Peace talks in New York; Deaths and violence in Karabakh.

The Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in New York on Friday, 25 September, with the facilitation of the co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Process. The meeting took place in a tense moment in the conflict between the two countries over Nagorno Karabakh. Earlier the two foreign ministers held separate meetings with the co-Chair. No statement has been issued so far by the co-Chair after their meeting but Azerbaijani sources report that the co-Chair now have plans to visit the region again.

As the talks were going on in New York on Thursday and Friday there was a sharp increase in violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone and on the international border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Both sides have issued statement accusing each other of initiating the violence in an attempt to disrupt the New York discussions.

On Thursday three Armenian civilians were reported killed in incidents around the District of Tavush in the northern sector of the international border between the two countries.

On Friday heavy fighting was reported in the Karabakh conflict zone. Four Armenian soldiers of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) were killed and at least sixteen others wounded, according to the NKR Defence Ministry. Azerbaijani said it had suffered one fatality and several of its soldiers were also wounded.

The two sides give very different accounts of the incidents and commonspace.eu has no possibility to verify the accuracy of the different reports.

Stepanakert in mourning after deaths

The administrative capital of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Stepanakert, was in mourning on Saturday following the casualties on Friday. Festivities to mark the day of the city were cancelled on orders of the mayor, Suren Grigoryan.

Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan trade accusations at New York talks.

Both sides have made comments following the talks in New York.

The Azerbaijani News Agency APA quotes, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov as saying that "the status quo which is based on the occupation of Azerbaijani territories is unacceptable and inconsistent. He said Azerbaijan will never accept the occupation of its territories. The minister added that Armenia seeks to damage the negotiations by trying a variety of provocative acts and escalating the situation along the contact line of troops and the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, saying Armenia actually intends to continue the aggression and occupation". 

APA quoted Mammadyarov as saying that "Armenia prevents contact between Nagorno-Karabakh’s Azerbaijani and Armenian communities who would effectively contribute to trust building, stressing that Armenian troops must withdraw from the occupied lands for the settlement of the conflict. He noted that Azerbaijan is taking part in the negotiations to solve the conflict. Nonetheless, if the negotiations do not result in the liberation of the [occupied] territories, Azerbaijan will take all necessary actions to ensure its territorial integrity, sovereignty, and border inviolability. As an aggressive and occupying state, Armenia will bear full responsibility for any step to be taken.”  

On his part, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian also commented after the talks. In a statement on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia the Minister "condemned and characterised as unacceptable the gross violations of the ceasefire with the heavy artillery, which claimed human losses". He said that “to divert attention from the outrageous human rights situation in Azerbaijan and the growing criticism of the international community in towards this, Baku escalates the situation on the Line of Contact with Nagorno-Karabakh and the border with Armenia with considerable unforeseen negative consequences. With this provocations Baku demonstrates its disregard both to the human life and to its own commitments”.

Referring to the Co-chairs September 25th statement, Minister Nalbandian said: “It is Azerbaijan that continuously rejects the proposals on confidence building measures and the initiatives aimed at the stabilisation of the situation and therefore, it is obvious to whom the messages of the statement are addressed. But it leads to an impression that Baku deliberately doesn’t pay attention to what the international community calls upon through the mediator states".

The Armenian MFA statement adds that "Minister Nalbandian attached importance to the reaffirmation by the Co-chairs of the proposal on the creation of an investigative mechanism on the ceasefire violations to which Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have expressed their agreement on numerous occasions. It would allow to determine with more certainty the side responsible for the ceasefire violations and incidents. “Azerbaijan refuses this, because it wants to have its hands free, and without scrutiny of international scrutiny to continue its provocations on the Line of Contact and borders”. The Minister stated that “Baku refuses not only the initiatives of the Co-chairs on confidence building measures and rejects the proposals of the mediators on the conflict resolution, which have been made public in five statements of the Heads of the Minsk Group Co-chair countries, but also casts aside any reference to them, which once again was vividly demonstrated during the EU eastern Partnership summit in Riga”.

source; commonspace.eu with APA, news.am, the press service of the foreign Ministry of Armenia and other agencies.

photo: Foreign Minister Mammadyarov of Azerbaijan and Foreign Minister Nalbandian of Armenia (archive picture).

 

 

 

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)