The visit by representatives of the OSCE Minsk Group to Azerbaijan and Armenia is only an opportunity for dialogue, US co-chair James Warlick said about new proposals of the delegation.
The OSCE MG co-chairmen’s regional visit was completed today. The co-chairs arrived in Azerbaijan on Monday, where they held talks with President Ilham Aliyev, Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and Defense Minister Zakir Hasanov. Mammadyarov at the meeting stressed the need to start serious negotiations on a draft peace agreement, noting that the chairmen should demand that Armenia liberate the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.
The next day, the co-chairs moved to Armenia, where they spoke with President Serzh Sargsyan and Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan. Concern was expressed over the escalation of violence on the contact line between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops.
Deputy director of the Information and Analytical Center of Moscow State University, an expert of Vestnik Kavkaza, Andrey Petrov, said that "if we raise the question about the benefits of the visit, although there were no substantive statements made during the visit, then, firstly, it is necessary to state that on those days that the co-chairs are in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone, the number of ceasefire violations reduces, provocations are suspended, so even now there is minimal benefit from a peaceful settlement of the conflict."
According to him, the purpose of the visit was to specify the sides' positions after January's escalation of tensions in the region. "In this regard, it is not surprising that, according to the statement of James Warlick, the OSCE Minsk Group came "just to talk" before making new proposals after such a radical change on the frontline and on the border between the two countries, especially after the regular provocations outside the occupied territories. The mediators needed to establish whether anything had changed in the intentions of Azerbaijan and Armenia on a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.So it was, in fact, a private visit, the results of which we can judge only after some time, when the co-chairs will return to the region with the updated proposal," Petrov said. The expert also pointed out that without changing the format of the OSCE, Minsk could be a much more effective facilitator. "Now we have the success of the negotiations in the 'Normandy format' on the crisis in Ukraine, when the heads of the participating countries came together and worked in parallel with the contact group, consisting of representatives of the parties of the conflict and the mediator, they have developed a document that everyone committed to fulfil. Why not to hold a similar conference on Karabakh in Minsk, for example? The format can be varied: parallel talks between Russia, the US and France, and the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia with the OSCE Minsk Group or just a "big summit" of the five presidents - Ilham Aliyev, Serzh Sargsyan, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and Francois Hollande. I understand the offer sounds utopian, but this 'utopianess' refers to the fact that the true potential of the Minsk Group as a mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not being used at the moment," Andrei Petrov concluded.
According to him, the purpose of the visit was to specify the sides' positions after January's escalation of tensions in the region. "In this regard, it is not surprising that, according to the statement of James Warlick, the OSCE Minsk Group came "just to talk" before making new proposals after such a radical change on the frontline and on the border between the two countries, especially after the regular provocations outside the occupied territories. The mediators needed to establish whether anything had changed in the intentions of Azerbaijan and Armenia on a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.So it was, in fact, a private visit, the results of which we can judge only after some time, when the co-chairs will return to the region with the updated proposal," Petrov said.
The expert also pointed out that without changing the format of the OSCE, Minsk could be a much more effective facilitator. "Now we have the success of the negotiations in the 'Normandy format' on the crisis in Ukraine, when the heads of the participating countries came together and worked in parallel with the contact group, consisting of representatives of the parties of the conflict and the mediator, they have developed a document that everyone committed to fulfil. Why not to hold a similar conference on Karabakh in Minsk, for example? The format can be varied: parallel talks between Russia, the US and France, and the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia with the OSCE Minsk Group or just a "big summit" of the five presidents - Ilham Aliyev, Serzh Sargsyan, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and Francois Hollande. I understand the offer sounds utopian, but this 'utopianess' refers to the fact that the true potential of the Minsk Group as a mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not being used at the moment," Andrei Petrov concluded.
A Milli Majlis deputy, political scientist Asim Mollazade, told Vestnik Kavkaza that "the result of the visit is the same that we have seen over 20 years - it doesn't exist." "Once again, we have witnessed the co-chairs' optimistic statements, but their optimism begins when Armenia resumes the simulation of the negotiation process, but as soon as it comes to concrete steps, Yerevan returns to a negative position. As long as the co-chair countries, based on international legal standards, will not force Armenia to peace, to take concrete actions, we will not achieve any result, and the negotiating process, which is occupied by the OSCE Minsk Group, will slide in one place," he said.
According to Mollazade, the problem of the work of the intermediaries lies in "a legal nihilism which lies at the heart of the Minsk Group." "The basic documents of the UN and the OSCE are forgotten. You can't achieve something in this direction if you do not condemn the aggressor, occupying the territory of a neighbor, without taking concrete steps. Armenia should be forced to peace, and for this purpose all international legal mechanisms and norms should be used," Mollazade concluded.
Deputy director of the Caucasus Institute Sergey Minasyan, in his turn, drew attention to the fact that "in the past 4-5 years efforts to find ways to reduce tensions on the front line and to develop mechanisms for action confidence were the only real theme of the negotiating process and the activities of Minsk Group. "So the main and almost the sole focus of the talks in Baku, Yerevan and Stepanakert [the Armenian name of Khankendi - 'VK'] was just trying to find ways to prevent incidents on the front line and reduce tension," he said.
The expert expressed confidence that the Minsk Group today remains the most effective format for mediation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. "Another such format, which would have been agreed upon by all parties of the conflict and which represent sufficiently influential international players, does not exist. Any other Minsk Group format would be unacceptable to one of the parties of the conflict. In the end, when the conflicting parties are not very willing to compromise, the intermediaries shouldn't blamed for not putting pressure on them properly," Sergey Minasyan said.
