Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Interview

OPINION: Lamberto Zannier - "I am concerned about absence of any tangible progress on Karabakh settlement"

22 November 2012
News.Az reprints from 1news.az an interview with OSCE Secretary General, Lamberto Zannier.

What was your impression about visit to the South Caucasus in July?

I had very in-depth discussions with the Presidents and the Foreign Ministers of both Azerbaijan and Armenia when I visited in July of this year. I also met with Ministers Mammadyarov and Nalbandian in New York in September on the margin of the UN General Assembly.

My messages to both Ministers from my side are similar. First, there is no alternative to a peaceful, negotiated solution for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of Madrid principles. Second, prerequisites for such a solution are the strict observance of the ceasefire regime, removing snipers from the line of contact and abstaining from retaliatory measures and militant rhetoric which could fuel further escalation of tensions. And the third point that I tried to put across is that no external actor – be it OSCE or any other international player – can resolve a conflict or impose a solution: it requires the political will, commitment and responsibility of the sides to find a lasting peaceful solution.

My visit in July to the region reinforced my conviction that the conflict continues to threaten regional stability, and inhibit the region’s economic and social development. The longer the conflict remains unresolved the more difficult it becomes to get political compromise and overcome the differences, including those in the minds of people. Today’s youth already has no experience of life without the conflict.

During an official visit to Azerbaijan, you emphasized the need for political will in negotiating a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. How can you comment on the current situation of the conflict resolution?

I am concerned – as I am sure many others, too - about the absence of any tangible progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, and about the deterioration of the situation on the ground. As we all have witnessed , recent developments, including the situation around the pardoning of Ramil Safarov in August as well as the issue of opening an airport in Nagorno-Karabakh, have caused tensions and have not contributed to the peace process and restoration of trust between the sides.

For my part, I fully support the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group and its Co-Chairs. It is essential to get back to the substance of negotiations and continue working towards reaching a peaceful settlement. At the same time, there is a need to strengthen the ceasefire regime and its monitoring, in order to create a more favourable environment for political talks. I am not only talking about an investigation mechanism, but one where local commanders can regularly sit together to discuss concerns such as shootings, troop movements, unmanned aerial vehicles over flights, and other factors that contribute to insecurity.

Our work on other protracted conflicts can present some useful examples here: one of the results of the OSCE-co-chaired Geneva International Discussions launched after the August 2008 conflict in Georgia was the establishment of the Ergneti Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism to look specifically at practical concerns of the sides, for example, exchange of detainees. This mechanism has proved effective, also for defusing potential tensions, and is hailed by all participants as successful.

I am also convinced that an important role in building trust can be played by the civil society, parliamentarians and the media.

Armenia intends to make flights to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. How can you comment it?

I am aware that this is a controversial issue, which should also be discussed. My primary concern here is again a security one. In July this year, shortly after my visit to the region, the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group received assurances from the sides that they would reject any threat or use of force against civil aircraft, pursue the matter through diplomatic steps, and refrain from politicizing the issue. Fulfilling these commitments is essential.

There is a lot of mistrust to the work of OSCE Minsk Group. Can other countries also be included in the peacekeeping process?

The OSCE Minsk Group is the only format that the parties agreed to and any changes are for the parties to agree. However, resolving the conflict is not about bringing more countries or international organizations into the peace process. Finding the solution lies with the parties themselves, and no imposed external solution is possible – neither would it be effective. What the OSCE can offer is to provide a forum for these negotiations to continue, and to facilitate building trust between the parties, including at people-to-people level.

Azerbaijan, this year celebrates 20 years in the OSCE. What can you say about Azerbaijan work in the Organization?

We work with Azerbaijan both in the framework of the political dialogue within the OSCE, where your country traditionally has a very active stance, and also in the field, through our Office in Baku, on a very wide range of issues in politico-military, economic and environmental, and human-rights-related issues. We look forward to continuing this co-operation, to the benefit of the country, its people and the OSCE community as a whole. As we move towards the Ministerial Council in Dublin, I note that the absence of progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is complicating discussions in certain areas, such as on a possible political declaration: however, it is my strong expectation that this will not result in additional difficulties in other fields of work of our organisation.

How do you see the future of OSCE?

Every organization, and the OSCE is no exception, evolves, to better respond to the changing realities of the outside world, as well as to the needs of its members. In Dublin, the Foreign Ministers of OSCE participating States, including Azerbaijan, will engage in a debate and hopefully adopt a document to launch a process aimed at defining the role of the OSCE in the establishment of a Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community. This process of re-focusing the agenda of our Organization, as we look forward the 40th anniversary of our founding document, the Helsinki Final Act, will take place during the next three years, under the Ukrainian, Swiss and Serbian Chairmanships of the OSCE.

News.Az

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