More Speculation on Karabakh Peace
The Regnum News Agency has more on a possible peace deal that might be finalized next year, nearly all the details of which have been circulating since the end of 2004, and as has been reported on by RFE/RL. According to the Russian news agency, The Economist believes that a phased solution is indeed being discussed.
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.
According to Regnum, the Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo also speculates on an imminent peace deal, but also expresses caution. According the paper, while a “window of opportunity” does exist in 2006, it also warns that the window could “get slammed.” It effectively suggests that the opposition in both countries could easily use what some might see as a concessionary peace deal to push once again for regime change.
The details of the proposed peace deal are also once again outlined in full. That is, 5 of 7 territories surrounding Karabakh currently under Armenian control would be returned to Azerbaijan within 1.5- 2 years, Azerbaijan would amend its constitution to allow a referendum to be held in Karabakh (currently, a referendum must be held nationwide), and Kelbajar would be returned after that.
Interestingly, it says that the status of Lachin would be determined later, but it seems unlikely that Armenia would cede its only land link with Karabakh. The report confirms this concern in Armenia, while also saying that Azerbaijan favors the immediate return of six territories, including Kelbajar. Apparently, the Armenian side is eager to see the peace plan implemented within the next 5 years while Azerbaijan favors 15-20.
According to the report, the international mediators will try to seek a compromise timetable of 10 years. Regardless, this is pretty much what everyone has been talking about in Yerevan for over a year now. The recent referendum to amend the constitutional amendments in Armenia also appears to settle some details here.
That is, the President needs only the approval of parliament to redraw the country’s borders, and as many people think Kocharian might resign after a peace deal is signed, he is also afforded immunity from prosecution even when he leaves office.
The proposed deal is missing quite a bit of logic. I agree with what Garbis is staying in terms of if the deal stinks, then we should walk away from it.
Comment by Ara Manoogian — January 1, 2006 @ 5:38 am
Probably Armenia cannot walk away from it. However, as in Key West, the main stumbling block is likely to be the position of Azerbaijan, and public opinion at home. From the details that we know, Karabakh would end up independent even if in 10-15 years. Apart from Lachin, I think most Armenians will be happy with that. However, the idea of officially acknowledging that Baku has resigned itself to the loss of two territories — Karabakh and Lachin — might be too much for nationalists in Azerbaijan to stomach. Of course, the main issue is how much pressure is being exerted on both Armenia and Azerbaijan from outside to resolve the conflict.
Still, let’s see. The momentum towards a peace deal is still there, and everyone thinks that 2006 might offer that possibility. Ironically, while Karabakh is seen as one way for the administration in Baku and Yerevan to retain power, it also seems likely that the West is overlooking electoral discretions in both countries in return for what it believes is progress in negotiations. Of course, it’s all a game, but with elections due in 2007 and 2008, it’s a dangerous one for Aliyev and Kocharian to play unless they mean it.
Still, as I mentioned Key West, it’s fair to say that we’ve been in this situation once before, although after flawed elections in both countries, the U.S. and Europe have greater means to pressurize both Presidents. We’ll know more this year.
Comment by Onnik — January 1, 2006 @ 7:49 pm