"The negotiating process is not dead," says Bernard Fassier.

Certain activity in the Karabakh settlement is anticipated in the coming weeks - on April 28, 2006 US president George W. Bush will receive Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev. A White House press release states, "Azerbaijan is a key ally in a region of great importance and a valued partner, making important contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo." This will be Aliyev Junior's first meeting with President Bush since he inherited the presidency from his father. Naturally, one of the key issues on the table will be the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. It is worth noting that in the eight years he has been in office, the Armenian president has not had the honor of being received by President Bush, except for a fifteen minute conversation they had in April 2001 when after the Key West negotiations Bush received Robert Kocharyan and Heydar Aliyev at the White House.

Steven Mann will be visiting Baku and Yerevan on April 18 th . This will be his second visit to the region in a month, incidentally, separate from the other two co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. And on April 10-13, the French Minsk Group co-chair, Bernard Fassier, held consultations with the leadership of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Doesn't Russia find itself on unequal footing, with the French and American co-chairs visiting the region separately? The Russian co-chairman of the Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov said in answer to this question, "Absolutely not, I completely trust my colleagues. Moreover, I'm not planning to visit the region since I'm going to meet with the Armenian foreign minister in Moscow, on April 21 st. " Merzlyakov insisted that there were no contradictions among the co-chairmen, and that they worked as a team. "The Rambouillet meeting was a result of the co-chairs' joint efforts. I'm not ready at the moment to reveal our working methods," the Russian diplomat said.

In contrast to Merzlyakov, his French colleague Bernard Fassier gave a rough explanation while in Yerevan of what happened in Rambouillet last February: "Of course, what the three co-chairmen were hoping for did not happen. In order to make it clear as to what did happen, I would put it this way - before Rambouillet we had a glass that was half full, and we hoped to see that glass filled more in Rambouillet. Of course, we realized that it would be impossible to fill it up all at once but we hoped to fill it a bit more than half. In fact, we didn't succeed in filling it more than halfway but the half-full glass didn't turn over either. The negotiating process over the Nagorno Karabakh settlement is not dead, it goes on," said Bernard Fassier at an April 13 news conference at the French Embassy in Yerevan

The French diplomat denied the possibility of altering the negotiating format, noting that it is possible to talk only about adapting the format of negotiations. What does "adapting the format" imply? The co-chairs are no longer satisfied with the results of their mission. "We are not talking about changing the negotiating format. The Prague process continues. We just want to detail some issues and to enrich what has already been achieved." Fassier explained that the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents had asked the mediators to augment the principles developed so far. He said that the co-chairmen were planning to jointly visit the region in the early May and to present the parties with "certain new ideas". It was clear from what Bernard Fassier said that in Rambouillet the mediators worked not on a final settlement of the conflict but on an interim or framework document. "That was what we tried to do in Rambouillet - to come to an agreement on certain basic principles. In the event that the basic principles had been accepted, the formulation of a framework agreement would have been easier," he said. The status of Nagorno Karabakh, according to the French diplomat, should be decided "as a result of a gradual process and this is what we have in sight."

At the press conference Fassier also hinted that as of now, the hopes for holding another meeting between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan are strictly limited. "We are working on creating opportunities for the presidents of the two states to meet. I cannot tell today the date and the venue of such a meeting for nothing is certain yet. If it is possible, such a meeting will take place in June, if not, let's hope that it will happen in July," he said, adding: If Presidents Kocharyan and Aliyev wish to fill up the half-full glass, there will be a meeting between them."

Peter Semneby, the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus told me in conversation on April 7 that Presidents Kocharyan and Aliyev were close to a settlement in Rambouillet. "Unfortunately, for various reasons it was impossible to reach an agreement, but the negotiations go on. I'm cautiously optimistic - there still are chances for the settlement," he said.

From meetings with Aliyev and Kocharyan, Peter Semneby has developed the impression that the presidents are not stalling for time, but are trying to find a resolution to the Karabakh problem. "I believe we are talking about historic responsibility. The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have the opportunity and I hope they will take this opportunity for the sake of their countries and peoples, for the sake of the region. It's a difficult step because the resolution of a complicated conflict is only possible when each of the parties compromises over its demands and expectations," Semneby said.

The Armenian authorities don't mind compromises but on the other hand, as Vartan Oskanian stated at an April 6 press conference, "We have made the possible concessions and have no more room." Incidentally, Fassier and Merzlyakov both noted that the conflicting parties should not anticipate getting one hundred percent results at the negotiating table or that one party's demands will be met by eighty percent and the other's by twenty percent. They explain that a fifty-fifty result would be the optimum.

However, Baku, at least publicly, is not ready for serious concessions. Would they, for example, agree to the return of fifty or eighty percent of the lands under Nagorno Karabakh control? Head of the Department on International Relations of the President's Administration Novruz Mamedov told the Azerbaijani APA News Agency on April 14 that it was not advantageous at all. Mamedov stressed that the mediators make proposals based on their own understanding. "The co-chair's views don't even coincide with each other. The important thing for us is the liberation of the occupied territories, return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan on the basis of international legal norms."

Stepanakert, which is consistently deprived of its right to speak by Yerevan, also believes that the co-chairs' approaches do not coincide. Head of the Commission on Foreign Relations of the Nagorno Karabakh Parliament Vahram Atanesyan noted, "One of the reasons that the conflict is not settled is the fact the co-chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group itself has no joint position. In my opinion, this is an obvious reality for the co-chairmen as well. In other words, there is no deliberate necessity for the resolution of the Karabakh problem internationally, no program stemming from this necessity, nor mechanisms for implementing such a program. Today the Minsk Group is guided by the same logic that the Politburo of the USSR Communist Party used to be guided by- you yourselves find the limits of compromises and we will guarantee such compromises. It is very hard to make this a reality, especially so, under the present circumstances when Azerbaijan keeps threatening war.

Bernard Fassier repeated several times in Yerevan that "the Karabakh conflict has no military resolution." "There is no alternative to peace. There were losses along the confrontation line after Rambouillet. We have to repeat again and again to both conflicting parties that under no circumstances can war be a solution. The war will be the worst-case scenario for both parties. If a new war is unleashed it will mean new losses for both sides, new mothers that will lose sons, new orphans, new destruction, new refugees," he said.

Perhaps the French diplomat's words were more addressed to Baku, since it is the Azerbaijani leadership that threatens on every occasion to start a war against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh if the conflict is not settled in a way that pleases them. At the exact time that Bernard Fassier was in Baku, a senior official from the Azerbaijani president's administration, Ali Hasanov, said that "if the US, France and Russia shut their eyes to the occupation it means that we have to look for justice not at the OSCE Minsk Group but somewhere else."

"We hope that it doesn't come to a resolution by military means. We hope that the conflict is settled though negotiations. We understand the calamities and destruction that war brings, but Azerbaijan cannot be reconciled to the occupation of its lands. Therefore, if necessary we will spend not only our profits from oil but the entire wealth of our country to liberate our lands," he threatened.

Presumably the senior Azerbaijani official's words were addressed to somewhere else. US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried stated last week that in the event of the resumption of war, Azerbaijan should not anticipate benefits from oil and gas exports.

"Azerbaijan expects large amounts of money from its oil and gas exports, but it will be possible only if there is peace. If there is war there will be no money. Is that clear? Let's take a look at the map. You know what I'm talking about," said the assistant secretary responding to an Azerbaijani reporter. Daniel Fried also stressed that "the oil and gas money will bring with them nothing good if it is not spent reasonably."