15.2 km South of Lachin, Kashatagh Region, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2006

Now that the parliamentary election appears to be behind us, it’s no surprise that the international community is once again turning to what is perhaps the number one problem in the region — unresolved frozen conflicts and in particular, Nagorno Karabakh. Although the situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the breakaway self-declared Republic is one that could be described as stable, there are concerns that failure to resolve the conflict is leading to an arms race in the South Caucasus and the continuing isolation of Armenia from regional projects which could frustrate efforts to closer integrate with Europe.

It’s therefore also no surprise to discover that mediators from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) were in Yerevan earlier in the week before moving on to Baku. According to RFE/RL’s report posted on the day of their departure, the OSCE Minsk Group mediators have said they hope that the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents will meet on the sidelines of a summit to be held in St. Petersburg on 10 June. With presidential elections set to take place in both Armenia and Azerbaijan next year, there really is very little time and only a small window of opportunity for a long anticipated breakthrough framework agreement.

“Assuming that the [Saint-Petersburg] meeting is a success, we don’t exclude that there will need to be another meeting [of the two presidents] for finally agreeing the basic principles of a settlement,” he said.

Merzlyakov stressed that agreement on those principles would fall short of a comprehensive peace accord. “We are working on the basic principles of a settlement which are not quite an agreement,” he said. “If they are approved by both parties, that will only allow us to start working out the text [of a peace accord,] which will take a lot of time. But there will have been created a base from which the parties will not retreat, as was the case in the past.”

“What we can hope to achieve before the end of the year is a breakthrough towards a settlement, but not a full peace accord,” agreed Fassier. He said he hopes Aliev and Kocharian have the “political will” to cut a framework peace deal.

[…]

In Merzlyakov’s words, the “circle of unresolved issues is narrowing” and there are now “objective conditions” for eliminating the remaining sticking points. “If the Saint-Petersburg meeting is successful, then the number of principles that have not yet been fully agreed on will be practically brought down to zero,” he said.

Speaking at an official reception ahead of the 28 May Republic Day in Azerbaijan, however, Aliyev continues to sound as bellicose as usual when it comes to the necessity of both sides making compromises in negotiations. Instead, rather than acknowledge the unlikely event of Karabakh ever returning back to Azerbaijani control, Today.az reports that the Azerbaijani leader again mentions the possibility of war as another “solution” to the conflict.

True, Azerbaijan is strengthening its military and has easily outstripped Armenia in what might yet turn into an arms race, but few analysts believe that they have enough strength to launch an offensive in the very near future. Of course, Aliyev’s rhetoric contrasts sharply with the opinion of mediators who do believe there is the possibility for peace so it might all be strictly for domestic consumption.

Indeed, in the event of a peace deal it is believed that the status of Karabakh wouldn’t be decided for some time — perhaps in the hope that sooner or later Azeris will forget about it. For Armenians, however, just as sensitive an issue is the possible return of seven regions in Azerbaijan currently under the control of Armenian and Karabakh forces. Today.az reports that this issue will be top of the agenda when the OSCE co-chairs return to the region next month just before the meeting of the two presidents.

However, whereas it is largely nationalists who refuse to even consider the return of any of these territories now largely devoid of human settlement, the fate of Lachin and Kelbajar — strategic territories connecting Armenia with Karabakh — are especially sensitive even for many in civil society here. The matter has become even more problematic for Armenia since the U.S. State Department wrote in its Annual Human Right report that Armenia is occupying not only those territories, but also Karabakh itself.

Although the wording was initially changed after Armenian complaints, it reverted back to the original after Azerbaijan effectively threatened to boycott a high-profile meeting in the United States. Writing for the Eurasia Daily Monitor, Taleh Ziyadov details the controversy.

For the first time, the U.S. Department of State made an insertion into the Armenia report under the “Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life” section that read: “Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories” (initial U.S. Dept. of State report of March 6). While similar statements have appeared in previous reports on Azerbaijan, they have never been used in the reports on Armenia.

Yerevan reacted by officially contacting the U.S. Department of State and asking for a revision of the statement. At the same time, Armenian lobbying groups began sending letters to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with similar demands (PanArmenian.net, April 20).

On April 17, the statement was revised to read: “Armenian forces occupy large portions of Azerbaijan territory adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenian officials maintain that they do not ‘occupy’ Nagorno-Karabakh itself” (revised U.S. Dept. of State report of April 17).

[…] on April 25, the U.S. Department of State made yet another revision to the report on Armenia and restored the initial wording of the sentence on Karabakh, which now reads “Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories All parties to the Nagorno‑Karabakh conflict have laid landmines along the 540‑mile border with Azerbaijan and along the line of contact.” (State Dept. Report on Armenia of April 25).

Whether the phrasing of the statement on Karabakh in the State Department report on Armenia was an unintentional “mistake” or another “carrot-and-stick” tactic, it remains to be seen what impact it will have on Baku or Yerevan. The foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan are preparing to finalize the basic principles of the Karabakh peace process, which would then be presented to the presidents of both states. It will be up to the presidents to accept or reject these principles and thus determine the fate of the current negotiations.

Armenian and Karabakh officials, however, say that there has to be a land border between the two Armenian republics, which pretty much means Lachin, or at least part of it.

Armenian leaders on Friday shrugged off Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev’s claims that they have agreed to the liberation of all seven Azerbaijani districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh as part of a peace accord currently discussed by the conflicting parties.

[…]

Armenian and Karabakh leaders have repeatedly said that Lachin’s return to Azerbaijan is non-negotiable. They have also set additional conditions for Armenian withdrawal from Kelbajar, the other Azerbaijani district sandwished between Armenia and Karabakh.

“I don’t known what goals the president of Azerbaijan is pursuing, but it is known to everyone that we have principles and those principles haven’t changed,” Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian told RFE/RL. “So take Aliev’s statements easy.”

However, whatever might be being reported between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the reality on the ground is perhaps a little different. While it is unlikely that few would protest a peace deal even if did mean the return of nearly all the regions surrounding Karabakh, the mood in the disputed territory is somewhat different. Indeed, RFE/RL reports that the president of the self-declared republic says that it is ultimately up to Karabakh Armenians to have the “final say” in any peace deal.

“We are the masters our fate, we have the right to a final say in the determination of our future. This is the unbending will of our people. This is what stipulates the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s Constitution,” Ghukasian said, in an apparent reference to the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations that seem to have made substantial progress of late.

French, Russian and U.S. diplomats spearheading the peace process hope that Armenia and Azerbaijan will cut a framework peace deal before the end of this year. A senior Azerbaijani official confirmed on Tuesday that the conflicting parties are close to doing that.

Ghukasian and other Karabakh Armenian leaders have repeatedly expressed their frustration with the NKR’s exclusion from the ongoing peace talks. They have also voiced serious misgivings about the mediators’ existing peace plan that calls for a gradual settlement of the conflict culminating in a referendum of self-determination in Karabakh.

Even so, the stakes are high. This month marked the 13th Anniversary of the May ceasefire agreement and there are those concerned that if a peace deal takes any longer, more generations of Armenians and Azerbaijanis will grow up considering the other the enemy. For sure, they would not remember that Armenians and Azerbaijanis did live together side by side in peace in urban centers in both countries until just before the end of the Soviet era when nationalism gave rise to ethnic hatred and conflict.

As an example of this, Steady State reports on a recent clash between Armenian and Azerbaijani students in Moscow. The incident also demonstrates that building peace between both Armenian and Azerbaijani might not be so easy even in the event of a peace deal acceptable to both leaders.

Annually held “South-West” exhibition at University of Brotherhood of Nations was following its usual path, until the flag of the so called “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” was waved in front of Azeri students. Perhaps it was their deep antagonism that made Azeri students to seize and tear the Armenian-imitated flag. Thereafter, student of both origins, with full of temper, engaged each other. Azeri ambassador claimed that more than 200 students engaged in fighting. The apex of fight was reached when Armenian student shot two of Azeri students with a gun.

Later same day the chief of University’s Press service dismissed the claims about injury of Azeri students. However, the police and hospital confirmed injury of an Azeri student by a shot-gun. Fortunately, his health is satisfactory. Yet, Caucasian tradition requires more sacrifices – the remaining students, according to that tradition, should sort out who is wrong and who is right. For that matter two groups decided to meet in front of McDonalds to “finish” the unfinished deal. Reportedly, more than 100 Azeri students gathered at the decided time, but Armenians did not show up. According to that tradition Azeris are the winners, and Armenians are losers. There is no room to rationality. Honor is everything in that part of world.

What the story tells me is much more broader. University level students – ironically at the Brotherhood University – can not internalize the presence of each other, how, for God’s sake, Armenian and Azeri peasants will tolerate each other, given that only few years ago they killed one another’s father, brother. For that matter, to my poor mind, it seems that the peace at hand is not peace in true meaning of word, but instead a prolonged cease fire. Armenian and Azeris can not welcome each other in the soil of Nagorno-Karabakh. Not in this world! So, why to insist to keep them together and grow seeds for next conflict?

Anyway, what is also interesting is that Karabakh will hold its presidential election on 19 July. Coming as it will do after the June meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, it will be interesting to see how much importance is put on a negotiated peace deal in campaigns run by presidential candidates. Ironically, those position are unlikely to be much different from that of the incumbent, Arkhady Ghukasian, who can not seek a third term in office, but anyway.

As usual there’s many more entries on Karabakh-related themes on this blog, but two articles I recently wrote on Lachin for EurasiaNet and the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) are here and here. I also made quite a few posts with photographs on landmine clearance in Lachin here and here. Some older photographs from Lachin are also available here.