Interview with Tabib Huseynov, Caucasus analyst at the International Crisis Group.
Q: In its latest report the International Crisis Group considers the threat of a new war for Karabakh realistic. What are these conclusions based on? Does it mean that war will be initiated by Azerbaijan?
A: Crisis Group’s latest briefing “Armenia-Azerbaijan: Preventing War” talks about the growing tensions between the two countries and argues that, if ignored and left unchecked, these tensions may spiral out of control and lead to a full-scale war with devastating regional consequences.
Our conclusions are based on negative dynamics evident on the ground. Throughout 2010 the number and intensity of frontline clashes and, as a result, the number of casualties on both sides, have increased in comparison with 2009 when peace talks looked more promising. Both sides increasingly used more sophisticated tactics (such as night raids) and newly-acquired weapons (such as unmanned aerial vehicles for military surveillance) to test each other’s strength. In June 2010 Azerbaijan conducted its biggest ever military exercises to which Armenia responded in November by conducting its own biggest-ever drills, demonstratively held in the occupied Agdam District. Both sides are engaged in vitriolic rhetoric and mutual threats, which further the narrow space for diplomacy. Both also continued barely noticeable but dangerous “trench war”, advancing their fortifications closer to each other.
As the briefing underlines, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan is planning an all-out offensive in the immediate future, but there is a growing risk of an accidental war. What we mean by this is that tit-for-tat attacks, an escalating arms race, highly inflammatory rhetoric and a virtual breakdown in the peace talks create a dangerous mix of factors, whereby a small spark in the frontline may trigger large-scale hostilities even if neither side deliberately planned it in advance. At the same time, in several years, if there is no breakthrough in the talks, there is a real chance that Azerbaijan, which is most hurt by the status quo of occupation, may resort to a premeditated offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Q: Baku blames not only Armenia, but also the mediators, who are unwilling to put pressure on Yerevan, for the lack of progress in the negotiations. Do you think the Minsk Group co-chairs, or at least some of them, are seriously interested in the conflict settlement?
A: The OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries have a consensus on a general framework for peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This consensus is based on a set of basic principles and was reflected in the 2009 L’Aquila and 2010 Muskoka joint statements of presidents Obama, Medvedev and Sarkozy.
Official Baku has largely accepted the mediators’ proposals, while Yerevan has more problems with coming to terms with them. In this context, Azerbaijani frustration with the peace talks and its renewed criticism of the mediators is understandable. But we should bear in mind that an international consensus on a general road map does not automatically translate into imposing a decision on either Armenia or Azerbaijan or both. Besides, there is a factor of internal politics within the mediator countries, which affect which policies they adopt vis-à-vis the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and how much priority they attach to it. In the US and France, the Armenian lobby is a force to be reckoned with in domestic politics and, also, the Karabakh conflict is often not considered a high priority issue, partly given the lack of information about the problem. Russian President Medvedev seemed to genuinely try to help the sides to achieve a breakthrough, but under present circumstances, Russia is not interested in making a choice between Armenia and Azerbaijan and prefers to keep good relations with both.
Most importantly, as I have mentioned in a past interview with News.Az, no solution imposed from outside can hold, unless it is supported by the Armenian and Azerbaijani peoples themselves. So, the ultimate solution to the problem lies not somewhere in Moscow, Brussels or Washington, but within Armenian and Azerbaijani societies.
Q: What should be done to avert war?
A: As stressed in the briefing, conflict prevention would be best ensured by the signing of the basic principles agreement. Armenia and Azerbaijan should make practical steps to prepare their publics for an agreement on the basic principles, which would not prescribe a fixed timeframe or a specific outcome in a referendum to determine Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status. More delay will only further discredit the diplomatic process, embolden more radical voices within each society and make an already difficult decision-making environment for the leaderships even more challenging.
At the same time, both sides should undertake some confidence-building measures across the frontline. Official Baku, unlike Yerevan, has been more cautious about confidence-building measures across the frontline, fearing this would consolidate the status quo. But if Azerbaijan wants a breakthrough in the talks, it should also recognize that it is difficult or even impossible to achieve when both sides escalate tensions in the frontline and engage in bellicose rhetoric.
Crisis Group recommends that as part of these confidence-building measures, Baku agrees to the OSCE’s proposal, provisionally accepted by Armenia, to withdraw snipers as a gesture of good will, both sides should suspend military exercises in the occupied territories or in areas close to the frontline, cease trench advancements towards each other’s positions and agree to the broadening of the mandate of OSCE observer missions so that it could more effectively monitor the situation on the frontline. Crisis Group also calls on Armenia to stop sending regular army conscripts to serve in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Furthermore, Armenian and de facto Nagorno-Karabakh authorities should cease supporting activities which serve to consolidate the status quo of occupation, such as settling Armenians in the formerly Azeri-majority areas, renaming Azerbaijani towns and undertaking unilateral archaeological excavations designed to “prove” primordial Armenian origins in the region.
Q: Can the International Crisis Group take any practical steps to get these recommendations implemented and avert the escalation of the conflict, considering that in the current situation a common language cannot be found even with the involvement of the mediators?
A: Crisis Group’s mission is to provide independent field-based analysis and advice on specific policy issues. We promote our recommendations through international high-level advocacy contacts with governments and international organizations and media work worldwide. During 15 years of its operation Crisis Group has built a reputation as one of the leading global think tanks, which allows us to act as a global voice and authority. Crisis Group cannot solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but it can certainly facilitate better understanding of the conflict and of ways to prevent and solve it.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
