PLAN B: IS FORCE A SOLUTION FOR RESOLVING THE KARABAKH CONFLICT?

IS FORCE A SOLUTION FOR RESOLVING THE KARABAKH CONFLICT?

Two developments in the last few days left an air of uncertainty and discomfort in international quarters. First in Kazan on Friday,24 June, the long heralded summit between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan with the president of Russia failed to achieve a breakthrough in the negotiations. The sides blamed each other, the international community expressed disappointment , and the OSCE co-Chair prepared for another round of shuttle diplomacy.

Two days later, Baku saw the biggest military parade in the history of independent Azerbaijan. Elements of the Army, Navy and Air force displayed some of the hardware that has been bought at great expense in recent years. Baku has been on a military shopping spree, with the military budget this year exceeding  USD 1.2 billion. On paper, the Armenian Military budget is more modest. But given the opaqueness in the arrangements between the Armenian Armed forces and the Russian forces based in Armenia, the Armenian figures may not be telling the whole story. Both sides talk peace most of the time, and they talk war sometimes.

Some experts have taken to drawing up doomsday scenarios - an Azerbaijani lightning strike to liberate its territories, or an Armenian pre-emptive strike to neutralise any Azerbaijani threat. Both scenarios are of course possible and the rhetoric coming out from Baku and Yerevan fuels this speculation.

Both scenarios however, in the unlikely event that they will happen will not lead to a solution.

A renewed conflict is likely to be long and messy, and will result in turning the problem into a new format but not a solution. Luckily Armenia and Azerbaijan are ruled by calm people who calculate well before any move.  That is why they have up to now opted for negotiations.

But the failure to achieve even modest progress in the negotiations is putting a lot of stress on the fragile cease fire on the line of contact where thousands of soldiers from both sides face each other in World War 1 trench conditions. Both sides report daily breaches of the cease fire, and claim casualties.

Strengthening the cease fire and strengthening the international monitoring of its compliance has now become a priority to give the negotiations more time. However the cease fire must not become an end in itself.

Patience is a virtue in conflict resolution, but senseless procrastination is not. The doomsday scenarios cannot be postponed for ever.

Prepared by commonspace.eu editorial team

Photo: Military parade in Baku on 26 June 2011

(photo courtesy of news.az)

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.

Popular