Have you ever wondered what the "Minsk Process" was all about, how did it start and what has Minsk got to do with it? Read here the answers to ten questions that you always wanted to ask.

The MINSK PROCESS

(1) What is it?
The OSCE Minsk Process is the mechanism that the international community has designated to try to find a resolution to the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis on Nagorno-Karabakh and other issues.
The process was launched in embryonic form in 1992 in the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, but became more formal when that institution became an organization (OSCE) in 1994.


(2) Why is it called the Minsk Process?
The original idea was to prepare the sides in the conflict to participate in an international conference in Minsk. The conference never took place, and the process has no relationship with Minsk whatsoever, but it continues using this name because the sides could not agree on a new name for it.


(3) Who is in charge of the Minsk Process
Formally it is the OSCE and more specifically a group of member states of the OSCE that were originally designated to organize the Minsk Conference, but in fact it is the three countries that co-Chair the group, France, Russia and the United States who are in charge. Other members of the group and other OSCE member states sometimes complain that they are not even informed of what is going on.


(4) Who are the people involved?
The three co-chair countries are represented by diplomats, usually Ambassadors or diplomats of similar rank. The three current co-Chair are Ambassadors Igor Popov (Russia), Jacques Faure (France) and Ian Kelly (USA).


(5) And who does the day to day work?
For a long time the continuity of the process has been kept by Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk who every year is appointed as the special representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office. He is assisted by a small team of field officers based in the region.


(6) France is one of the co-chair countries. Does that mean the European Union is represented?
No France is a co-Chair in her own right and does not represent the EU. At its pleasure it sometimes keeps the EU informed of developments in the process.


(7) What are the Madrid Principles?
The Madrid Principles are a set of ideas based on the 1975 Helsinki Final Act which were presented to Armenia and Azerbaijan by the Minsk Group co-Chair during the OSCE Meeting in Madrid in 2007. The principles have since been fine-tuned in line with discussions held with the sides. They aim to provide the sides with a framework within which they can then start negotiating a peace agreement. They provide for a phasedArmenian withdrawal from Azerbaijani territory around Nagorno-Karabakh which they occupied during the conflict, opening up of communications, demining and demilitarization, after which it is envisaged to deploy a peacekeeping force and the granting of an interim status to the territory. They also envisage a legally binding public expression of will to determine the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh. In their generic format the Madrid Principles have been accepted by the sides, "with some reservations". However once the sides started asking for details and clarifications it became clear that the distance between them was still substantial.


(8) What are the biggest achievements of the Minsk Group?
Individual diplomats representing the three co-chair countries have often said that the fact that no new conflict has taken place between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the last two decades is thanks to the efforts of the Minsk Process. There were times when the Group expressed optimism that a solution was round the corner, but it never happened. The Group has managed to keep the sides talking, even in times of tension, but in the last two years even that has become difficult.

(9) What are the biggest criticisms of the Minsk Group?
They are sometimes criticized for not having delivered. But to say this is unfair since it hardly depended on them. However the way the process has been managed, the way the sides were allowed to engage with it, and the secrecy surrounding every step of the negotiations are sometimes mentioned as things that could have been done differently.


( 10) Is there a chance that the work of the OSCE Minsk Group will ever succeed?
There are different views on this. Officially most diplomats and politicians will tell you that it is the best mechanism available and the sides have to make it work. In private some are saying now that the process has ran out of steam. For the moment everybody seems to be happy to leave it in the laps of France, Russia and the United States. But for how long?

This Q and A was compiled by the staff of Commonspaceextra, based on publicly available material.

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
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!

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)