OPINION: Awaiting the Irish Spring: Richard Giragosian holds great expectations from the incoming Irish Chairmanship of the OSCE

Friday, 13 January 2012

Richard Giragosian holds great expectations from the "Irish Spring," as the start of the Irish chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) offers a fresh degree of optimism from the promise of an innovative Irish approach to conflict transformation in the South Caucasus.

For the past two decades, the primary international organization empowered to promote stability and security in the former Soviet Union has been the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the world's largest security body. In addition to dealing with the frustratingly erratic course of democratization and reform and a record of disappointing elections in the post-Soviet states, the OSCE's "Minsk Group" has been the sole mediator of the unresolved Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

In recent years, the OSCE Minsk Group has been roundly criticized for failing to garner any breakthrough in the "frozen" Karabakh conflict. Although that criticism is, at least partly, unfair, given the complex nature of that conflict, there is a new degree of optimism from a one-year Irish chairmanship of the OSCE. More specifically, this optimism stems from the promise and potential of an "Irish Spring," offering a new, fresh and more innovative Irish approach to conflict transformation.

At the start of this year, Ireland assumed the Chairmanship of the OSCE, pledging to "address protracted conflicts, promote Internet freedom and strengthen co-operation between the 56 OSCE participating States." Under the stewardship of the new Chairperson-in-Office, Irish Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore, there are expectations for a slightly different approach to leveraging the OSCE as an instrument for stability and security. Although the Irish chairmanship will naturally carry forward the work of last year's rotating OSCE chair, Lithuania, it is Ireland's unique experience in conflict transformation and resolution, bolstered by a role as a trusted and impartial mediator that drives the appeal of an "Irish Spring."

As articulated by Irish Deputy Prime Minister Gilmore, Ireland "will seek to build on this momentum through supporting existing processes, including the Minsk Group on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and the Geneva Discussions dealing with the August 2008 conflict in Georgia," and will "draw on our own experience of conflict resolution in the context of the Northern Ireland peace process to advance these processes and facilitate engagement by all parties." Another promising and potentially more innovative priority issue for the Irish will center on the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media in the digital age, with a focus on "the potential of the Internet to inform and empower people" and working closely with civil society organizations and business to safeguard these freedoms online.

The OSCE Minsk Group: Too much "Minsk," too little "Group"

Clearly, short-term breakthroughs or achievements for the one-year Irish OSCE chairmanship will be neither immediate nor immense, especially as the Irish are inheriting a complicated legacy of OSCE frustration and failure. But in terms of one of the more daunting shortcomings within the OSCE portfolio, "protracted conflicts," the Irish offer something new. And as the sole mediator of the Karabakh conflict, the so-called "Minsk Group," there is an obvious need for a fresh approach.

For too long, the clumsily-named Minsk Group has been too closely associated with Minsk, in terms of a lack of transparency and an overly secretive process, with not enough of an emphasis on the "group," with a format flawed by an insufficient circle of stakeholders and constituents, and with civil society involvement and support both too meager and far too marginal.

In this context, it is the Karabakh conflict that offers the Irish a unique opportunity to make a mark in international diplomacy and to make a difference in transforming the conflict. This potential transformative role as a true "agent for change" stems from the capacity to leverage the Irish experience, which is rooted in the fact that Ireland understands "all too well the devastating cost of conflict," but also recognizes that only "through negotiation, compromise and the dedication and imagination of the two Governments involved, and leaders on both sides of the divide, a lasting settlement was achieved in relation to Northern Ireland."

This Irish accomplishment was also hailed as an experience that can be of direct "benefit in facilitating the efforts which are needed to resolve outstanding conflicts in the OSCE region, using the tools of peaceful negotiation and agreed formats and respecting fully the principles of international law." And although stressing that "each conflict situation is different," the new Irish chairmanship will seek to share that experience to "assist and encourage those engaged in seeking lasting settlements to conflicts in our region."

The coming year offers a notable degree of fresh optimism, but also reflects raised expectations from this "Irish Spring." And with presidential elections in 2012 in each of the three countries chairing the OSCE Minsk Group, it only seems likely that no one in Paris, Moscow or Washington will be able or willing to invest any real geopolitical capital in the distant South Caucasus.

But fortunately, the Irish are already off to a good start on meeting such expectations, with two recent appointments. The first appointment, naming Ambassador Pádraig Murphy as Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office for the South Caucasus, endows the Irish chairmanship with a venerable and talented diplomat with vast experience, including a previous tenure as Ireland's ambassador to the Soviet Union, Germany, Spain and Japan.

The second move was a reappointment, returning Andrzej Kasprzyk to the post of OSCE Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office on the Conflict Dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference, a role as difficult and complex as its official title. With this reappointment, Ambassador Kasprzyk continues as the OSCE Personal Representative, a post that he has held since 1997, making him the one person within the Karabakh peace process with any substantial institutional memory. Thus, at the least, one can expect an interesting time as an "Irish Spring" comes to the South Caucasus.


.......................................


* Richard Giragosian is the director of the Regional Studies Center (RSC), an independent think tank in Yerevan, Armenia (director@regional-studies.org)

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

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).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

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)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

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)