OPINION: David Stepanyan - "“Karabakh”: impulses, reality, and forecasts."

17 January 2013

Latest impulses and forecasts regarding the Karabakh peace process are directly linked to the January 28 meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Paris. The Minsk Group mediators are supposed to submit some new ideas to Nalbandian and Mammadyarov. It is not known, however, what particular ideas they will offer. Baku and Yerevan, the OSCE MG mediators will further keep in secrecy the details of the negotiations on the Karabakh conflict within the so-called Madrid Principles. The parties are supposed to bargain on a common denominator in the most sensitive issues of the peace process. The notorious details of the "Principles" are not made public, which makes it possible for the Armenian and Azerbaijan authorities to use the Karabakh issue in the domestic policy. It is noteworthy that all this is happening upon sufferance of the Minsk Group co-chairs, which is disturbing.

Azerbaijani Milli Mejlis Speaker Bahar Muradova's statement has confirmed Azerbaijan's unwillingness to continue the negotiations within the OSCE MG. Muradova said recently that Azerbaijan still relies of the Helsinki Final Act and that "settlement of the conflict only within the OSCE is impossible." Obviously, in the face of the current trends and realities, Baku tries to boost the Minsk Process by traditional "oil and gas" methods. Nevertheless, the Azerbaijani authorities seem to have finally realized that relatively inexpensive oil and gas does not bring the stances of the three co-chairs closer, but paradoxically impedes the process. Fortunately, lack of consensus between Paris, Washington and Moscow on the Karabakh peace process and on other global issues seems not so favorable to Baku. Everyone understands now that EU, USA and Russia together can influence not only the Karabakh conflict but also other processes in the region in case of desire. However, Russia is not ready to recognize the EU as the regional actor and takes exception at European initiatives, such as the Eastern Partnership Project, for instance. Moscow has a similar approach to Washington.

The statement by Victoria Nuland, spokesperson for the United States Department of State, has once again confirmed the USA's interest in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. She said that the U.S. tries to actively cooperate with Russia also in regional issues such as the situation in Nagorno Karabakh. For his part, Jonas Stewart, spokesperson of the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan said that the U.S. still considers of the OSCE MG the optimal format of international mediation in the Karabakh peace process. That is why Baku strives to give an impulse to the failing process. Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Elman Abdullayev has already declared that despite the upcoming presidential elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the negotiations for resolution of the conflict will not be stopped. Azerbaijan believes that there are still diplomatic methods of settling the conflict. It is noteworthy that the given statement is addressed to Russia, USA and Europe.

The Iranian specialist in Caucasus Hassan Beheshtipour believes that Baku will just aggravate the Karabakh issue by providing oil concession management to Russian and American companies to settle the Karabakh conflict in its favor without a conflict of interests of Washington and Moscow. With Ilham Aliyev's coming to power Russia's influence in Azerbaijan has decreased. Alongside with that the pro-Western political elite in Azerbaijan has strengthened its positions. The last step was the closedown of the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan. One can arrive at a conclusion that Azerbaijan's strategy aims to gradually reduce Russia's influence in its territory. In this light, it is logical to say that trying to oust Russia from its territory Baku will hardly be interested in Russia's co-chairmanship of the OSCE MG.

The December 12 critical report of the PACE Monitoring Committee predicts nothing good for Baku from the French-European co-chairmanship either. It becomes obvious also from the unusual harsh criticism of Baku for not fulfilling the commitments to the Council of Europe and the accompanying recommendations by the co-rapproteurs on Azerbaijan. The report became the logical continuation of PACE's general course on Azerbaijan adopted at the last session of the CoE on October 3. Then European parliamentarians adopted resolutions on the ideas of political prisoners and "caviar" diplomacy. Hence, the bright past of PACE-Azerbaijan relations have been replaced with thunderous future. Due to USA's unwillingness to change the format of the Minsk Group, the situation has become quite unfavorable for Azerbaijan. Aliyev's entourage have realized that the "big game" in the South Caucasus began to gradually develop into an active phase, and the regrouping of forces and revision of the spheres of influence will undoubtedly influence the conflict's settlement process.

Therefore, Baku has nothing to do but hope for a change in the staff of the Minsk Group, and the co-chairs on the Karabakh process. Baku's preferred candidates for co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group is the fraternal Turkey and Great Britain that lacks friends but has interests in the oil and gas sector. This viewpoint was confirmed by Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS NGO, who in his speech at the OSCE Conference in Brussels called for convening a Minsk conference to elaborate steps leading to peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Looking deep into the given suggestion one can understand that this initiative that aims to change the format of the OSCE MG may lead to neutralization of its work, which is not in favor of either Azerbaijan or Turkey. Neither it is favorable of the Great Britain.

It appears that the policy of maintaining the status-quo around the Karabakh conflict, which Moscow is accused for, will be continued irrespective of the format of the MG. Azerbaijan is not allowed to launch new aggression against Karabakh either by Russia, which does not need a new headache on the southern borders, or by the West that protects its huge investments in the energy projects in Azerbaijan. It is especially relevant considering that the regional superpowers, Iran, which supports Armenia, and Turkey that openly supports Azerbaijan, automatically create additional strong basis for the balance of forces for maintenance of the status-quo. In this light, one should expect neither a comprehensive treaty on Karabakh nor changes in the OSCE MG in the foreseeable future.

ArmInfo

by David Stepanyan

Latest

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

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

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

31 October 2026

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

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”

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

OPINION: David Stepanyan - "“Karabakh”: impulses, reality, and forecasts."

Latest

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

Popular

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

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