Opinion: Dennis Sammut discusses the future of the Minsk Process in the light of the current crisis in Ukraine
The Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov met yesterday in Paris with diplomats from France, Russia and the United States who co-chair the OSCE Minsk Group format, in the latest effort to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Today the diplomats will meet in Moscow with the Foreign Minister of Armenia, Edward Nalbandian.
After stagnating for nearly two years the negotiation process seemed to be on the point of re-starting when the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Vienna in November of last year after much effort on the part of the co-Chair. The Armenian President, Serzh Sargsyan called it a new beginning, but the Azerbaijani leader, Ilham Aliyev was much more coy about it. Since then attempts to organise a new meeting between the Presidents have stalled, and the fact that the co-Chair are meeting the two Ministers separately, and even in separate countries, does not augur well.
The task of the Minsk Group has been further complicated by developments in the international context over the last days with the crisis in Ukraine. Russia is now caught in a stand-off with the rest of the international community, and what has been described as the most serious crisis in Europe since the end of the cold war. The Minsk Process, which has been quasi monopolised by the three co-Chair countries, has always depended on a good working relationship between American and Russian diplomats - the French providing the necessary ambiguity which French diplomacy is very skilled at, to ease the bumps of global politics. Thus in 2008, in the aftermath of the Georgia-Russia War, and the subsequent cooling of US-Russian relations, the Minsk Group could still continue with its work, and indeed it was hailed as an example of how good diplomacy can survive crisis.
That may happen again on this occasion. Everybody is aware of how complicated the issues related to Karabakh are, and losing the benefit of a process that has span over twenty years would be unfortunate, even if the tangible results from it are very few.
Bigger considerations have however contributed to the Minsk Group's durability, and these may or may not remain relevant in the new situation that is emerging as a result of the Ukraine Crisis.
First the process is very convenient for Russia. It gives Russia an additional element in its diplomatic toolbox for dealing with Armenia and Azerbaijan, whilst also making sure that the Americans and Europeans are in step, and not doing something on their own. Russia is happy to play the equal here, because in other spheres - military, economic, cultural, human, its own leverage on Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the wider region, is much bigger than that of the US or France. For Russia the Minsk Group is diplomacy within bounds.
On the other hand the Minsk Process allows the United States to be seen busy on Karabakh. This is important for the domestic constituency of US politicians, particularly those with big Armenian diaspora numbers, and also for the interests of the oil industry and lobby who expect to see American diplomats at the top table on this issue, even if the outcome from the process is modest. It gives the US a modest amount of easy leverage on Russia in the Caucasus.
For the French the Minsk Process is world order, as it should be with France up there with the US and Russia. The insistence of French diplomats that they are in the Minsk Group for France and not for the EU has its roots in this thinking. The Minsk Group also gives France an involvement in the region in a way that it never had historically, politically or economically. These far from altruistic reasons have up to know kept the Minsk Group trio together.
The Ukraine crisis may test this cosy arrangement. If Russia follows through with its plans to annexe Crimea, having for all intents and purposes invaded Ukraine, its claims as a peace-maker would be irreparably damaged. Even those who are ready to accept a heavy dose of real-politik in such matters may have doubts of Russia's suitability to play a peace-making role in Karabakh. Furthermore a country that challenges the post-World War II order in Europe in such a brazen manner is hardly the best suited to facilitate a dispute that has territory and territorial integrity at its core.
Secondly the US and France may now decide that the Minsk Group is too much of a fig leaf for Russia's ambitions in the Caucasus. Being seen working together on Karabakh has very little credibility given the wider picture. It is true that on other issues such as Iran, Syria, Afghanistan etc. there is an attempt to insulate the co-operation that has been built with much hard work over the years and to at least try to wait for a better moment to restart. Karabakh is however too close to the Ukraine situation to be so easily insulated.
Finally the Minsk Process may be overtaken by events. The solution to Ukraine may require a much grander effort than the low key talks in Geneva that resulted after the 2008 crisis in Georgia. Karabakh may have to be brought in within a much bigger discussion of what happens in Europe now, and how to give European states security.
In all this the opinion of Armenia and Azerbaijan matters but not as much as one would suppose. Up to now Armenia has been a big supporter of the Minsk group format; Azerbaijan has been much less enthusiastic but has largely acquiesced. Both countries are comfortable with the softly softly approach that the Minsk Group has adopted over the years; both countries have been very quiet about events in Ukraine, standing on the side-line rather than taking sides. There will be a point where they will have to take the plunge. Depending on which side of the pool they end up in will determine their outlook on the future of the Minsk Process too.
As for the people caught up in the Karabakh conflict itself, well they will have to wait, as they have done for the last twenty years, until the world community gets its act together and hope that from the troubles in Ukraine some good can come out.
Dennis Sammut is a regular commentator on the Caucasus, European security and the wider Middle East. He is currently based at Oxford University and can be contacted at dennis.sammut@spc.ox.ac.uk or @dennissammut on twitter
photo: Ambassadors James Warlick (US), Jacques Faure (France), and Igor Popov (Russia) - the three co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Process meeting with Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan in Yerevan on 6 February 2014.
