|
A New Approach to the Solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict |
26 June 2012by Nasrin Suleymanli, JTW
As is known, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the South Caucasus on June 4-6. Considerations regarding the results of this visit, comments and forecasts are still continuing.
As expected, one of the main themes of this trip was the subject of negotiations in the discussion of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Currently, the U.S. is the co-chair of the Minsk group which is responsible for the solution of the conflict, and mediation and its position in the field of conflict resolution is essential.
Despite twenty years of cease-fire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the resolution through the mediation of the Minsk Group has not been achieved yet. Thus, the official visit of the Secretary of State to the region is expected to be interesting. Recent violations of the cease-fire between Azerbaijan and Armenia and losses on both sides of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict once again demonstrated the importance of attention to the separation.
Hillary Clinton’s tour of the South Caucasus began with Armenia. Either in Armenia or Azerbaijan, she stated that a military solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is unacceptable.
In Azerbaijan, Clinton gave an interesting statement. She said that they have to find way to establish peace as soon as possible.
The Secretary of the State added that within the planned meeting with two ministers in Paris, she will try to research new approaches. She further added that there is no military solution to this conflict and they will do everything to achieve a peace agreement. Clinton finally mentioned that she will do everything for it personally.
On June 18, a meeting of the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia will be held in Paris with the mediation of the Minsk Group co-chairs. Ýt is expected that new approaches will be presented to the parties of the conflict during the meeting.
This statement by Clinton appealed to the politicians and media correspondents, and they tried to analyze it.
In particular, the Armenian media and politicians manifested more extensive and active attitudes and stated that the “new approaches” put forward many different versions. Chairman of the Public Chamber of the Nagorno-Karabakh Foreign and Security Policy Mais Mailyan hopes for the Armenian position in this statement.
In her opinion, the Madrid Principles for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the non-realistic proposals were discussed, and the U.S. leadership understood that the new approaches will need to be demonstrated.
In fact, the question of the Madrid Principles will undoubtedly be revived here.
The return of the occupied territories of Nagorno-Karabakh as well as the territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic according to the Madrid Principles with the participation of the U.S. in recent years have been re-adopted in authoritative documents.
For example, on May 21-22 the final declaration of NATO heads of state at the Chicago summit meaningfully supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and expressed the importance of the settlement of ethnic conflict within the framework of the U.N. Charter, Helsinki Final Act and international law.
Ýt is noted in the U.S. State Department’s report on human rights for 2011 that Armenian separatists with the help of Armenia still continue to occupy Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding districts.
The official position of the U.S. in accordance with Clinton’s approach will probably confer a high status on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the context of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.
Such an approach is not in accord with the Armenian politicians, thus, M. Mailyan declared that if this approach does not meet the interests of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenia and the legal Armenia, it will not be accepted.
An article issued on Armenia’s Panarmenian website stated that Clinton’s approach reflected the official position of the government and stemmed from the interest in Azerbaijan’s fuel reserves. It then mentioned that the U.S. must be careful about the forthcoming U.S. presidential elections in fall.
Author Naira Ayrumyan analyzed whether the essence of the Clinton statement draws attention to the one by Russian Ambassador Vyaceheslav Kovalenko.
The Russian ambassador indicated that for the prevention of bloodshed on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border, we need to sign an agreement on the resolution process of the conflict through a negotiation process and an establishment of good ground.
The author analyzes that instead of signing such an agreement it is possible to return a few of Azerbaijan’s occupied districts, but the Armenian politicians cannot accept it.
The Azerbaijani side has repeatedly said that if the framework agreement for the settlement of the conflict is difficult to obtain, a complete work on the development of a reconciliation agreement may commence.
It has been taken into account that during the visit of Clinton to the region, the Armenian-Turkish relations, Caspian Sea oil reserves and safe transportation to the West were allocated as special matters, thus, it is reasonable to believe that the new approach will be based on cooperation between the parties. For now, it is difficult to speak without a resolution process for the conflicts about reliable peace and stability in the South Caucasus. At least the West and the U.S. are interested in stability in the region for a simple reason: transportation of Azerbaijani and Caspian basin resources to the West. |
26 June 2012
Journal of Turkish Weekly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOST VISITED NEWS (DAILY) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
