Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
News

Azerbaijan continues to block mandate of OSCE Yerevan Office

11 February 2017

Azerbaijan continued to veto the operation of the Yerevan office of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) when the matter was discussed in the organisation's Permanent Council on Thursday (9 February). The Permanent Council of the OSCE meets in Vienna every week, and brings together the Ambassadors of the fifty-seven member states. Azerbaijan blocked the proposal on extending the mandate of the OSCE Office in Yerevan once more. In the Permanent Council decisions are taken by consensus, and anyone of the 57 member states can block any decision.

Azerbaijan's initial objection was connected to a demining programme that the Office was supporting, but its objections have now been extended to other matters too. Armenia initially retaliated by blocking the mandate of a number of other OSCE operations, but it later softened its stance.

For more background read commonspace analysis here

Several delegations took the floor to criticise the Azerbaijani position. The United States Acting Head of Delegation to the OSCE, Kate Byrnes, stated

"We are very concerned by the situation regarding the OSCE Office in Yerevan. This office, like all OSCE field missions and institutions, is an important element of the work done by this organization to assist participating states with the implementation of their OSCE commitments.  Should the Office in Yerevan be forced to close, this will reflect poorly on Azerbaijan and its government's commitment to the OSCE. We urge the government of Azerbaijan to constructively engage in finding a compromise solution as soon as possible that will allow the office in Yerevan to remain open. "

The Azerbaijani mission to the OSCE on Friday issued a long statement lambasting Armenia, the Austrian chairmanship of the OSCE and member states who had criticised the Azerbaijani position. The statement said,

"Over the past months, Azerbaijan took constructive position hoping for finding a solution to the matter. Unfortunately, it was not reciprocated by the participating state that hosts the field mission. Instead, that delegation opted for open blackmailing and blocked the mandates of other field missions," says the statement. "Yet, we have not seen any statement by those delegations which took the floor today condemning such inadmissible actions by Armenia. This casts doubt on sincerity of these delegations and demonstrates lack of constructive engagement on their part to help solve the current stalemate."

"Clearly, we do not see green light at the end of tunnel with regard to the solution of the issue, until we put an end to misinterpretation and abuse of the mandate of the OSCE Office in Yerevan," according to the statement. "We do not trust to the Head of the Office and we do not see authority in the Chairmanship, as well as in the Delegations, which spoke today, to impose the position that activities of the Office are in line with its mandate. This is the responsibility of the Council to decide upon."

"We do not want to go further in investigating the matter. There is mistrust to the Office and it may continue to engage into activities related to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This should be rectified with amendments to its mandate indicating that the Office is not entitled to be involved in any activity related to the conflict. This will be a clear signal to the Office and the host-country to refrain from misusing the OSCE field mission," says the statement.

"It is already 3 years that our delegation has been raising concerns over this programmatic activity of the Office and we are fed up with a lack of clarity with regard to the mandate of the Office and apparent attempts to abuse this situation against legitimate interests of Azerbaijan. This should be stopped," noted the Azerbaijani delegation in its statement. "Until the limits for activities of the OSCE Office in Yerevan in all three dimensions clarified through decision of the Permanent Council, we will not join consensus on the extension of its mandate."

Commonspace.eu political editor said that the Azerbaijani position in the OSCE Permanent Council reflects a wider hardening of positions in international fora. "Azerbaijan feels let down by the international community on the Karabakh issue, and is using all the tools at its disposal in order to put pressure both on Armenia, as well as the international community. In diplomacy there is a fine line between pushing for something, and breaking it, and the Azerbaijani brinkmanship in the OSCE Permanent Council is a good example of this. Whilst pushing its case, Azerbaijan, even if it does not intend to do so, is exposing vulnerabilities in the OSCE structure, which is one of the few fora where European security can still be discussed with all sides sitting round the table. The consensus principle is the high price that those designing the CSCE/OSCE format had to accept in order to ensure that all member states, large or small feel ownership of the process of European security and co-operation. This format can only succeed if all those participating show good will and common sense. What is at stake here therefore, is not simply the Yerevan Office, but also the principle of consensus, and all concerned need to act responsibly."

source: commonspace.eu 

photo: The flags of the 57 member states of the OSCE. (picture courtesy of the OSCE press office).

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