Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
OPINION: Andrei Areshev "The Karabakh peace process seems to have entered some period of turbulance"

OPINION: Andrei Areshev "The Karabakh peace process seems to have entered some period of turbulance"

12 September 2011

ArmInfo interviewed Andrey Areshev, research fellow at the Black Sea-Caspian Region Institute for Political and Social Studies

Let’s talk of the latest impulses or lack of impulses in the Karabakh peace process…

The Nagorno-Karabakh peace process seems to have entered some phase of turbulence. After the failed meeting in Kazan, there is little hope for progress. The parties are obviously unwilling to revise their positions. Otherwise, they would have announced a new meeting.  They didn't, but this is not Russia's fault. This is the very nature of this conflict. The Kazan meeting was followed by certain diplomatic maneuvers, where Russia had quite a big role. I mean the visits of the Armenian and Azeri FMs to Moscow, the visit of their Russian counterpart to Yerevan and Baku as well as the meeting of the Russian and Azeri presidents in Sochi. That meeting and Aliyev's decision not to attend the CIS Summit in Dushanbe are links of the same chain:  Aliyev expects the OSCE MG to show more respect for his official stance. As for the position of the co-chairs, it is well balanced and therefore annoying for the Azeri authorities as it gives them little chance to try to resolve the conflict by means of force.  Both Russia and the United States are worried about the possibility of a new war, which is proved by the recent statement by the Russian Ambassador to Armenia, who said that Moscow is ready to meet its commitments to Yerevan in the framework of the Collective Security Treaty. The efforts to keep up the military balance in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone are a very important part of the peace process.


Would you speak of those steps in more details?

Of course, we can only guess what exactly is being done.  We better wait for the military parade to be held in Yerevan on Armenia's Independence Day. It is already known that Armenia has BM-30 Smerch multiple rocket launchers and has reportedly obtained S-400 anti-aircraft weapon systems. In this context, quite interesting is the recent statement by Ali Gasanov, Head of the Social-Political Department of the Azeri President's Administration, who offered Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh cheap oil and gas in exchange for accepting the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.  Azerbaijan is obviously shifting accents again as it sees that it will hardly be able to resolve the conflict by means of war. I doubt that Nagorno-Karabakh may respond to this unrealistic offer. It is obvious that even if Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh happen to accept Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, they will hardly get cheap oil and gas. (To remind, while speaking in Batumi Aug 28 Gasanov said that Armenia may receive oil and gas upon any terms if it acknowledges Azerbaijan's territorial integrity). Gasanov's offer is hardly realistic considering Armenia's refusal to exchange Nagorno-Karabakh's independence for Azeri fuel in the dark and cold 1990s.


In other words, the aforementioned factors show stagnation of the process, don’t they?

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict may serve as a good regional level model for those developing the European collective security system. The latest impulses in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process have signaled that it is stagnating in the face of growing pre-electoral activity in Armenia, Azerbaijan and the co- chair states. The mediators will hardly succeed in finalizing the process now. For attaining any final agreement they should solve a number of problems, the ongoing military rhetoric and arms race being one of them.  If the co-chairs really want the conflict to be resolved, they should appear with new effective solutions.

 
Does it mean that there is no alternative to the status quo or will you make any other forecast?

Today there is no alternative to the present status quo. If based on efficient monitoring mechanisms, it will allow reducing casualties on the contact line and preventing relevant propaganda campaigns.  And this will be a big step towards the final settlement.   


Do you agree with the opinion that they in Baku have already put up with the de-facto independent NKR and pin hopes just with return of certain territories of the security zone?

I think the role of the liberated territories in security of Nagorny Karabakh within the borders of 1991 is very big. These issues cannot be considered separately. Both Yerevan and Baku are well aware that after getting these territories as a certain compromise based on the Madrid Principles, for instance, Azerbaijan will not withstand the temptation of getting also Nagorny Karabakh. It will mean the loss of Nagorny Karabakh for Armenians. I think that it is one of the key, delicate reasons that impede success in the negotiations.  Therefore, Armenia and Karabakh need very solid guarantees before yielding any territory.  However, I do not think that it is possible to give such guarantees to Armenia. This is what stalemates the negotiations against the background of Azerbaijan's growing demands.


What is Iran’s role in all this?

Iran's role in resolution of the Karabakh conflict is significant enough. At least, the OSCE MG, Yerevan, Baku and Stepanakert always reckon with Tehran's stance on the conflict, which is rather a serious factor.  Iran's stance is rather stable and has not been changed over the past years. Iran is not interested in resumption of military actions in the conflict zone since it will make internationalization of the conflict inevitable. This, in its turn, will lead to deployment of peacemaking forces of NATO or USA close to the northern borders of Iran.  The expert believes that deployment of any foreign militaries even in the territories of the security zone around NKR will damage Iran's interests.  In addition, Iran has rather serious domestic political problems.  Therefore, Tehran will do its best to preserve the status quo in the Karabakh conflict.


Ex-president of Armenia Robert Kocharyan has recently come out for NKR to be directly involved in the negotiations. Is it possible? What will it give to the Armenian party considering that it was at Kocharyan’s suggestion that Karabakh stopped being a party to the negotiations?

De facto Nagorno-Karabakh is involved in the peace talks and is aware of their details. The co-chairs regularly visit Nagorno-Karabakh despite its removal from the peace process in the 1990s. Nagorno- Karabakh President Bako Sahakyan will hardly be involved in the meetings of his Armenian and Azeri counterparts in the near future but it would be strange if the fate of the people living Nagorno-Karabakh is determined in their absence. I have recently visited Nagorno-Karabakh and saw that it is actively developing. The world community must admit this fact. For some unknown reasons they have recognized South Sudan, a country that may soon get bogged down in an inter-tribal bloody war but refuse to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh, a people that has certainly deserved the right to be independent in the past 20 years.

I am sure that the next presidential election in Nagorno- Karabakh will be one more step towards its legitimization. The more steps Nagorno-Karabakh takes in its development, the fewer reasons the world community has for ignoring it.


Interview by David Stepanyan; Source: ARMINFO

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