Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
"We are already in "extra time". If things do not get better in 2013 they will get worse. I do not think the present situation is sustainable."

"We are already in "extra time". If things do not get better in 2013 they will get worse. I do not think the present situation is sustainable."

14 January 2013

The Director of the British NGO, LINKS, reflected on the end of 2012 and the start of 2013 and its implications for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement process in an interview with the Azerbaijani news portal, news.az, published on the 9th January.

  
How would you estimate 2012 for the Karabakh settlement?

It has not been a good year. There have been serious incidents on the line of contact and the atmosphere around the negotiations has been very negative. Contacts between the sides at a senior level have been minimal. So it is difficult to evaluate the year positvely.

We can take some comfort in the fact that the sides have continued to declare a willingness to negotiate. The best news from 2012 is that there seems to be readiness to discuss the problems in the Karabakh peace process more openly and there is more willingness to accept that something needs to be done quickly to give a new stimulus to the negotiations.

What may we expect from 2013 taking into account that it will be year of elections both in Armenia and Azerbaijan?

The supporters of the Presidents in both Armenia and Azerbaijan keep saying that the incumbent presidents are very popular and that they are going to win the elections easily. So in that case elections should not be an excuse to either stop or slow down the negotiations. In fact negotiating peace should help win the election for any candidate. If that is not the case then there is something wrong.

Elections apart I feel we are already in "extra time". If things do not get better in 2013 they will get worse. I do not think the present situation is sustainable.

The Minsk group co-chairs are hugely criticized by the conflict sides, mostly Azeri side. What should be done to ensure breakthrough in the peace process?

The Minsk Process is not perfect, and the co-chair countries may have not approached the issue in the optimal way. But the biggest responsibility for the failure so far is with the two sides in the conflict and I think everybody understands that. Two weeks ago in Brussels I spoke about this issue and suggested that a "big gesture" was required at this point, and this could be the convening of the "Minsk Conference" the original framework envisaged in 1992 for taking forward the peace negotiations. For this to work both sides will need to accept a timeframe and rules for this to happen and be fruitful. Not everybody likes this idea, but I have not heard of any better ones yet.

Armenians want to launch a new airport in Karabakh. Baku and co-chairs have already condemned these plans. How may this step (if it would be taken) affect the situation in the region?

I am against isolationism. The Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh feel like a community under siege and this does not help create an atmosphere of peace. The operation of the airport in itself is not a bad idea. What could be a bad idea is if the opening of the airport is interpreted as a political victory that somehow adds credence to the Armenian position of the status of Nagorno Karabakh. I think we need to separate the two issues.

I personally consider the opening of the airport from a humanitarian perspective and so have a more open mind about it. It could be opened under some kind of international supervision and used purely for civilian traffic.

The EU has expressed a wish to be more active in the Karabakh settlement with some "confidence building measures". Do you believe in success of this activity? Is the EU able to bring a fresh breath to the peace process?

The European Union is emerging as a crucial partner for both Armenia and Azerbaijan on a wide range of issues. It has expressed a willingness to contribute towards the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Confidence building measures are one way in which it can do this.

We expect to hear clearly from both sides if they want more EU involvement in the Karabakh conflict resolution process or not. This can happen without changing the present format of the negotiations. The EU can only contribute effectively if both sides agree that it should be involved. I repeat we have to hear this clearly from both sides. If they do not say it we have to assume that they do not want this involvement.

F.H.
News.Az

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