Former Azerbaijani President Haydar Aliyev once said, in an attempt to stress the possibility of reconciliation with Armenia, even nations that had fought with each other for centuries now live peacefully side by side. It has increasingly become clear that Aliyev’s dream still remains distant today as Armenia and Azerbaijan continue to blame each other for failing to reduce the pain of the Karabakh impasse after key talks in Kazan.
The international community had pinned much hope on the latest peace talks to find a lasting settlement for Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed territory between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Observers, however, were not surprised as leaders failed to embrace this historic chance to make peace.
The Kazan peace talks, held on June 24, were what Ambassador Robert Bradtke, the US diplomat involved in international efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, termed as “probably the most important point in the process since 2001, when there were efforts made to get a peace agreement at Key West.”
In a rare move, US President Barack Obama called both leaders a day before the talks to encourage them to endorse the Basic Principles and take a “decisive step toward a peaceful settlement.”
The Basic Principles, a document that both leaders were encouraged and expected to agree upon in Kazan to set the stage for talks on resolving the conflict, include the returning of occupied territories adjacent to the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, the right of refugees from both sides to return, an interim status providing security and self-governance for Nagorno-Karabakh and an international security guarantee to keep and maintain the peace deal.
Vugar Gojayev, an independent political analyst based in Baku, said even such high-level diplomatic pressure was not enough to achieve a breakthrough. “The international community understands that there is a concrete and long-discussed framework deal on the table, so it is time to make the conflicting sides narrow their differences with the Document on Basic Principles, which could push to pen a complete peace treaty in years to come,” he added.
Azerbaijan and Armenia were quick to blame each other for the failure in peace talks.
“The Kazan summit did not achieve a breakthrough because Azerbaijan was not ready to accept the last version of the Basic Principles,” Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said in a statement after the talks.
In response to Nalbandian’s statement, Novruz Mamedov, head of the presidential administration’s foreign relations department, told reporters that the Armenian statement showed once again that the Armenian leadership had no intention of abandoning methods of dirty propaganda.
“The unconstructive position of the Armenian side is to be blamed for the absence of serious progress,” he said. “What went wrong in cautiously optimistic talks is not public,” Gojayev said, adding, “It is obvious that Armenia demands more unacceptable concessions from Azerbaijan.” He said that while the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh remains the bone of contention in the talks, Armenia urges the mediators to set a concrete date for the referendum, but the Azerbaijani side is against any concrete dates and modalities of such a vote. According to Gojayev, the Kazan talks were not the final chance, but they could have been a turning point in the stalled peace process.
Reuters reported on June 26, Azerbaijan’s armed forces day, that two days after the talks troops marched across Azadlıq Square in central Baku, along with convoys of infantry combat vehicles and Russian-made S-300 self-propelled anti-aircraft missile launchers. Warplanes, helicopters and drones cruised over the city, as TV stations aired footage of battleships on duty off the Azerbaijani Caspian coast.
“I am completely sure that our territorial integrity will be resumed in any possible way,” Aliyev said at the parade. “Therefore, we should be even stronger,” he underlined.
Jale Sultanli, the managing editor of the Caucasus Edition: Journal of Conflict Transformation, said the results of the Kazan meeting were not completely surprising, claiming that the environment in both Azerbaijan and Armenia was not ripe for the leaders to make any steps forward.
Sultanli added that the Kazan meeting showed that while the international community can play an important role in the peace process, its encouragement and pressure is not enough to produce results.
Turkish-Armenian ties must be in sync with Nagorno-Karabakh process
In a failed attempt to bury a century of hostilities with Armenia, Turkey launched a reconciliation process with Armenia two years ago. Despite Turkey’s unconvincing diplomatic overtures to urge Azerbaijan that reconciliation would help resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan’s adamant opposition coupling with growing pressure from the Armenian diaspora stalled the process.
Sultanli argues that the improvement of both processes needs to be synchronized for reconciliation to have a positive impact on Nagorno-Karabakh. “If Azerbaijan feels threatened, it will try to jeopardize the process, again leading to more setbacks that will have a negative impact on all sides involved,” Sultanli noted.
Drawing on similar lines, Gojayev also asserted that Turkey should normalize its ties and reopen its border with Armenia only if progress accepted by Baku is made with a Karabakh peace pact. “My fear is that Azerbaijan would lose a crucial leverage in influencing the talks on the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh, if Turkey and Armenia’s rapprochement brings the opening of borders and results in the end of Armenia’s isolation. Turkey’s refusal to normalize its relations with Armenia should continue until Armenia withdraws its troops from the occupied territories and the IDPs [internally displaced persons] return to their native lands. With the border open with Turkey, Armenia could toughen its stance at the Karabakh talks,” Gojayev said.
MAHIR ZEYNALOV - Today’s Zaman
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
