The EU must get involved in the Karabakh situation - visibly, comprehensively and urgently

 "The most serious and dangerous crisis to face the South Caucasus in the last twenty five years is currently unfolding in front of our eyes", writes Dennis Sammut in this opinion.

The most serious and dangerous crisis to face the South Caucasus in the last twenty five years is currently unfolding in front of our eyes. Armenian and Azerbaijani forces battle each other in and around Nagorno-Karabakh amid claims that external powers are getting entangled in the conflict, and with both sides claiming their rival is using mercenaries. A ceasefire brokered by Russia last week has largely been ignored by the sides.

The situation is very serious and is likely to get worse. In their most recent statement, the co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, who are mandated by the international community to help resolve the conflict, warned of a catastrophic situation in the region if fighting does not stop.  

This conflict was both predictable and predicated. Regardless of the final outcome, the impact on the South Caucasus will be enormous and a new reality is emerging with deep long-term consequences. We must wake up to the fact that some of the certainties of the past have now gone, and a new set of realities may be emerging - some pretty worrying and disturbing.

For the European Union, this war in its Eastern neighbourhood presents it with serious challenges and dilemmas. Everyone agrees that the South Caucasus is a region of great strategic importance for the EU - an interconnector with Eurasia, Central Asia and the Middle East. The countries of the region have different partnership arrangements with the EU, and the EU has invested substantially in the economy, infrastructure and human capital of the three countries. Yet for too long the EU has chosen the path of constructive ambiguity as a policy of dealing with the Karabakh conflict and the South Caucasus Region in general. That may have worked for some time, but it is not going to work going forward. A clear strategy and plan of engagement is necessary. But first the EU needs to deal with the immediate crisis.

The ceasefire is the most urgent priority. However, a ceasefire is proving difficult because the two sides have a different vision of what they want from it. It is also difficult to manage given that there is now no longer a clearly identifiable line of contact. The best we can hope for is a significant lull in the violence. Winter in the Caucasus is harsh, and not conducive to warfare. The weather therefore will play a part, doing perhaps in the next weeks what the politicians and diplomats may fail to do. A fragile ceasefire and inclement weather may therefore give diplomacy a window between now and March before another escalation - next time, perhaps, even more serious - occurs.

The path for peaceful diplomacy - at all levels and in all its forms, from the formal negotiating process at the track 1 level, to track 2 initiatives involving the wider society - should follow four stages. It must reconnect, reassess, reconfigure and reconstruct.

Reconnection is necessary because most of the channels for dialogue are either irreparably damaged or, at best, not functioning. A lot of blood has been spilt, which makes all contact extremely sensitive. Together and separately the sides need to be assisted to properly reassess the situation. So does the international community. Based on this assessment, and taking into account the reality, a process of reconfiguration of present arrangements will likely be necessary. In the past this has proven extremely difficult, but the new realities, and risks ahead, may help focus minds. Finally, at the fourth stage a process of re-construction must start across the board: from the formal negotiating process to people's diplomacy; from rebuilding damaged houses and infrastructure, to rebuilding the spirit of broken communities.

In all this the European Union needs to be centre stage, not relegated to the status of observer. The South Caucasus is a region of strategic importance to the EU and doing nothing will be tantamount to abandoning the region to other, perhaps not so benign players. Every space that the EU does not fill, others will.

There are five things the EU can and must do, starting now and going forward across a wide spectrum of areas.

(1)   It should initiate an independent and credible assessment of what has been happening in the last weeks, highlighting particularly any transgressions of international humanitarian law, and unlawful targeting of civilians; and the use of disinformation. Both sides have been trying to convince Europe and European public opinion of their just cause. Europe cannot rely on the propaganda coming out from the sides for its decision making. It needs to make its own assessment based on a solid body of evidence as soon as the dust of war starts to settle down.

(2)   The EU now needs to push for a structured engagement with the peace process. It cannot just simply be happy being informed, it needs to be able to influence the process in its own right. One way in which this can be done within the current diplomatic parameters is for the EU to join OSCE Minsk Group in its own right, as a member and not necessarily immediately as a co-Chair. Given the OSCE procedures this can be done through the rotating chairmanship, a procedure already used by the EU in other OSCE fora.

(3)   There must be a clear commitment to mobilise and deploy a European contingent for any eventual peacekeeping force that is likely to be needed to stabilise the situation. The Russians and the Turks cannot be the ones providing the main element of such a peacekeeping force. The EU needs to get involved quickly with the work of the High-Level Military Planning Group - a unit within the OSCE that has operated in Vienna since 1995 with the specific purpose of planning for such a peacekeeping force in support of a Karabakh peace settlement.

(4)   The EU needs to have a proper mechanism to support contacts beyond the official negotiating process - across a wide range of actors from parliamentarians to civil society groups, from professional bodies to war veterans. The EU has tried this before with varying levels of success. This effort must now be intensified. A rapid interim response is required to cover the period between now and spring, with the capacity to expand and adapt as things develop.

(5)   Finally, the EU must lead, and must be seen leading a new international effort towards addressing the humanitarian aspects of the conflict, which would address the process of reconstruction in its different dimensions. The EU should convene as soon as possible, and within the next six months, a Humanitarian conference that would galvanise the support of the international community and work in tandem with the track 1 peace process.

In most of these initiatives the EU will depend on the acquiescence of the sides, and of the international community. Yet the argument, often used in the past, that "we cannot because we have not been invited to" no longer holds. If it is going to require a bit of pushing and shoving to get the EU in the right position, then the ladies and gentlemen of the EEAS should, for a moment, put aside their good manners and do so.

The EUs involvement with the Karabakh conflict and conflict resolution process in the past often appeared patchy and lacking a sense of urgency. This was often interpreted as lack of interest. That may or may not have been the case but certainly now the urgency of the situation is clear, and the response must be effective and timely. Not doing so will be tantamount to abandoning the South Caucasus to Turkey and Russia, and the region is simply too close and too important for the EU to do so.

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS Europe (office@links-europe.eu)

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

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

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

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

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)