 |
THE MUNICH MEETING BETWEEN ILHAM ALIYEV AND SERZH SARGSYAN
BORIS NAVASARDYAN,
President of Yerevan Press Club, Armenia
The Sunday negotiations in Munich, like the majority of previous meetings between Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, have not changed the prospects of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute settlement. I believe this meeting did not make the Presidents reach an agreement as well as did not make the using of force more or less likely. One can say that the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen’s assessments were more cautious than those made after the meetings that took place on May 6 in Prague and on October 9 in Chisinau. Then, in Prague Matthew Bryza stated about the “conceptual breakthrough”, while Robert Bradtke, who had replaced him, said five months later that the sides reached an agreement concerning the settlement principles: national self-determination, territorial integrity and non-using of force. The both statements caused a sensation. A breakthrough in such prolonged processes is always extraordinary, and although today the international law is based on the abovementioned three principles of the ethnic and territorial conflicts settlement, in respect to Nagorno-Karabakh those principles were interpreted in Baku and Yerevan so differently that there was no agreement here at all.
Of course, those very optimistic statements should be followed either by a breakthrough or a “cold shower”. Baku sobered the Minsk Group Co-Chairmen expressing its dissatisfaction with the negotiations, their outcome and the Armenian side’s unconstructiveness. In Munich, even after Baku’s words, the situation was calm, only good spirits that the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen traditionally display and the hopes for a new meeting between Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan indicate that the Minsk process is alive.
The reason for the metamorphoses is likely in the simultaneous process of Armenia-Turkey rapprochement. In May 2009, Turkey, Armenia and Switzerland, which acted as a moderator, said that a coordinated Road Map would be elaborated. In October, shortly after the meeting between Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan, the Armenian-Turkish protocols on opening the border, establishing diplomatic relations and improving bilateral relations between the two countries were expected to be signed. In other words, the rapprochement of two historical opponents was in full swing. The Minsk Group Co-Chairmen sought to create favourable conditions for the rapprochement: during the war with Azerbaijan, which is a strategic partner of Turkey (the slogan “two states – one nation” has been important in the relations of the two countries) the successes of the Armenian troops resulted in closing the border with Armenia by Turkey. Baku was going to discredit the negotiations process as a means of restraining its ally, Turkey, in its dialogue with Yerevan. The Azerbaijani side insists that any progress in the Armenian-Turkish relations be preceded by liberation of, at least, some areas around Nagorno-Karabakh that are controlled by the Armenian forces.
In Turkey the Turkish leaders have to take into consideration Azerbaijan’s expectations and the opinions of those coming out against improvement of relations with Armenia without preliminary conditions. Armenia-Turkish protocols have yet to be ratified and it is unclear when the border will be opened. So the expectations from the Munich meeting as well as any responses to it were more moderate and reserved. Now there is almost a deadlock concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute settlement, which has become habitual: Yerevan flatly opposes the linking Armenia-Turkey relations normalization to any other issues. Another issue is that opening of the border with Turkey would favour the formation of new atmosphere in the region and would positively influence the attitude of the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations sides making them more constructive. The reverse consequence, or consideration of a much more complicated Nagorno-Karabakh problem as a prerequisite to solve a simpler problem, which does not require the harmonization of many details, and which the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations is, seems to be unlikely.
In addition, while the major global players have reached a consensus on opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey, such an agreement is far from being reached on different points of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute settlement. That’s why the quickness of the Minsk process will depend on the future of the Armenian-Turkish protocols in many respects. Their ratification within the next 4-5 months can stimulate the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations, while their procrastination will hinder the negotiations. The protocols ratification in the Turkish Parliament would be speeded up by promoting the resolution on recognition of the 1915 Armenians Genocide by the U.S. Congress. The 4-5 months term implies the time period till April 24, the Genocide Victims Commemoration Day. If Turkey has ratified the protocols by this date, the resolution will likely be removed from the agenda (why to worsen the relations between the countries that can come to terms?). Otherwise, the resolution will most likely be adopted, which means that the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement process will be delayed. This would mean negative consequences for the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute settlement.
November 25, 2009
|
|
|
