OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier began a tour of the South Caucasus; beginning with Baku, where he held several meetings at which, of course, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed. I cannot say that this visit by the prominent EU official to Baku was expected with high hopes.
In principle, the rhetoric of the OSCE on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is well known, as well as the positions of the sides on the issue of the prospects for settlement of this protracted conflict. That’s why in the public part of communicating with journalists Mr. Zannier confined himself to two main theses: firstly, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict poses a greater threat to the region, and secondly, negotiations are the only way to resolve the conflict.
The Azerbaijani side also performed in the usual manner. At the very least, there was not any radically new rhetoric from Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov during the briefing. The Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, referring to recent incidents that led to the deaths of soldiers both on the Azerbaijani side and on the Armenian one, said that in his opinion, the problem is the lack of any effective monitoring mechanisms on the part of the international observers.
This question is just secondary to the main point, which is the fact of the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh problem. "The problem is not in the mechanism bu the presence of the armed forces of Armenia on Azerbaijan's territory. If these troops are withdrawn, we will not have any problems of snipers, no need for the mechanism, no armed incidents," the Minister said.
This fact alone shows the disappointment of Baku with the prospects of mediation in the format of the OSCE, because even minimal progress in resolving the so-called frozen conflicts has not occurred since the cease-fire in the mid-1990s,.
Obviously, the Italian diplomat realizes that, despite the persistence of relative peace, the internal tensions over the Nagorno-Karabakh problem continue to grow. Most likely, this circumstance has prompted Lamberto Zanniera to emphasize several times that the status quo can not be perceived as a solution to the problem. This assessment is certainly true; the officials both from Moscow and from Washington and Brussels could put their names to it.
But what will come next? Where is the key that will help the representatives of the intermediaries to turn the phase of the dialogue "good that we are talking, not fighting," into the next phase of taking real decisions. Alas, we must be realistic and recognize that at present there is no miracle recipe, and no matter which diplomatic language may describe the outcome of the South Caucasus voyage of Mr. Zannier; in fact, it can be reduced to a single proverb about a bad peace and a good war.
