The war that restarted in April has engendered new questions regarding which many have their opinions and answers. That war also brought back to the fore the May 1994 cease-fire agreement achieved by the relentless efforts of Russian diplomat and co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov.

During the war itself and since then both Yerevan and Stepanakert have placed the violation of that agreement by Azerbaijan at the center of their diplomatic campaigns and they have highlighted the “permanency” or “no-end-date” nature of the cease-fire. Both official and non-official sources on the Armenian side have ascribed such a dimension to the May agreement.

The May 1994 agreement, composed of three separate documents, has two parallel provisions, two fundamental points: the declaration of a cease-fire and the initiating of a 30-day period of intensive negotiations to achieve a larger political agreement. The May 1994 agreement does not contain the word “permanent” or any other term that may convey the same meaning.  And that fact presented the parties to the conflict with at least a degree of uncertainty. That is, what was the relationship between the two fundamental points of the agreement? Did the 30-day provision constitute an end-date for the cease-fire? What would happen after 30 days had passed since the signing of the agreement, especially since no one expected a larger political agreement to be signed in 30 days?

The May agreement was not followed by an intensive period of negotiations aiming at the signing of a larger political agreement. There were only proposals from OSCE to strengthen the cease-fire, proposals that reached nowhere. Russia did not use the advantage it had achieved with the May agreement to expedite negotiations that would lead to a political agreement.

As I remember events and recall my impressions, all three capitals were inclined to view the May agreement as a temporary one. If that was not so, one would have difficulty explaining why all three parties to the conflict participated actively in the initiatives undertaken subsequently by Yerevan. That is, clearly there was need for additional documents.

At the end, considering the “paralysis” of the Minsk Group and the absence of new steps by Russia, Yerevan decided to proceed with direct negotiations with Stepanakert and Baku to achieve the goals of a permanent cease-fire. At the end of June 1994 Yerevan undertook certain diplomatic steps to both strengthen the cease-fire and turn it into a permanent one. At first Yerevan tried to achieve this through the Minsk Group chairmanship. The Minsk Group was unable to respond positively to Yerevan’s proposal, while Russia attempted, for a moment, to regain the initiative, an attempt that came close to derailing Yerevan’s initiative.

Yerevan, pursuing its goal stubbornly, undertook direct negotiations with Baku and Stepanakert and achieved success. The three parties to the conflict signed a new document on July 28. It is that document which for the first time uses terminology indicating that the parties have agreed to a cease-fire that has no end-date. The July 28 document reconfirms the cease-fire agreed to in May, it repeats the need for a period of intensive negotiations to achieve a larger political agreement, but adds a new provision that states: “The conflicting parties are obligated to confirm during the agreed period their cease-fire responsibilities and to maintain the cease-fire until the signing of the major political agreement which entails the complete cessation of the military hostilities.”

It is in this document that the parties to the conflict agreed to maintain the cease-fire until the political agreement is signed. The members of the OSCE Minsk Group, including Russia, learned about the signing of such an agreement from September 2, 1994 letter sent by the Foreign Ministry of Armenia to the OSCE chairman-in-Office.

Furthermore, in order to dispel any uncertainty that may have remained regarding the absence of a connection between the 30-day intensive negotiation requirement and the duration of the cease-fire, once more at the initiative of Yerevan and through direct negotiations Azerbaijan’s issued a statement on August 28, 30 days after the signing of the July 28 document, reconfirming what was new in the July document: the commitment of the parties to maintain the cease-fire until the signing of the political agreement. As a result of the same initiative from Yerevan the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh too issued a statement in the same sense one day later, on August 29.

Two notes. First, I have deemed it necessary to make this correction not only because of history—I have written about this matter in far more detail in my next book that is in preparation--but also because it is necessary to understand the role of various players, the importance of the permanency of the cease-fire that was perceived even at that time, and the necessity of appreciating negotiating methodologies that can be productive.

Second, considering that the relevant documents may have been gone unnoticed or even lost at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, in June 2013 I turned over to the Ministry a full set of these documents copied from the copies I had in my files because Baku had started insisting that Azerbaijan had never made a commitment to maintain a long term cease-fire.

Jirair Libaridian

Advisor to the President of Armenia, 1991-1994, First deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, 1993-1994, Senior Advisor to the President 1994-1997, historian and diplomat.