The basic principles, which were first made public last year, envisage the progressive liberation of the seven Azerbaijani administrative districts bordering on Nagorno-Karabakh that Armenian forces have been occupying since 1992-93. They also provide for the demilitarization of the conflict zone, the deployment of an international peacekeeping force, the repatriation of Armenian settlers, and the return of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons. The future status of the unrecognized republic of Nagorno-Karabakh would be determined later.

But, as Mammadyarov once said, “the devil is in the details” and a number of outstanding differences remain.

Among them are the practicalities of any future referendum on Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status. The Minsk Group co-chairs have suggested that, pending a vote, the region be given an interim status that would be recognized by both sides.

Other sticking points include the scope and modalities of the Armenian withdrawal from Azerbaijan’s occupied Kalbacar and Lachin districts, which are sandwiched between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. Yerevan views those two districts as being of vital importance to Karabakh’s future security, and has conditioned their liberation on stringent requirements.

What new proposals, if any, the set of basic principles that France, Russia and the United States presented the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Madrid is unclear. Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Xazar Ibrahim on December 7 said the package contained “nothing particularly new.”

“There are a few nuances, but generally speaking those basic principles are those that have been negotiated within the framework of the Prague process,” he told reporters in Baku.

In their respective speeches to the OSCE ministerial council, neither Oskanian, nor Mammadyarov made any reference to the document they had just received.

While noting the existence of a generally positive trend, the Armenian foreign minister denounced what he said were Azerbaijan’s persistent threats to resort to a military solution to the conflict. Mammadyarov, in turn, accused Armenia of “deceiving” the international community and pursuing a policy of “fait accompli” by sending settlers and large ammunition stockpiles to the occupied territories.

The Madrid announcement generated relatively little interest in Azerbaijan and Armenia — something international mediators may view as a frustrating circumstance. According to OSCE officials, the co-chairs had hoped that the presentation of basic principles would stoke public debate in both countries, thereby accelerating the negotiation process. Such hopes, however, have not been fulfilled.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav120707.shtml

UPDATE (27 October 2008): Thanks to Ruben Muradyan who pointed out in the comments section below that the principles of Karabakh conflict settlement posted in this blog (with the reference to The Karabakh Deal blog) are in fact recommendations by the International Crisis Group. As I mentioned in comments section, they sounded very similar to what is allegedly referred to “Madrid principles”. Also, Ter-Petrosyan’s outline of “Madrid principles” during the rally which I copied an extract from in this post, was in line with that outline.