Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
News

New report explores how confidence-building measures can contribute to a peaceful solution of the Karabakh conflict

13 December 2018

LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research) on Thursday (13 December) published a report on the potential use of confidence-building measures in support of the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The report is the result of 18 months of work by a working group made up of Armenian and Azerbaijani experts, working under the chairmanship of LINKS in the framework of the European Union's EPNK initiative. In the course of preparing the report the working group held wide range consultations and discussions with stakeholders across the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict divide, as well as with the international community.

Read the report: Confidence building is an essential component for a lasting and peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

In an executive summary, the conclusions of the report are summarised:

Introducing confidence-building measures (CBMs) in a situation of conflict or potential conflict is often considered a prerequisite to any resolution of the conflict itself. CBMs help to restore trust – a slow and incremental process that requires patience, and at least a minimum level of engagement by the relevant parties. Whilst CBMs are often designed primarily to stop the slide to conflict, or to help stop an ongoing one, their ultimate aim must always be to restore peace. CBMs are not a substitute for peace or for a proper peace process.

There have been many attempts to introduce CBMs in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and conflict settlement process, but by and large, they have failed. This is often because they were premature, or they needed to be preceded by something else before they could be realistically implemented. This has allowed the sides of the conflict to dismiss various proposed CBMs as not possible, nor even desirable. For this reason, it is essential when discussing and designing CBMs in the Karabakh context to ensure that proper consideration is given to timing and sequencing. This includes the development of a phased approach that if not part of the peace process, accompanies it; also with the flexibility to nudge ahead if the opportunity arises. CBMs are a dynamic tool – to be used incrementally as engagement between the sides increases. It is now time to be ambitious and imaginative. But both in design and in the implementation of CBMs, no one should forget there is as yet a huge amount of work to be done for the concept to be even accepted – by governments and populations alike – and that the burden of history in the region is heavy. Thus, whilst we strongly support the implementation of CBMs in the Karabakh context, we also strongly urge prudence and caution. In some situations, though not all, a regional approach in the process of building confidence is desirable and can give good results. Overall, a delicate balance between a regional approach and a bilateral approach will work best.

• CBMs are an essential part of the process to peacefully resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The sides to the conflict need to unambiguously embrace the concept and contribute to their design and implementation. They need to allow a safe space for different stakeholders to engage with CBMs, without prejudice, to the outcome of any negotiated solution. CBMs need to accompany the peace process, nudging ahead whenever possible, tagging along as much as necessary. It is not possible to be over ambitious in aspiring to what can be realistically achieved, but neither should there be a complete absence of vision and ambition.

• Just and lasting peace in Nagorno-Karabakh, and between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis generally, requires fresh thinking on how things can be in the future. Whilst this may be, and often is, dismissed as day dreaming, the ability to think creatively about a future Caucasus region is an important ingredient for getting out of the current impasse. Informed discussions on the economic benefits of peace need to become part of the broader discussion on conflict resolution, as well as way to incentivise engagement in confidence-building activities.

• There is a compelling argument for broadening the peace process going forward to involve other international actors. There is now a need for organisations with experience of CBMs, such as the EU and the UN, as well as the OSCE, to be given the space and the encouragement to bring their expertise into play. The Minsk Group co-Chairs need to urgently take steps to demystify the process that they lead.

• The role of international and local civil society – including the media, think tanks and NGOs – in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has often been ignored or misunderstood, sometimes maligned, and regularly underestimated by both sides of the conflict and the international community. Galvanising the energy and expertise of global and local civil society has eluded the sides in the conflict, and the international mediators. It is time that this is remedied.

• Issues of land mines and unexploded ordinance, and cultural and historical heritage impacted by the conflict are difficult to discuss and to engage with, but are hugely important for the people directly impacted by the conflict. Discussion of these issues should no longer be avoided. The Working Group proposes a number of concrete measures that can be implemented in both spheres at various moments in the conflict resolution process.

You can read the report in full here

source: commonspace.eu

photo: The working group held meetings with stakeholders in Yerevan and Baku in October and November 2017 respectively.

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
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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