Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 63 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 9/15/20

The prospect of the resumption of substantive negotiations on settlement of the Karabakh conflict

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments

Two months after the July events on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, the situation in the Karabakh conflict zone is relatively calm.

Against the background of the belligerent rhetoric of the Azerbaijani leadership, it seems unreasonable for many Armenian experts to talk about resuming negotiations between the parties to the conflict. On the other hand, Armenian government feels an urgent need to put Aliyev and his team in their place, providing an opportunity to understand the depth of the consequences of armed provocations.

This requires cold-blooded and wise actions. Any demonstration of aggression will be used by the Azerbaijani agitprop as a convenient reason to draw public attention to the inadequacy of the population and the leadership of Armenia.

In this situation, statements about Yerevan's intention to resume the negotiation process through the Ministries of Foreign Affairs is a clever tactic. Especially against the background of appointment Jeyhun Bayramov as a new Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan.

In fact, the negotiations through the OSCE Minsk group, despite the formality of the events it organizes, play a significant role in preserving the nominal truce. Most members of the group are directly interested in a stable situation in the South Caucasus.

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group (Russia, France and the United States), as well as Belarus, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Turkey, are among the mediators of the negotiation process on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.

This is an impressive set of mediators. Since the positions of these countries on the issue of conflict resolution differ from each other, the activities of the OSCE Minsk group receive less and less approval among the population of Armenia over time.

The Minsk group has made great efforts to reduce tension in the Karabakh conflict zone and restore the status quo, but its capabilities, if not completely exhausted, are approaching a minimum. Many scenarios of the Karabakh settlement proposed in different years by the Minsk process were rejected by the conflicting parties. Every time attempts at constructive dialogue were thwarted by regular outbreaks of military violence.

Nevertheless, the mediation side remains an essential condition for maintaining the diplomatic progress made over the entire history of the conflict.

Today, Russia stands out among all intermediaries. Just as it was in 2009-11, when the Russian President initiated dozens of meetings between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Then his initiative failed in Kazan in 2011, when Aliyev at the last moment refused to sign the already-agreed document. The developments of the Russian side after the April 2016 war at this stage have received a new manifestation. The Madrid principles for the settlement of the Karabakh issue, adopted at the OSCE summit in 2007, do not allow finding a compromise solution. In particular, the Madrid principles clash between two main international principles - the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the right of Armenian Karabakh to self-determination. That is why Moscow is trying to bring the approaches of the parties together by making new additions to the documents.

You can throw mud at Russia and Putin as much as you like for the supply of weapons to Azerbaijan. But it should be borne in mind that in the context of a crisis in the geopolitical situation, the Kremlin cannot afford to exchange cooperation with Azerbaijan. For the same reasons, Yerevan adheres to the policy of compliments.

Whatever the course of future negotiations, the most important thing now is the understanding that Armenia, having resolutely repulsed Azerbaijan's aggression, has once again confirmed that there is no military solution to this conflict. Both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have sufficient forces and resources to ensure their defense and security.

Rate It | View Ratings

Aram Manukyan Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

an American journalist with expertise in the history and politics of Caucasus region

Related Topic(s): , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Position of Armenia to Syrian Conflict

What is the essence of interstate strife in Armenia?

Erdogan's Neo-Ottomanism as a Factor in the Escalation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict

The context of the Armenian-Russian relations. What we can expect? What to hope for?

The US State Department allocates $150 thousand to Armenia

Political background to the development of oil and gas production in Azerbaijan

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend