RFE/RL’s Emil Danielyan reports that a senior U.S. official believes that Armenia and Azerbaijan are still close to hammering out a potential peace deal. The remark comes less than a month after talks between Kocharian and Aliyev broke down in Paris.

“I wouldn’t characterize Rambouillet as a failure or agree with anyone who would argue that the process has stopped or that the Minsk Group has run its course,” he told a news conference in Yerevan.

“The sides are very close to a framework or interim agreement,” Bryza said. “But it’s always the last few steps that are the most difficult. The issues that now remain to be resolved are the most difficult ones, the types of issues that require the heads of state to make very tough decisions.”

Bryza would not specify what those issues are, saying only that Washington “will do everything we possibly can to get them to that agreement as quickly as possible.” Kocharian likewise said in a televised interview last week that he and Aliev failed to agree on one unspecified “important principle.”

According to the news item, sources close to the talks say that this main “important principle” is the eventual status of Karabakh. From what we know of leaks and rumors surrounding the talks, Karabakh would determine its status in a referendum 10-15 years down the line. Other news items, however, also refer to disagreements surrounding an Armenian withdrawal from Kelbajar. In the meantime, tensions are reported to be rising.

The Azerbaijani military said on Tuesday that one of its soldiers was shot and killed by Armenian forces southeast of Karabakh. An Armenian soldier was reportedly shot dead in another section of the frontline late last week.

Interestingly, I was asked by a local Armenian the other night if I thought that war would break out again this year, and I had to answer no. The Azerbaijani military is still not strong enough to take Armenian positions that are well-dug in for over a decade. However, I added, the situation might be different in five years time. Certainly, the rhetoric of war is increasing on both sides.

Visiting the Azerbaijani side of the Karabakh frontline on Wednesday, Aliev blamed the Armenians for the failure of the Rambouillet talks and urged his countrymen to be prepared for winning back the Armenian-controlled territory by force. “The opposite side must know that we are capable of liberating our lands militarily at any moment,” ANS television quoted him as saying during a meeting with Azerbaijani soldiers the next day.

“Talks are under way [but] there is no result. How long should we wait for? We will speed up the process of army building,” he said.

“War will not be a solution to the Karabakh problem,” countered Galust Sahakian, a leader of the governing Republican Party of Armenia (HHK).

Mkrtchian went further, warning that Azerbaijan will suffer another humiliating defeat if it again tries to win back Karabakh by force. “The result of another war would be a peace treaty or capitulation. Either Azerbaijan will capitulate or will have to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence,” he claimed.

[…]

The latest bitter exchange between Baku and Yerevan, which dealt a further blow to hopes for a speedy settlement of the Karabakh dispute, was deplored on Friday by the U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan, Reno Harnish. “Obviously, comments that raised the temperature are not helpful,” Harnish told reporters in Baku. “We have seen that there is a reasonable negotiated solution within reach. So we encourage the presidents, the foreign ministers and the people of both countries to concentrate, to focus their efforts on that search for negotiated solution.”

I tend to suspect that the language being used in Armenia and Azerbaijan are intended for internal and external domestic consumption. Nationalism does help prop up political parties that lack significant internal support, and as for the international community, such statements might simply be an attempt by both sides to get more from a negotiated peace settlement than they would otherwise. Shootings on the front line are not uncommon, and it has been interesting to see Public TV report such incidents as if they were.

The reported fighting, not confirmed or denied by Baku, appears to be largely confined to the western section of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Shahsuvarian said a 19-year-old Armenian soldier, Arsen Zakevosian, was killed there on Friday during a skirmish with Azerbaijani forces. The Armenian side suffered no other casualties in recent days, he added.

Shahsuvarian and other Armenian officials linked the truce violations to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev’s renewed threats to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by force. Vahan Hovannisian, the deputy parliament speaker and a leader of the governing Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), warned that Baku risks provoking a sharp Armenian response.

“If those shots become a serious threat to the security of some of our villages, settlements or our armed forces, then maybe there will arise the need to silence the sources [of shooting],” Hovannisian told RFE/RL. “I am not aware of technical details of what is going on at the frontline. But the very fact of casualties is a serious cause for concern,” he said.

But another senior Armenian lawmaker, Mher Shahgeldian, sounded a note of caution. “I don’t think these shots mean the start of a war,” he said. “We must simply remain constantly prepared [for any development].”

Basically, it’s hard to work out what exactly is going on, and the only way that a peace deal seems likely is if the international community puts significant pressure on both sides to sign a deal this year. Probably, however, this means that Azerbaijan has to accept the idea of a referendum and change its constitution to allow one to be held, as well as to accept the gradual withdrawal of Armenian forces from six of seven territories outside of Karabakh. If not, an arms race in the South Caucasus is concerning.

Certainly, if Armenia were to recognize Nagorno Karabakh as Kocharian has said it might in recent days, the situation could escalate dramatically. Such a step might effectively be taken as a declaration of war, so let’s hope that both leaders are simply trying to strengthen their positions in negotiations by making such threats.