Foreign media
Euractiv portal has published an article, entitled “How third parties’ neutrality protracts the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict”.
The article by Farid Shafiyev, Chairman of the Baku-based Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center), focused on the “balanced approach” by the international community and mediators.
Shafiyev notes that ever since the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan turned into full-fledged war after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, international mediators, policy makers and experts have pondered how to resolve it. According to the author, classic theories of peace negotiations focus on the necessity of maintaining neutrality between the conflicting parties for the success of the mediation.
“Subsequently, the road map of the peace process should understand the causes of the conflict and embrace the grievances and goals of the conflicting parties. However, as I argue here, the so-called ‘balanced’ approach, in some instances, acts only to protract conflict and serves the interest of the party that is content with the current status quo,” he says.
In 1997, three powerful actors – Russia, France and the United States – formed the Co-Chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group to deal with the negotiations, says the author, adding. “Coincidentally, all three countries host large Armenian communities. The principle flaw of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs was the departure from the UN Security Council resolutions towards a new formula that hinges on the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, which Armenia would eventually like to annex, though Yerevan put forward the intermediate goal of self-determination for local Armenians. After several attempts to find a successful formula, the Co-Chairs, with the initial consent of Armenia and Azerbaijan, unveiled the so-called Madrid Principles in 2007, further updated in 2009. The Madrid Principles stipulated a phased approach to the peace process; this involved the de-occupation of Azerbaijani territories around Nagorno-Karabakh, the return of refugees, and the opening of communication and transportation links, but left moot the question of the status of occupied Nagorno-Karabakh until the final stage.”
He says that when Azerbaijan repeatedly, in 2005 and 2010, appealed to the Co-Chairs with regard to the illegal activities in the occupied territories, including the resettlement process, they replied by issuing ‘balanced’ statements. “Moreover, in 2010, the Co-Chairs decided not to publish the official results of their field mission on illegal resettlement, justifying this on the basis that it would be detrimental to the peace process. In contrast with this ‘balanced approach,’ official Yerevan has for all these years been working towards solidifying the results of the occupation, hoping that, sooner or later, official recognition will arrive.”
Shafiyev continues: “As a result, the balanced approach of mediators and international experts has perpetuated and protracted the conflict, which last erupted in July 2020. After twenty-six years of ceasefire and negotiations, the ‘balanced approach’ has led to a dead end. BBC HARDtalk anchor Steven Sackur, in an interview with Armenia’s Prime Minister, emphasized that the current provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric manifest an intention to dismantle the negotiation process and secure the annexation of Azerbaijan’s occupied territories. As for Azerbaijan, both its government and public have realized the dead end to the negotiation process. The resulting frustration was visible during the mass rally in Baku on 14 July, when the public demanded decisive military action to liberate the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Even if the military option is not the solution under the current circumstances, many believe that the balance will change in the future.”