2013

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara finally arrived in Yerevan this week, concluding the usual obligatory pilgrimage that all the Chairmen-in-Office of the OSCE do, during their one year stint at the head of the organisation. Usually they manage to visit all the three countries in one go, but Kozhara had to travel from Kiev on three separate occasions to accommodate the busy schedules of the leaderships in the three South Caucasus countries - a sign of how times have changed perhaps.

In many ways Kozhara trip was uneventful, following all the usual routine and saying all the things that was expected. Ukrainian diplomacy is however somewhat irritated at being boxed in during its OSCE Chairmanship and Kozhara has been trying to use different formulas during his South Caucasus trips to introduce some new elements. For example, Kozhara in Yerevan used a formula that he had already stated in Baku some days earlier to describe support for the Minsk Process. Armenian media quote him as saying that "Ukraine supports actions of the OSCE Minsk Group, but believes that it could have more active engagement in the settlement process and could achieve more specific results." The choice of words reflects a broader impatience in the international community with lack of progress achieved by the Minsk Group in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

"Not a single conflict was settled after a conference or session. Practical work is necessary," Kozhara told a press conference in Yerevan. At the same time, he stressed importance of the organization of meetings between representatives of civil society. Kozhara said Ukraine is ready to provide its territory for such a meeting. In addition, Ukraine supports all activities aimed at mitigating the consequences of humanitarian disasters. And any such conflict has consequences, Leonid Kozhara said.

In Yerevan Kozhara also met the President of the self declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Bako Sahakyan. Sahakyan once more repeated the demand for the direct participation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the negotiation process.

This did not go unnoticed in Baku, where, the Foreign Ministry decided to give its own interpretation of the meeting, its spokesman Elman Abdullaev stating that:

"Leonid Kozhara held a meeting with the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh when he was on a visit to Azerbaijan. As a continuation of the meeting, he held meetings with the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh in Yerevan", s He noted that the goal of these meetings with the communities is to establish inter-cultural dialogue: "Therefore, OSCE Chairman-in-Office has met with the representatives of Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagorno Karabakh".

In Yerevan however, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, dismissed earlier statements by Abdullaev regarding the discussions held in Vienna over the weekend between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair. 

"During the Vienna meeting, we continued discussing how to advance the peace process. We discussed the schedule of upcoming meetings, including possible organization of a high level meeting by the end of this year. The last one failed because of Azerbaijan. Now there is understanding and agreement that such meeting is necessary. We must work to hold this meeting by the end of 2013,"

Like all other OSCE Chairmanships, the Ukrainians are finding that the Office has little power and last for too short a time for the country holding it to make a difference. It remains however the only mechanism that can steer the organisation out of lethargy and Ukrainian diploacy needs at least to be given credit for trying.

source: commonspace.eu with various media outlets.

photo: Ukrainian Foreign Minister and cuirrtent OSCE Chairman Leonid Kozhara speaking in Yerevan on 15 July 2013.

Latest

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

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
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).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

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

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

7 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

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

21 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut