Nagorno Karabakh: Hopes and Fears

Bloggers might not have greeted last weekend’s declaration signed by the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia with much enthusiasm, but others appear to be taking it seriously. The Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR), for example, reports that there are both hopes and fears in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. However, most analysts have their doubts about whether the declaration actually means something.

Most analysts said the document was too vague to have real significance.

Azerbaijani political analyst Rasim Musabekov said, “In the declaration there are no concrete opinions on serious issues. It does not talk about territorial integrity nor about the status of Nagorny Karabakh, nor about the liberation of the occupied territories by the Armenians.”

Vafa Guluzade, formerly foreign policy aide to former president Heidar Aliev, called the document a “manoeuvre by Russia designed to demonstrate its importance to the West. But the gesture turned out to be an empty one as the result was a document that had no weight and means nothing”.

[…]

Analyst Levon Melik-Shakhnazarian welcomed the document on the grounds that it did not specifically emphasise the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and underlined the importance of a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

Others were more sceptical. Alexander Iskandarian, director of the Caucasus Institute, said, “There’s nothing bad written there, but it seems to me that nothing of enough importance is written there to make me think that serious progress is on the way.

Nevertheless, the article also repeats what many consider to be the basis for a peaceful solution to the conflict — the so-called Madrid Principles.

This sets out the first stage of an agreement, with withdrawal of Armenian forces from the seven Azerbaijani regions outside Nagorny Karabakh wholly or partially under Armenian control; the granting of an intermediate international status for the disputed territory itself; and the prospect of an eventual vote by the residents of Karabakh on its status.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) seem cautiously optimistic, but it has to be said they usually are. Yet, despite the fact that past attempts to broker a peace deal have collapsed at the last minute, it also highlights why the situation is different this time round.

Among the objective factors, obviously, some elements changed since the crisis in Georgia. The Co-Chairs said that Armenia felt the fragile character of their lines of communication for imports and exports through Georgia. Azerbaijan felt deeply the vulnerability of the so-called energy corridor through Georgia.

But even if most analysts and journalists remain skeptical, the opposition in Armenia is not. It’s difficult to say whether former president Levon Ter-Petrossian is hoping to exploit prevalent fears about a resolution when he alleges a deal will be signed in Washington next month, but the OSCE Minsk Group U.S. Co-Chair effectively denies this.

“Actually, it’s a great idea, a great aspiration,” commented Bryza. “I hope we could get to that. But we don’t have any concrete plans like that yet.

“It’s an ambitious goal that the former President Ter-Petrosian has set. I’d like to work toward it but it may be a little more ambitious than reality would allow right now.”

Some of those actively involved in his attempts to come to power such as former Karabakh commander Zhirayr Sefilian are therefore unhappy with his decision to halt demonstrations while such a prospect exists even if only among their own circle.

“The situation has become more serious after the Moscow declaration,” said Sefilian. “If the opposition doesn’t become more active after all this, I won’t be able to understand that. But I hope that the opposition leadership will not wait for the signing of an agreement on Artsakh in Washington and will try to prevent it with appropriate actions.”

Meanwhile, nationalist resentment in Armenia and Karabakh is building up, but such voices arguably represent a small segment of society, especially in the former. Some of those voices are even unhappy about the traditionally nationalist Armenian Revolutionary Federation — Dashnaktsutyun (ARF-D).

“I have just one comment about the meeting in Moscow. I expect nothing good from this meeting, or whatever follows. When it comes to Russia and the Russians, we’ve always come up on the short end. […]

The commander continued his thoughts, now about the Dashnak party: “I sincerely think the Dashnak party was created by the Turks or some other outside party, as a tool to destroy Armenia. […]

Stepanakert, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 1994