Useful meetings, but are they enough?

This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

For the third time in as many months, the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have met under the auspices of the international community to discuss the relations between them and the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. After an upsurge of violence in the summer the Presidents first met in Sochi, under the auspices of President Putin of Russia, and a month later in Wales, on the margins of the NATO Summit in a meeting hosted by United States Secretary of State John Kerry. This month it was the turn of President Hollande of France to host the two leaders in Paris for the third meeting. Russia, the United States and France are the three countries that co-chair the OSCE Minsk Process that is mandated to facilitate a resolution of the conflict between the two countries that has raged on for nearly a quarter of a century. All the three co-Chair countries have now hosted a high level meeting each in this latest round. Diplomatic nicities have been satisfied and boxes ticked. It is now time to get down to substance.

The first reactions from the two countries about the Paris talks have been overall positive, even if not particularly enthusiastic. Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian characterised the meeting as "helpful, sincere and constructive". "I believe another small step was taken today towards drawing the positions of the parties nearer," Nalbandian was quoted as telling the press after the meeting. The Armenian Foreign Minister summed up the dilemma in which the negotiators and facilitators find themselves: Armenia wants to build confidence that would lead to a peace agreement; Azerbaijan wants a peace agreement from which confidence-building can be build. So we now know that the Karabakh conflict will be resolved once the two sides decide what comes first, the chicken or the egg. Foreign Minister Nalbandian also stated that the Paris meetings reaffirmed that the Minsk Process is the one and only framework for resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The love-affair of Armenia with the Minsk Process rages on.

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov also described the Paris meetings as "positive and contributing to the mutual understanding of positions". He has also embraced the chicken and egg debate, and not surprisingly his view on the matter is the complete opposite of his Armenian counterpart. Azerbaijan wants a peace agreement first, and confidence-building later. In essence Mammadyarov said that snipers will continue to operate on the line of contact until Armenia withdraws from the Azerbaijani territories around Nagorno-Karabakh that it occupied during the war in the 1990s.

So what is one to conclude from this latest piece of diplomatic theatre?

The Paris meetings, were useful, but they were not enough. None of the sides, and none of the international mediators have cause for any self-satisfaction. The problem is that nobody knows what else to do apart from bringing the sides together, giving them a good dinner and hoping for the best. The most interesting feature emerging from the meetings in Sochi, Wales and Paris is the lack of interest in them within Armenian and Azerbaijani societies. Those who have followed this process for many years remember the excitement that meetings between the two leaders used to generate. Not anymore. The diplomatic theatre it seems has lost its audience. Yet every month people die on the line of contact from violations of the cease fire arrangements. Hundreds of thousands of people remain caught in a situation of constant tension or suffering in and around the conflict zone. They do not have the luxury to ignore the efforts to resolve the conflict. Which is why the pressure must be kept on all concerned to move this peace process forward and close once and for all this terrible page in the history of the South Caucasus.

This commentary was prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

Photo: President Hollande of France hosted a dinner for the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan at the Elysee Palace on 27 October 2014 following a day of talks aimed at unblocking the impasse in the negotiations on a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)