They are trying to restore contacts between Yerevan and Baku

The foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Moscow on October 6, 2006 under the auspices of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. During the consultations at the Russian foreign ministry, Vartan Oskanian and Elmar Mammadyarov discussed the existing problems within the Karabakh negotiation process as well as the ideas presented by the co-chairs on how to overcome the current disagreements.

Oskanian assessed the consultations positively, stressing that Yerevan will seriously consider the issues raised by the co-chairs before the next meeting of the foreign ministers to be held in Paris on October 24-25. The Armenian foreign minister told RFE/ RL that he and his Azerbaijani counterpart agreed to meet again later this month to present their governments' responses to “new thoughts” voiced by the international mediators during the talks.

No agreement was reached on next meeting between Presidents Robert Kocharyan and Ilham Aliyev. “A meeting of the presidents may take place only if there is progress on the content of the mediators' current peace plan at the ministerial level. So we should wait for the next meeting of the foreign ministers to see if it is worth holding a meeting of the presidents,” Oskanian said.

The Azerbaijani foreign ministry assessed the Oskanian-Mammadyarov meeting with “cautious optimism”, stating that the foreign ministers and the co-chairs of the Minsk Group had in-depth discussions throughout. “All the issues on the negotiating table as well as ‘new approaches' were at the center of attention,” spokesman for the Azerbaijani foreign ministry Tayir Taghizade told Azerbaijani reporters.

During the first days of October the mediators visited Baku and Yerevan. Yuri Merzlyakov of Russia, Matthew Bryza of the US, and Bernard Fassier of France were planning to visit Stepanakert as well, but because of bad weather conditions they were subjected to one-and-a-half days of inactivity in the capital of Yerevan. This is the period of time that was always sufficient to visit Stepanakert and return. In all probability, the co-chairs considered a meeting with the leaders of Nagorno Karabakh meaningless, taking into account the current deadlock within the negotiating process.

Speaking at a joint news conference in Yerevan, the mediators did not conceal their disappointment. “Sometimes we are asked whether we are optimistic or pessimistic. We don't respond to such questions because we are sure that if there is even one percent probability for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, even in that case it is worth trying,” Bernard Fassier admitted.

The French mediator reminded those present that the main principles of the Karabakh settlement had been approved not only by Moscow, Paris, and Washington but were supported by the leaders of the G8 member states. “But it turned out that this is not enough. If the two presidents are unable to come to an agreement, the outside support – however strong – will not provide for a resolution.”

Matthew Bryza emphasized that the negotiating process was not in its final phase, that there was no military settlement to the Karabakh conflict, and that the Armenian and the Azerbaijani peoples were not ready yet for a final settlement. “We are not saying that we are on the verge of a grand breakthrough or that the difficult problems have gotten any easier but we do sense a willingness by the sides to think in a deeper way and to look for a way to move ahead. The only factor that prevents the process from moving forward faster is the lack of confidence toward each other by the conflicting parties,” the American mediator said.

The Russian co-chairman was more reserved than his colleagues and added that the visit was aimed at restoring direct contacts between Baku and Yerevan in order to continue the discussion of the main principles of the Karabakh settlement presented to the parties last spring. “The mediators have made one amendment to one of the main principles of the settlement proposed to the parties last May,” Yuri Merzlyakov said, and refused to elaborate on what principle had been amended quoting the confidentiality of the negotiating process.

Nevertheless, it became clear from the mediators' statements that amendments were made in the two-and-a-half-page document on the main settlement principles presented to the parties on April 13, 2006. The document, called “Food for Thought”, which consisted of four main principles and was, in essence, declassified during the June 22 session of the permanent council of OSCE in Vienna, was, in all probability unacceptable to the Azerbaijani side; the Armenian side wasn't delighted with it either.

Vartan Oskanyan has stated on many occasions that it wasn't an ideal document but under today's circumstances, with serious reservations and as a basis for negotiations, it was acceptable to Yerevan. The Armenian foreign minister even said that if the Azerbaijani side accepted the document it would be necessary to persuade the Armenian people that it would be possible to settle the Karabakh conflict only on the basis of the proposed principles. At a recent news conference Oskanian went even further, qualifying the document proposed by the mediators as “the lesser of two evils”.

But here too some points remain unclear. Which one is the “lesser of two evils” – the April 13 th document or the one presented last May, where, according to Merzlyakov “one of the main settlement principles was amended”? This is very important, for an amendment to a main principle might completely change the letter, the spirit, and the philosophy of a possible agreement. According to our sources close to the foreign ministry, Azerbaijan considers the idea of a “postponed referendum” to be acceptable in principle on the condition that it gets back the Kelbadjar region before the referendum to which Armenia is opposed, and that was the reason for the deadlock reached during the Rambouillet talks.

To make it clearer, Yerevan might agree on giving up Kelbadjar only after the referendum in Nagorno Karabakh is held in some X years. But the Armenian president in his September 17 th interview with Aljazeera TV channel mentioned in addition to Nagorno Karabakh, which cannot be a part of Azerbaijan, a “narrow Lachin corridor”. “We have stated on many occasions that we are ready to negotiate the conditions of the return of territories to Azerbaijan with the exception of a narrow Lachin corridor connecting Armenia with Nagorno Karabakh,” Robert Kocharyan said.

Oskanian, as we have noted earlier, has insisted many times that Armenia accepted the mediators' proposals but, on the other hand, he refused to meet with Mammadyarov in New York. If the reason is the inclusion by Azerbaijan of the items entitled “ The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan” and “Protracted conflicts in the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Republic of Moldova) area and their implications for international peace, security and development” on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, than the diplomatic successes in both cases were not on Armenia's side.

In recent days, an OCSE fact-finding mission has been monitoring the situation in the territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh and is to preparing a report on its findings. It cannot be ruled out that the 61 st session of the UN General Assembly might discuss the issue of “protracted conflicts”, though Yerevan opposes such a discussion.

Neither the co-chairs nor the conflicting parties, nor influential political forces in Armenia pin their hopes on breaking the deadlock in the negotiating process any time soon. Meanwhile, if the opposition blames the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia almost equally for not showing an interest in settling the conflict, the parties making up the governing coalition criticize more the non-constructive approach of Azerbaijan.

If in the past the Azerbaijani president threatened Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh with war citing the consistent growth of his country's military budget, in his most recent public speech he definitely changed the emphasis. In his speech at the opening meeting of the fall session of the parliament, Ilham Aliyev stressed that according to the draft state budget for 2007, Azerbaijan's defense spending will increase by 18 percent, and will amount to $900 million. However, Aliyev also “appeased” the Armenians, saying that “the growth of military spending should not worry any one.”

“This is our sovereign right. Besides, the planned growth of the military budget cannot in itself lead to war. We have to guarantee our security and be prepared for any developments,” he said.

Stepanakert too is convinced that Baku is not ready for a settlement. “I have the impression that Baku doesn't want to settle the conflict. Azerbaijan hopes that time is working in its favor and it cherishes the illusion that since it has oil, it will become rich, will strengthen its Army, and will annihilate Nagorno Karabakh. This is the reason that Azerbaijan doesn't want to actively participate in the negotiating process. This is the problem, because settlement is always a risk – it is impossible to get one hundred percent of what one is dreaming of. The Azerbaijani leadership is not ready to take the risks,” President Arkady Ghukasyan said in an interview with Spanish daily El País.

In fact, the Nagorno Karabakh president called the negotiating format senseless – the direct contacts between Yerevan and Baku – which the mediators are trying to restore senseless. “So far there has been no unambiguous understanding of what this conflict is all about. Is it a question of self-determination, is it a conflict between the people of Nagorno Karabakh and the Azerbaijani government, or is it a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan? In other words we have an obvious attempt to treat an illness without a diagnosis. This is an extremely senseless situation,” Ghukasyan said.