Minsk Group co-Chair: "Main obstacle for Karabakh peace is lack of political will".

France, Russia and the United States - the three co-Chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Process have rejected claims that they are to blame for setbacks in the negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh. They said that "any attempts to blame the Co-Chairs for setbacks in the negotiation process only mask the primary obstacle to peace - the lack of political will in Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a negotiated settlement".

In a statement issued on the margins of the Ministerial meeting of the OSCE which is currently being held in the Serbain Capital, Belgrade, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov, Secretary of State of the United States John Kerry,  and State Secretary for European Affairs of France Harlem Desir said that they remain united in their commitment to mediating a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

The statement added, "We welcome the upcoming meeting between President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan under the auspices of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs. In light of the recent rise in tensions, we appeal to the sides to re-commit themselves to the peaceful resolution of the conflict and dispel any misperceptions that they are not serious about reaching a negotiated settlement. The sides should continue discussions from the Sochi, Wales, and Paris Summits of 2014 on elements of a comprehensive settlement, and should intensify their dialogue in 2016 on the basis of proposals currently under discussion.

With the significant escalation in violence along the Line of Contact and Armenia-Azerbaijan border this year, the status quo has become unsustainable. We especially condemn the use of mortars and other heavy weaponry, and regret deeply the civilian casualties these weapons have caused. There is no military solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and there is no justification for the death and injury of innocent civilians. We appeal to the sides in the strongest possible terms to reduce tensions and protect lives. The Co-Chairs have proposed risk-reduction measures that we encourage the sides to adopt, including an OSCE investigation mechanism.

We welcome the progress made by the sides in implementing the data exchange on missing persons under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). We encourage further cooperation with ICRC and must ensure that it has sufficient funding to fully implement this important humanitarian measure. Azerbaijani authorities’ decision to return an Armenian soldier who crossed the Line of Contact and an Armenian civilian who crossed the international border was a helpful humanitarian gesture and consistent with international humanitarian obligations. We urge the sides to return all remaining prisoners in the spirit of the Astrakhan Declaration of October 2010 issued by the Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Russian Federation. There must also be dialogue between Armenians and Azerbaijanis to build trust between neighboring peoples. We encourage the sides to work with the Co-Chairs to support programs that bring together people affected by the conflict.

Over the past year, we have witnessed increasingly vocal attacks on the Co-Chairs and the Minsk Group format. We emphasize that the Minsk Group remains the only accepted format by the sides and has the full confidence of all OSCE participating States. Any attempts to blame the Co-Chairs for setbacks in the negotiation process only mask the primary obstacle to peace - the lack of political will in Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a negotiated settlement. The Co-Chairs will continue to brief international and regional organizations interested in supporting the Minsk Group process. We reaffirm our readiness to work closely with the sides on achieving our common objective of an enduring peace."

The Ministerial Meeting in Belgrade was also addressed by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Referring to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said,

"Unfortunately, peace continues to be challenged by those who refuse to abide by the common norms and principles. It has been more than two decades now that Azerbaijan rejects to recognize the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination. It turns a blind eye that this very right is proclaimed by the presidents of the Co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group as one of the basic principles of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution. Azerbaijan fails to notice that the determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of will stands at the core of the settlement proposed by the Co-chairs.

The blatant defiance to the proposals of the Co-chairs is not the only path through which Baku tries to undermine the peace process. It boasts about solving the conflict through the military buildup pumped by oil revenues and continues provocations on the line of contact with Nagorno-Karabakh and the borders with Armenia. The cease-fire violations by Baku have reached alarming levels. Baku uses heavy weaponry and deliberately targets civilians, which resulted in high numbers of casualties. Azerbaijan has an illusion that it can gain by negotiating with guns.

It does not come as a surprise that the Co-chairs directly called upon Azerbaijan to observe its commitments to the peaceful resolution of the conflict and to agree to the proposal on the creation of the mechanism of investigation of incidents, which Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have long accepted. The Co-chairs have also stated that Baku’s attempts to change the format or create parallel mechanisms can disrupt the negotiation process and impede progress towards a settlement. They called Azerbaijan to respect their mandate and the duties of the OSCE monitors.

Unlike Azerbaijan, Armenia has never criticized the Co-chairs. Attempts of Azerbaijan to blame the Co-chairs for setbacks in the negotiation process only mask the primary obstacle to peace – the lack of political will in Azerbaijan to reach a negotiated settlement.

The conflict resolution requires necessary political will which is manifested through unconditional adherence to the peace process, full implementation of the commitments, and readiness to build up trust. We have been witnessing time and again throughout the whole negotiation process the consistent efforts of Azerbaijan to disrespect prior agreements. Baku’s refusal to accept proposals that are the product of the tireless efforts of about twenty summits, several dozen ministerial-level meetings, and innumerable visits of the three Co-Chairs to the region has inflicted a serious blow to the negotiation process and severely damaged the trust. Therefore, curbing Azerbaijan’s destructive behavior at the negotiation table is key to the success of the peace process.

Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan, has stated many times that it is ready to continue negotiations, based on the proposals of the presidents of the Co-chair countries. As for Azerbaijan, it tries to present its distorted approaches as a position of the Co-Chairs, misinterpreting the ideas presented by foreign ministers, the statements adopted by the presidents of the Co-chair countries and even the UN Security Council resolutions. However, a mere glance reveals that the approaches of Azerbaijan contradict to the principles and elements of the five well-known statements of the heads of the Co-chair countries.

Needless to say that successful peaceful settlement requires cessation of hostilities on the ground, creation of the conditions conducive for negotiations, through full respect to the 1994 trilateral cease-fire agreement and the 1995 agreement on the consolidation of the cease-fire regime. These documents, which do not have time limitations, are agreed and signed by Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia and are prerequisites of the peace efforts.

The OSCE can contribute to the peace process by reaffirming its support to the cease-fire agreements encouraging the implementation of the confidence and security building measures, reinforcing the office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on Nagorno-Karabakh as the only permanent presence on the ground in the conflict zone, through increasing the number of monitors, allocating more resources and technical means. 

Azerbaijan tries to invoke the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in an effort to justify the noncompliance to the OSCE commitments. Likewise, Baku attempts to divert the attention from the outrageous human rights situation in Azerbaijan and the growing international criticism in this regard by escalating the military situation in the conflict zone. We are confident that the international reaction to Baku’s policy of escalation of tensions should not be less targeted and strict as it is on the human rights situation in Azerbaijan.

Baku’s consistent policy of reducing OSCE presence in the region is another worrying trend that cannot be disregarded. Having first downgraded and then closed the OSCE Office in Baku, imposing restrictions on ODIHR election monitoring mission, now Azerbaijan is trying to curtail activities of the Personal Representative as well. Apparently, Azerbaijan would prefer to continue its destructive policy without international witnesses. This applies also to the ICRC – the work of which Baku is continuously impeding and using for the purposes of propaganda. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have closely cooperated with the Red Cross to address humanitarian issues, particularly that of missing persons. We value this cooperation which should be always based on status neutral approach and impartiality."

In his statement to the meeting the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov also referred to the conflict. He said,

"The protracted conflicts in the OSCE area remain the major threat and challenge to peace and security on the European continent. I regret to inform the Ministerial Council that no substantive progress has been achieved in the settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict since the last Ministerial Council meeting in Basel. Armenia continues to disregard the calls of the international community, including the Presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries to start result-oriented negotiations on a peace agreement. The leadership of Armenia imitates the engagement with a view to consolidating the volatile status-quo created through the unlawful use of force and ethnic cleansing.

So-called “balanced” or undifferentiated attitude to the aggressor and the victim will never produce a desired outcome. The policy of appeasement only emboldens the aggressor. As an example, I need to mention the ongoing efforts by Armenia towards consolidating the occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan through implantation of settlers, infrastructure changes, as well as exploitation of and illicit trade in assets, natural resources and other forms of wealth in the occupied territories, in clear violation of international humanitarian and human rights law. In this context, it is critical that the OSCE participating States demonstrate a principled position in defending the principles and values that this Organization is striving for in order to keep the prospects of political settlement alive.

The unlawful presence of the armed forces of Armenia in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan is the major destabilizing factor with the potential to escalate at any time with unpredictable consequences. The settlement of the conflict must, therefore, start with immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azerbaijani territories, as demanded by the UN Security Council resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993) and as implied by the mandate of the co-Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group.

Putting an end to Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan and withdrawal of Armenia’s troops will be a significant confidence building measure completely changing the dynamics of peace process and opening up immense opportunities for the development of South Caucasus. This would pave the way for a safe and dignified return of the forcibly displaced population to their places of origin, normalization of relations and restoration of the communications in the region, as well as for the creation of objective conditions for the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region to discuss their joint future within Azerbaijan.

In this regard, latest ideas proposed by Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, supported by other OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs can provide a very good impetus to reach a breakthrough in peace talks."

 

source; commonspace.eu with the press services of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and of the OSCE.

photo: The 22nd Ministerial Council of the OSCE in session in Belgrade on 3 December 2015 (picture courtesy of the OSCE).

 

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)