Tweet
Problem of Karabakh
Problem of Karabakh
A research group of The Economist believes that there is progress in the negotiating process for resolving the Karabakh conflict. They say that the most probable scenario is to resolve it in a package-stage by stage way, i.e. Armenia gives back 6 of 7 “occupied” districts to Azerbaijan, this followed by a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh in the subsequent 10-15 years for determining its status. The researchers also say that deployed in the conflict zone may be international peacekeeping forces comprising contingents from the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries.
“2005 has seen the Karabakh peace talks developing in the right direction,” the OSCE MG US co-chair, Ambassador Steven Mann says in an interview to Azadlyg radio. The diplomat says that with no elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2006, their presidents will be able to give more attention to the conflict. As far as Mann knows, the Azeri and Armenian presidents have agreed on a new meeting in late January. He notes that they are now working to decide the venue and time of the meeting. “The co-chairs expect serious decisions from the meeting. The foreign ministries and the co-chairs have done a lot to bring positions closer. We are now on such a stage that, like in Kazan and Warsaw, there is a need for the presidents to meet personally,” he says. Mann says that the sides have got much closer in their positions in the framework of the Prague process in the last two years. But there are still big gaps, and Mann hopes that 2006 will give real chances for the sides to reduce their discords on the key issues. Mann says that the presidents are sincerely concerned for attaining peace agreement. He does not agree with the view that people in both countries are not ready for a compromise. “This year deciding on both sides must be not only governments but also peoples so as to improve the lives of those having suffered from the conflict,” he says.
Zerkalo says: "Judging from the statements by officials of the conflicting parties, Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to be trying to leave room for maneuver and way for retreat. There are several reasons for that… First, 2006, as say the international mediators and the conflicting parties themselves, is only “a window” for attaining real progress in the settlement. But any “window” can “get slammed” quite unexpectedly, especially before important electoral processes. The opposition in both Armenia and Azerbaijan can’t wait to see the government stumbling over something serious. Second, the sides are haggling over better peace conditions to be able to hold back “the storm of popular indignation” at the “defeatist peace”.
As it has become known from reliable diplomatic sources, the international mediators propose liberating the occupied territories according to the 5+1+1 scheme. That is, at first, within the 1.5-2 years after the signing of the peace agreement, liberated will be 5 districts in exchange for full rapprochement between the sides. While the other provisions are met, i.e. after Azerbaijan makes changes to its constitution to sanction a referendum on territorial issues in a separate region of the country, liberated will be Kalbajar. And finally, simultaneously with the referendum on Nagorno Karabakh, liberated will be Lachin. The issue of control over the Lachin corridor functioning will be considered separately.
Armenia accepts the scheme on the whole, but has certain doubts that it is expedient to liberate Lachin. Official Baku keeps insisting on liberating 6 districts at the very first stage. But there are more serious discords about when to carry out the second and third stages. Official Yerevan insists on implementing the agreement as quickly as possible – within 5 years and on Azerbaijan to make amendments to its constitutions by 2007, that is, by the next presidential election in Armenia. Official Baku is for more “moderate” pace, especially concerning the steps to amend the constitution and to hold a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh. In exchange, official Baku is ready to undertake serious commitments for economic development of NK. On the whole, official Baku proposes “extending” the implementation of the peace agreement for 15-20 years, its formal argument being that one cannot force people to vote on a serious issue until the confidence between the conflicting parties is restored. There is, obviously, certain logic in this approach. But one should admit that both Armenia’s attempts to maximally “shorten” and Azerbaijan’s efforts to “lengthen” the implementation of the peace agreement come from the political interests of their ruling elites. But the international mediators will try to argue them for 10 years…
Permanent news address: www.regnum.ru/english/567599.html
14:28 12/30/2005
Mamed Suleimanov
Originally posted by Hovik
Problem of Karabakh
A research group of The Economist believes that there is progress in the negotiating process for resolving the Karabakh conflict. They say that the most probable scenario is to resolve it in a package-stage by stage way, i.e. Armenia gives back 6 of 7 “occupied” districts to Azerbaijan, this followed by a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh in the subsequent 10-15 years for determining its status. The researchers also say that deployed in the conflict zone may be international peacekeeping forces comprising contingents from the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries.
“2005 has seen the Karabakh peace talks developing in the right direction,” the OSCE MG US co-chair, Ambassador Steven Mann says in an interview to Azadlyg radio. The diplomat says that with no elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2006, their presidents will be able to give more attention to the conflict. As far as Mann knows, the Azeri and Armenian presidents have agreed on a new meeting in late January. He notes that they are now working to decide the venue and time of the meeting. “The co-chairs expect serious decisions from the meeting. The foreign ministries and the co-chairs have done a lot to bring positions closer. We are now on such a stage that, like in Kazan and Warsaw, there is a need for the presidents to meet personally,” he says. Mann says that the sides have got much closer in their positions in the framework of the Prague process in the last two years. But there are still big gaps, and Mann hopes that 2006 will give real chances for the sides to reduce their discords on the key issues. Mann says that the presidents are sincerely concerned for attaining peace agreement. He does not agree with the view that people in both countries are not ready for a compromise. “This year deciding on both sides must be not only governments but also peoples so as to improve the lives of those having suffered from the conflict,” he says.
Zerkalo says: "Judging from the statements by officials of the conflicting parties, Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to be trying to leave room for maneuver and way for retreat. There are several reasons for that… First, 2006, as say the international mediators and the conflicting parties themselves, is only “a window” for attaining real progress in the settlement. But any “window” can “get slammed” quite unexpectedly, especially before important electoral processes. The opposition in both Armenia and Azerbaijan can’t wait to see the government stumbling over something serious. Second, the sides are haggling over better peace conditions to be able to hold back “the storm of popular indignation” at the “defeatist peace”.
As it has become known from reliable diplomatic sources, the international mediators propose liberating the occupied territories according to the 5+1+1 scheme. That is, at first, within the 1.5-2 years after the signing of the peace agreement, liberated will be 5 districts in exchange for full rapprochement between the sides. While the other provisions are met, i.e. after Azerbaijan makes changes to its constitution to sanction a referendum on territorial issues in a separate region of the country, liberated will be Kalbajar. And finally, simultaneously with the referendum on Nagorno Karabakh, liberated will be Lachin. The issue of control over the Lachin corridor functioning will be considered separately.
Armenia accepts the scheme on the whole, but has certain doubts that it is expedient to liberate Lachin. Official Baku keeps insisting on liberating 6 districts at the very first stage. But there are more serious discords about when to carry out the second and third stages. Official Yerevan insists on implementing the agreement as quickly as possible – within 5 years and on Azerbaijan to make amendments to its constitutions by 2007, that is, by the next presidential election in Armenia. Official Baku is for more “moderate” pace, especially concerning the steps to amend the constitution and to hold a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh. In exchange, official Baku is ready to undertake serious commitments for economic development of NK. On the whole, official Baku proposes “extending” the implementation of the peace agreement for 15-20 years, its formal argument being that one cannot force people to vote on a serious issue until the confidence between the conflicting parties is restored. There is, obviously, certain logic in this approach. But one should admit that both Armenia’s attempts to maximally “shorten” and Azerbaijan’s efforts to “lengthen” the implementation of the peace agreement come from the political interests of their ruling elites. But the international mediators will try to argue them for 10 years…
Permanent news address: www.regnum.ru/english/567599.html
14:28 12/30/2005
Mamed Suleimanov
Comment