Minsk Group Co-Chairs Look for Alternatives

• 10.30.2015, 10:35
• Anna Karapetyan
•  "Insight" Analytical Center ,  NKR,  Analytics

Judging from the announcements made during the latest regional trip, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs look for new confidence-building measures and ways to move forward in the negotiations.

The violation of the ceasefire regime exactly during the time of the observation conducted by the Co-Chairs was another proof that their “balanced” announcements and calls  have no results, and there is a lack of political will for the peaceful settlement of the conflict.  

Let’s refer to some of the points in the announcements made by the Co-Chairs during the visit:

Ceasefire Regime Violations: Security and the ceasefire regime violations were among the main issues discussed during the meetings of the Co-Chairs with the representatives of the conflicting sides. In spite of the ceasefire regime violations during the very time of their observation and fury of the American Co-Chair ( the US Co-Chair stated that it was awful and unacceptable), the Co-Chairs again stated that  it was impossible to determine the location of the fire and indicate the guilty side. It’s difficult to imagine how it was not possible to determine the direction of the fire during observation and it’s even more difficult to understand how the mediators imagine preventing further ceasefire violations by such  uncertain announcements.

It’s obvious that by such a behavior  the Co-Chairs try to seem unbiased.  Probably it will be possible to get rid of this ruining silence only after the establishment and implementation of the investigation mechanisms.

According to the Co-Chairs, the issue was discussed with the sides. The authorities of Armenia and NKR underlined the importance of these mechanisms in their public announcements, while Baku, according to Warlick, neither rejected, not accepted them.

The announcement made by Warlick, in which he stated that it was desirable that “the sides make a commitment to reject the use of heavy weapons, otherwise there is a risk of escalation” deserves particular attention. Perhaps, this can become a basis for a new measure of trust – new agreement between all the conflicting sides (including NKR) about the non-use of force. It will on the one hand help to prevent the ceasefire regime violations and loss of human lives. On the other hand, as an important tool in confidence-building it will boost the negotiations process. 

Work with Society: the Co-Chairs during their visit to the region paid particular attention to the work with society. This was especially the case when they were in Azerbaijan. In their final statement the Co-Chairs also stated that they encourage the projects boosting communication between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Besides in Azerbaijan Warlick declared that he hoped that the Azerbaijani society will make its voice heard and will demand peaceful settlement of the conflict.

This proves that the Co-Chairs observe the lack of political will in the leaders to resolve the conflict in a peaceful way, especially in  case of Azerbaijani  leadership. The military rhetoric of the Azerbaijani authorities gradually increases, which makes the Co-Chairs only rely on public demand for peace in Azerbaijan.

On the other hand this is a voice of assistance to society and a particular message to the Azerbaijani leadership, who keep under pressure civil society actors and organizations cooperating and communicating with the Armenian sides.

Systematic (structural) negotiations: during their visit to the region the Co-Chairs once more referred to the suggestion made by OSCE Co-Chair Switzerland on conducting systematic (structural) negotiations.

This is an internationally accepted format, which assumes the negotiations among the representatives of the conflicting parties (on the level below presidents) on not major, secondary, mainly technical details. The mechanism allows the sides to come to an agreement around separate issues and to make progress in the negations process based on those agreements. In a sense this assumes parallel negotiation process along the one on the level of presidents.

This suggestion is also an attempt to overcome, to circumspect the problems that have become frozen during these 20 years and to come to an agreement at least on certain issues.

Interestingly this ides was referred to many times in 2014, but at least on the public level, did not receive reaction from the sides.

The causalities and tensions on the borders decrease the effectiveness of the negotiation process and trust among the sides. The primary problem of Co-Chairs today is to  re-start negotiations and to come to an agreement on certain confidence- building measures. The statement on organization of the presidents’ meeting by the end of the year is conditioned by this very fact. The Co-Chairs are probably in a search for alternatives solutions to boost negotiation process.

However, as long as the mediators avoid making addressed statements, it is hard to expect from the Azerbaijani side to put aside its non-constrictive policy and demonstrate will for the political settlement of the conflict.