Quoting Russian diplomatic sources, Russian news agency Regnum reported last week that the talks were scheduled to take place in the Russian Black Sea city of Sochi on Jan. 23-24. Commenting on the information, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev had agreed to meet again.
“The date and venue of the meeting will be announced in due course, when the parties find it convenient,” Nalbandian said. Medvedev has organized about a dozen such meetings since 2008 but has so far failed to broker a peace deal along the lines of proposals made by the Russian, U.S., and French co-chairs of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group. The most recent Russian-Armenian-Azerbaijani summit took place in the Russian city of Kazan in June.

Nalbandian insisted that the trilateral talks were not futile and may still yield a breakthrough in the near future. “This format has proved its viability and effectiveness, and I am sure that meetings will continue in this format,” he said.

Nalbandian also said Armenia’s position on how to resolve the Karabakh conflict was in tune with the international mediators’ views. He added that the Karabakh-related events of the past year reaffirmed that “harmony.”

Source: Hurriyet
URL: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/azerbaijan-and-armenia-to-meet-soon.aspx?pageID=238&nID=11668&NewsCatID=355

“Those who are concerned about war in the region will lead to unpredictable consequence and jeopardize large transnational projects should support sanctions against Armenia,” Zahid Oruj, a member of the Parliament’s Security and Defense Committee, told Trend on Thursday.

Perceiving the impossibility of war in Nagorno-Karabakh as strengthening of Armenian positions on these territories does not coincide with the realities of 2012, Oruj noted.

“Does not the desire to protect the peace create conditions for strengthening the position of the aggressor and occupier in these territories?” MP said. “Stressing importance of peaceful settlement of the conflict, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and representatives of other international organizations as if come out against Azerbaijan’s military power and even admit the threatening statements, and this is inadmissible.”

According to Oruj, Azerbaijan is stronger than Armenia in all ratings.

“If international community takes a just position on Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, the restoration of Azerbaijan’s sovereign rights on its territories will be realized,” Oruj noted.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including the Nagorno- Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. – are currently holding the peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions.

SOURCE: Turkishny.com
URL:http://www.turkishny.com/english-news/5-english-news/76540-azerbaijani-mp-calls-for-sanctions-against-armenia

Bryza’s mandate as US envoy expired at the end of 2011 when the Senate did not take action to approve his recess appointment by US President Barack Obama. Bryza’s nomination had been opposed by Armenian Diaspora lobbying groups, which apparently believed that the diplomat had overly cozy ties to Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Bryza — an experienced career diplomat who served as the US envoy in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks, as well as point-man for coordination of US energy policy in the Caspian Basin — was dispatched to Baku by Obama in early 2011 to serve as ambassador to Baku on a temporary basis. The Senate’s failure to act on his appointment once again creates a void in a diplomatically sensitive area. The nomination process must now start afresh. Deputy Chief of Mission Adam Sterling is expected to lead the embassy in Baku until a new envoy arrives.

Behind closed doors, Bryza’s confirmation controversy is being interpreted by officials in Baku as a slap in the face to Azerbaijan. Many in Baku are particularly miffed at what they see as the undue influence of US-based Armenian Diaspora organizations over the confirmation process. Two of the leading critics of Bryza’s nomination in the Senate — California Democrat Barbara Boxer, and Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat — have well-established associations with Armenia diaspora organizations.

Publicly, most Azerbaijani officials have described Bryza’s status as an internal matter for Washington. At the same time, some Azerbaijani diplomats have hinted that US legislators are venal and prone to influence peddling. Commenting on the lack of a Senate vote, Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov asserted that “Baku understands that some pro-Armenian senators who are under Armenian Diaspora pressure are behind this.” He also said at a December 23 briefing, that he “would not link [the unscheduled vote] with the US role” in the Karabakh talks.

On January 5, Foreign Ministry spokesman Elman Abdullayev expressed hope that the Bryza flap would not hamper bilateral relations. “Ambassador Matthew Bryza was a very strong, competent diplomat, who did much to develop the relations between the United States and Azerbaijan”, the Interfax-Azerbaijan news agency quoted Abdullayev as saying. “We would like to see the development of these relations on the rise.”

Later on, Abdullayev lashed out at US legislators for refusing to confirm Bryza. “It is unpleasant to watch [this] incomprehensible tendency, when the senators or congressmen become an instrument in the hands of the Armenian lobby, thereby harming US interests,” the diplomat was quoted as saying.

During a late December appearance at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC, Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov took a swipe at the Senate. According to Azerbaijani news agency reports, Azimov asserted that the Senate’s failure to confirm Bryza’s nomination “could become a bad precedent for American diplomats who would not know whose policy they should pursue – the president’s policy, the Senate’s or the interests of a handful of lobbyists.”

The US State Department has not responded to Azimov’s or remarks.

Azimov’s point of view seems to resonate in Baku. One group of influential civil society activists has contended that “the Bryza issue” raises questions about US fairness in the Karabakh peace process. A December 15 letter signed by prominent civil society figures in Baku and sent to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined these concerns. In it, Eldar Namazov, chief of staff under the late President Heydar Aliyev, Center for National and International Studies Director Leyla Aliyeva (no relation to President Ilham Aliyev), political analyst Ilgar Mammadov, economic analyst Sabit Bagirov and Turan News Agency Director Mehman Aliyev said that the botched Bryza vote “does not serve to refute” the impression among many Azerbaijanis that the longtime Karabakh talks have failed because of the influence of Armenian Diaspora lobbyists in such mediator countries as the United States and France.

[Editor’s Note: Mehman Aliyev formerly served as board chairman for the Open Society Assistance Foundation-Azerbaijan, part of the Soros Foundations network. EurasiaNet.org operates under the auspices of the Open Society Institute, a separate part of that network.]

Namazov, who, like many Azerbaijani (and Georgian) public figures, holds a high opinion of the Bryza, commented to EurasiaNet.org that the campaign is “not about the ambassador’s personality,” but “about principles.”

“He is one of the best US diplomats ever working in our region. But, in this case, the principle of the United States remaining an unbiased mediator in Karabakh conflict is more important,” Namazov said.

The Bryza episode could have a lingering negative effect on Baku, fostering distrust in whoever becomes the next American envoy to Azerbaijan. “Confirmation in the Senate would mean that the Armenian lobby is happy with a nomination and it will create suspicions in Baku,” Namazov said.

Analyst Elhan Shahinoglu, head of Baku’s Atlas research center, raised the possibility that a peeved Azerbaijani government “could delay receiving, or even refuse to receive the new ambassador.”

Regarding the latest French lower house vote on penalizing denial of the “Armenian genocide,” Azimov believes that the bill was based on “a false history” which Armenians were promoting with “undesirable vigorousness.” Azimov noted, “Putting my feet in the shoes of my colleagues in Ankara, I cannot trust a country [Armenia] which creates genocide initiatives on the one hand and speaks about a desire to cooperate on the other, not recognizing the territorial integrity of Turkey and compromising the borders of the country,” he noted. Turkey and Armenia came to the brink of reopening of their borders, which were closed by Turkey almost two decades ago in response to the Armenian invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, but Armenia’s refusal to withdraw forces from the occupied territories cut off negotiations.

Although Azerbaijan has been trying for two decades to solve the territorial disputes and alleged Armenian invasions through the Minsk Group initiative, there has so far been almost no progress towards resolving the dispute. “On March 24th, 2012, we shall mark, with a sense of regret, the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Minsk Group,” Azimov stated as he expressed his displeasure that the international platform has reached no tangible results towards rectifying what Azerbaijan and Turkey both call “an Armenian invasion” of land that historically belonged to Azerbaijan. Last week, Turkish President Abdullah Gül also questioned French impartiality in its responsibility as co-chair of the group that is expected to deliver results on the dispute that lies as the fundamental barrier to a fence-mending between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as Turkey.

“Although the awaited conference never took place, throughout the 20 years members of the Minsk Group have tried to negotiate the withdrawal of forces from occupied territories and other issues, such as the return of populations, restoration of communication and roads, rehabilitation of territories and so on … The years went by, and negotiations were disrupted by Armenian occupations and changes of representatives,” the deputy foreign minister stated matter-of-factly, as he expressed his belief that that the Armenian occupation is a most urgent matter to be resolved before any political discussion will be possible. “Still, we have not had any breakthroughs, any successes,” he noted.

The Minsk Group, an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) initiative, was established in 1992 and a conference was scheduled to take place for peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. In it’s almost 20 years of existence, the Minsk process has failed to produce any conference. “No other parties are as interested as Turkey and Azerbaijan to find a solution to this conflict and the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories,” Azimov spoke of the willingness of both Azerbaijan and Turkey to resolve a major challenge to peace in Caucuses and added, “only then would we be able to go beyond this situation that is ‘not quite peace and not quite war,’ but Armenia needs to be sincere in its cooperation.”

Holding the belief that the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute is one of the largest challenges in Azerbaijani foreign policy, Azimov stated that the removal of Armenian forces from the disputed region would be paramount for the start of negotiations, which would benefit Armenia significantly at a time when the country has lost half of its population. “Armenia would benefit greatly from an agreement since its economy does not look promising and its population is continuously shrinking,” Azimov said and expressed belief that the Armenians were leaving for a better life outside Armenia. “The Armenian nation is losing a very good opportunity to create momentum to try and remedy these issues,” he said, lamenting Armenia’s lack of initiative towards sincerely working with Azerbaijan and Turkey to find a solution.

“Instead of keeping their level of trust at zero, which risks erupting into crisis, everything now depends on whether the Armenian leadership will find the political will, courage, strategic vision and wisdom to take the hand that has been outstretched to them,” Azimov lamented an absence of shared perspective between Azerbaijan and Armenia, saying that it would be best for both countries to “see two communities living side by side” in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, backed by the Armenian government, fought a war to overthrow Azerbaijani control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region in the early 1990s at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Separatists also seized land surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in support of Azerbaijan during the conflict. Turkey backs Azerbaijani claims to Nagorno-Karabakh, which today has a large number of ethnic Armenian residents. Azerbaijan claims that most of the region’s Azerbaijani settlers were expatriated during the Armenian invasion of the land.
“Turkey and Azerbaijan on par with foreign policy”

“Turkey was the first to recognize Azerbaijan when it was founded 20 years ago,” Azimov said in words that reaffirmed the connection between the two countries, and described Turkey as “Azerbaijan’s window into Europe,” referring to Azerbaijanis who traveled through İstanbul on their way to European destinations back when their country was born anew from the ashes of the Soviet bloc. “Since then we have been in constant cooperation, sharing knowledge and experience,” Azimov added, citing numerous examples where Azerbaijan and Turkey acted as partners throughout the last 20 years.

“Although we came a bit later [than Turkey], we are now partners to major international communities and we are members of regional and global frameworks,” he said of Azerbaijani development in the last two decades. “The success of these 20 years has proven the irreversibility of our independence; nothing can turn us back now,” Azimov said, recalling that Azerbaijan’s sovereignty was disrupted many decades ago when the Soviet bloc was formed. But this time around, Azimov believes, the Republic of Azerbaijan has come to stay.

Referring to cooperation between Turkey and Azerbaijan on foreign missions, Azimov noted that the countries were working together in their peacekeeping efforts — under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul, for example. But Azimov argued that the motivation for both countries goes beyond the sheer fact that they are a part of ISAF; they were fighting to maintain stability for the Afghan nation, who they consider a brotherly people. Sharing a common vision in their relations with Middle Eastern and African countries, Asimov said that Azerbaijan was not as immediate a neighbor as Turkey, but has been involved in the developments of the region “to the best of Azerbaijan’s ability.”

Hopeful for the country’s future, Azimov noted that Azerbaijan’s foreign policy goal was to “try to develop bridges” between Central Asia and other parts the world, with awareness that foreign policy should be supported by economic growth, an area in which Azerbaijan feels increasingly confident. Predicting an increased spread of Azerbaijani companies to the farthest corners of the world, Azimov expressed hope that Azerbaijani businesses would reach farther markets such as Africa, where Turkey has made heavy economic and diplomatic investments in the last few years.
“UNSC seat a heavy duty, but Azerbaijan is ready to fulfill it”

Having triumphed at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) elections in October, Azerbaijan has won one of the 10 temporary seats for the period of 2012-2013, a development Azerbaijani officials mark as a victory for their powerful diplomacy and a sign that Azerbaijan has demonstrated itself as a reliable partner despite its young age. “This is the biggest victory in Azerbaijani foreign policy that has come in 20 years of independence. It is a good demonstration of the results of our policies, and proves that we deserve [the seat]; we are not there simply by occasion,” Azimov said to hail the victory that Azerbaijan won over two other European countries in the elections for the UNSC seat. “It is of course a huge responsibility, a huge duty, but we are ready to fulfill it,” said Azimov.

“We received 155 votes out of a total of 193, the maximum that a single country was able to get during this electoral campaign,” he stressed the overwhelming number of votes Azerbaijan received and said it was a sign of the desire of countries from all over the world to see Azerbaijan as a member of the UNSC, thanks to the “consistent foreign policy Azerbaijan has demonstrated throughout the last 20 years.” Azerbaijan was followed by Morocco, who received 151 votes, and will be sitting with the UNSC for the first time since the country was founded. “We are looking forward to realizing this support and reciprocate by actively contributing, by bridging Azerbaijan to the rest of the world,” Azimov added.

Azimov also voiced his country’s support for Turkey’s upcoming run for a UNSC spot in the next electoral term, and reaffirmed that Turkey and Azerbaijan have been in constant contact and carried out frequent consultations, which meant that Azerbaijan’s voice in the UNSC would welcome contributions from Turkey. “We are there and Turkey is not but Turkey should know that we are together in our efforts,” he added.

Azerbaijan was nominated for the UNSC seat from the Eastern European group and was elected to the seat for a two year period, based on the UN Charter election criteria that prioritize a country’s contributions towards international peace and security.

Source: Todays Zaman
URL : http://www.todayszaman.com/news-266822-nagorno-karabakh-occupation-impedes-solution-to-turkey-armenia-controversy.html

Dmitriy Medvedev’s interview to Azerbaijan Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (AzTV) was posted on kremlin.ru.

President of Russia Dmitriy Medvedev: Good afternoon.

Deputy General director of AzTV Faik Gusiyev: Mr President, we know that the President of Azerbaijan has congratulated you and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on your party’s solid victory in the State Duma election. We add our congratulations too.

Dmitriy Medvedev: Thank you very much.

Faik Gusiyev: Thank you for finding the time to give our television channel this interview.

The relations between Russia and Azerbaijan go back many centuries. How do you assess the state of our relations and the pace of their development today?

Dmitriy Medvedev: I think our relations are excellent, very good indeed. They are what we call a strategic partnership. We see this in all areas, in every sector, starting from the economy, where our ties are in a very good situation. Our bilateral trade is growing and will come to around $3 billion this year – the highest figure over our recent history. Incidentally, our bilateral trade is up 60 percent. This indicates systemic growth driven not just by the goods that traditionally make up a large part of our trade, energy resources, for example, but also by increasing diversification.

We are involved in industrial and agriculture sector cooperation and also supply to each other machinery and equipment of all sorts that we produce, and our trade in this sense presents a healthy and fully developed picture indeed.

We also have an excellent situation in our humanitarian ties and organise all manner of joint events and activities. It is enough to mention the recent Baku Humanitarian Forum, an excellently organised event that made its contribution to developing the cooperation between our countries. We were very pleased to take part in it. There are many other events that take place in Moscow and other cities around Russia and in Baku and other cities in Azerbaijan.

I therefore see our relations as a genuine and full-fledged strategic partnership and friendship. There are no unresolved issues in our relations. I think they provide a model for what relations between countries can be like.

Faik Gusiyev: Russia is one of the countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group. The presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia have met at your personal initiative. What chances do you see for settling the Nagorno Karabakh conflict?

Dmitriy Medvedev: What road is there? I see only one road – to reach an agreement. There is no alternative to agreement. There is only a bad alternative – war. And so the only thing to do is reach an agreement.

As for the chances, I have devoted quite a lot of attention to this issue, perhaps more than anyone. I have made mediation efforts over the last few years that have resulted in eight trilateral meetings taking place, bringing the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia together. I took part in these talks too. I think this work has produced results. It has made it possible to bring the respective positions closer together, and also to directly address the issues on which the parties still differ when it comes to a settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The two sides have been able to set out their views and arguments in all frankness and honesty and this is part of the mediator’s work, to take part and make this happen.

This is all the more so as the Russian Federation and the other Minsk Group members are making every possible effort in this direction. I discussed this subject recently with the other members of the Minsk Group, with US President Barack Obama, and with French President Nicholas Sarkozy.

My answer is therefore that much has been accomplished over these last years to bring the parties’ positions closer together. There are certainly hopes that an agreement can be reached. I have said this before. I think this is perhaps the only conflict in the post-Soviet area that could be settled today. Everything depends on the parties’ goodwill and on their ability and willingness to listen to each other. Let’s be honest, there are never any simple solutions. Any agreement will inevitably involve compromises. In other words, each side has to be ready to take this road. Russia will continue to help in these efforts. I spoke about this just yesterday with President Ilham Aliyev, actually, when he called me to congratulate me on the election result.

Faik Gusiyev: You have met with the President of Azerbaijan many times. What can you say about him as a person and a politician?

Dmitriy Medvedev: It is with pleasure that I will say a few words about him. Our contacts and he personally have always made the best of impressions on me. I say this not just to be polite, knowing this is an Azerbaijani television channel, but in all sincerity.

Why do I say this? It is always a pleasure to meet with him. He is a thoughtful, well-informed, and very decent interlocutor, who always sets out his views very clearly, defending Azerbaijan’s national interests, of course, as the country’s president. At the same time, he knows how to listen and how to compromise on some issues when it is in the interests of interstate relations. This makes it a pleasure to have contact with him. I cannot say just how pleasing it is when the person with whom you are dealing knows how to listen to what you are saying. He has this ability, he knows how to state his own case, and he is a modern-thinking person in general. I like this.

I always find it a pleasure to have contact with people of my own era, if you will. In this sense, perhaps it is easier for me to find a common language with him than with some other colleagues, for all that I respect and value them, but nonetheless, we have different historical backgrounds, whereas Mr Aliyev and I have quite similar backgrounds, a similar educational background too, and this always helps in communication.

I therefore always take pleasure in my contacts with Mr Aliyev, who is a worthy successor to the work begun by his father, President Heydar Aliyev, who made a huge contribution to Azerbaijan’s development and to the friendly ties between our countries. I therefore send him my greetings and my best wishes.

Faik Gusiyev: Thank you very much.

Dmitriy Medvedev:Thank you.
Source: News.AZ
URL:http://www.news.az/articles/karabakh/51630

“Everything depends on the parties’ goodwill and on their ability and willingness to listen to each other,” he added.
“I have made mediation efforts over the last few years that have resulted in eight trilateral meetings, bringing the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia together,” Medvedev said. “The two sides have been able to set out their views and arguments in a frank and honest fashion and this is all part of the mediator’s job.”
Source: History of Truth
URL: http://www.historyoftruth.com/news/latest/10821-medvedev-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-can-be-settled-quickly

The statement came from spokesman for the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Elman Abdullayev.

“Azerbaijanis, who because refugees and displaced persons are the direct victims of this conflict and victims of ethnic cleansing held by the Armenian leadership against the Azerbaijani population”, he said.

According to Abdullayev, it proves that the position of Azerbaijan in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict meets the position of the world community, here the US position.

On Wednesday the Senate and House of Representatives of the US Congress approved a document on allocation of financial aid to foreign states for 2012.

The aid to Armenia was set at $40m and to Azerbaijan at $16.6m as a result. Meanwhile, the US lawmakers urged the sides for the peaceful settlement of the conflict and urged the White house to parity in provision of military assistance to the conflict parties-Armenia and Azerbaijan”.

The amount allocated to the separatist regime of Nagorno Karabakh is not fixed in the document. It was only noted that it will be provided ‘on the levels, corresponding to previous years’.

The level of mutual expenses of the United States for assistance to Nagorno Karabakh made about $2m.

Another part of the document speaks of the support to trust building measures.

Abdullayev noted that Azerbaijan’s stance in this issue has always aimed to support such measures and establish intercommunity dialogue between Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of the Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.

“The intercommunication dialogue is a natural component of the trust building measures. However, the occupation of Azerbaijani lands and presence of Armenian soldiers there make it impossible to carry out any measures to raise trust in these areas”, he said. In fact it is impossible to carry out trust building measures under pressure”.

The process cannot proceed without withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied lands, Abdullayev said.

Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh remains unsettled for already 20 years. Mediation efforts of the Minsk Group co-chairs are also ineffective.

Four resolutions of the UN Security Council on liberation of the Karabakh region and adjacent areas are still not fulfilled by Armenia.

As a result, 20% of Azerbaijani lands are still under occupation by the Armenian armed forces.

Source: News.AZ
URL: http://www.news.az/articles/karabakh/51547

This is one of the ideas proposed by Dennis Sammut, head of the LINKS think-tank, in a paper for Italy’s International Affairs Institute entitled “After Kazan, a Defining Moment for the OSCE Minsk Process”.

“The peace process has not collapsed but has been damaged” following the failure of the summit of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, mediated by Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev in June in the city of Kazan, Sammut writes.

The peace process is led by the OSCE Minsk Group, the international body mediating a solution to the conflict, which is co-chaired by Russia, the USA and France.

Sammut proposes a range of measures to improve the peace process, including: greater scrutiny of the negotiating process led by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs; consolidation of the ceasefire; a review of the composition of the Minsk Group; the involvement in negotiations of Armenians living in Karabakh and displaced Azerbaijanis of Karabakh; consideration of the conflict within the wider security context of the former Soviet Union and Europe; and a wider role for the European Union.

“The Minsk Group co-chairs have to somehow find a way of taking the negotiations forward,” Sammut says.

“For long, many observers have considered that the way the negotiations were evolving was too secretive. There is a need for
greater transparency and at this juncture the co-chairs need to be courageous. With or without the acquiescence of the parties, they need to provide a clearer picture to the public of what has been discussed and agreed…

“The peace process must be opened up to greater scrutiny, and the sides – Armenia and Azerbaijan – as well as the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, need to consider if there are other ways in which the peace process can be pursued in future.”

On the need to consolidate the ceasefire along the contact line separating Armenian and Azerbaijani troops, Sammut says: “The delays in achieving progress in negotiations have inevitably increased the tension on the line of contact. The international community needs to put its foot down and push for a larger and more permanent observation regime.”

He notes that the “Minsk Group has to play a delicate balancing act” between strengthening the ceasefire and not being distracted from their primary objective and mandate of finding a solution to the conflict.

On the wider security context of the conflict, Sammut says: “It is doubtful that any of these conflicts can be solved unless the solution is consolidated in a wider framework that addresses a number of security concerns, many of which involve Russia, and the perception of Russia in the region.”

A Russian proposal for a European Security Treaty is one context in which the conflict could be considered, while others are the Caucasus Security and Cooperation Platform proposed by Turkey or a Caucasus Security and Cooperation Conference, modelled on the original Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe, backed by the European Parliament.

Discussing the composition of the Minsk Group, Dennis Sammut calls for review of “the role of Russia that has emerged as primus inter pares in the mediation process; and the involvement in negotiations of Armenians living in Karabakh, organized in the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh republic (NKR), and displaced Azerbaijanis of Karabakh”.

Saying that Armenia would most probably resist Turkey’s expressed wish to become a fourth co-chair of the Minsk Group, Sammut notes that the possibility of the EU replacing France as a co-chair has been more widely discussed.

“This suggestion has been staunchly resisted by French diplomacy so far, due more to domestic French reasons linked to the large Armenian diaspora, than to wider international considerations.”

On the role of the EU in the Karabakh peace process more generally, Sammut says:

“Whilst the option that the EU may replace France as a Minsk Group co-chair is not on the agenda for the moment, a wider EU role is not only desirable but in some ways inevitable now. The new EU special representative for the South Caucasus, Philippe Lefort, has a clear mandate to engage with the conflict and peace process.”

“Some commentators have recently dismissed the EU’s role in the South Caucasus, saying that the union has interests, but not leverage. This is only true if one accepts a narrow view of the region, its problems and its potential,” Sammut argues.

“Whilst Europe has not yet fully developed its material sources of leverage in the region, its engagement with the ideational factors, particularly the aspirations of the elites and the youth throughout the region, makes it a much more important player than first meets the eye. This is even more so in the Karabakh context.

“European soft power is not a quaint oddity in the South Caucasus, but a sharp instrument of diplomacy. As the EU special representative argued in recent remarks at the European Parliament: in the region, the European Union is perceived as the partner of choice for modernization.”

In conclusion, Sammut says: “If the long expected breakthrough does happen, then it is likely that the EU will be a key player in the implementation of any peace deal: through peacekeeping, postconflict rehabilitation and, overall, through the strengthening of democratic processes and the rule of law, that are so essential if a peace settlement is to succeed. If, on the other hand, the Minsk process falters and requires re-designing, then the EU will undoubtedly be part of any new format.”

Noting that inaction is not an option, he writes: “The only option that the international community has is to persist and bolster its efforts for the peaceful solution of this conflict, based on the understanding that this will be a  win-win situation for all sides.”

Source: News.AZ
URL: http://www.news.az/articles/karabakh/49220

OSCE Secretary-General Lamberto Zannier, in an exclusive interview with Today’s Zaman during the sixth trilateral summit between Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan, said: “Turkey is an important player in the region. It has a political contribution to offer.” In the early 1990s, Nagorno-Karabakh (predominantly populated by ethnic Armenians) and seven adjacent regions (without any Armenian populations), which were an integral part of Azerbaijan, became occupied by neighboring country Armenia.
The historic conflict is especially important to Turkey in its relations with neighbors Azerbaijan and Armenia. The current stalemate is nothing new — the OSCE Minsk Group has been working to facilitate negotiations since 1994 but to no avail. “I am stating a fact — it [progress] is not happening. Something is missing,” said Zannier.

According to Zannier, Turkey’s involvement need not be an official one. “I am not talking about a formal role in the negotiations, but in real terms. Turkey is bordering both countries involved in the conflict,” he said.

Zannier, emphasizing the importance of dialogue in solving any conflict, ventured, “My very personal view is that Turkey needs to create conditions to promote dialogue on both sides.”

But how Turkey goes about this specifically is “Turkey’s call,” Zannier added. “I am not saying we have a monopoly, but why shouldn’t it be the OSCE? It is a regional organization that deals with security issues. There is a debate that we should move the issues somewhere else but I am not convinced that moving it elsewhere would solve the problem. There is nothing wrong with the organization dealing with the problem. The problem is the substance of the issue,” he said in response to criticisms of the OSCE’s handling of the conflict.

While the OSCE is doing the best it can, Zannier said it is up to the parties involved in the conflict to step up to the plate. Zannier stressed there must be political will on behalf of the parties to end the historic conflict. “What I said this morning was there is a lot of focus on the mechanism, but there is also an issue of whether the parties are ready to make a deal,” he said.

While Zannier said that the mechanism could perhaps be improved, he also emphasized that in the end the power lies with the member countries. “You can lead a horse to water but you cannot force the horse to drink. It is a bit the same. We are trying to create the necessary conditions in the meantime. We are trying to manage the situation on the ground, but the situation becomes problematic in security terms,” he said. The next step, according to the OSCE secretary general, is ensuring the problem does not escalate further. “[In general,] if we cannot line up all of the conditions and solve the conflict, then the next best thing we can do is manage the problem so it does not grow worse. So that is our next step. It is up to everyone to keep making efforts from different angles,” he stressed.

Source: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-261659-osce-secretary-general-turkey-could-play-a-role-in-karabakh-conflict.html