Tuesday, June 28 2016 10:50

Novruz Mammadov, Deputy Head of the Azerbaijani President’s Administration, said that in St. Petersburg the parties agreed to settle the Karabakh conflict stage by stage. Afterwards, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova said that all the results of the St. Petersburg summit are reflected in an official press release. The impression is that the agenda of the process has not changed in the post-April period and the imitation of the peace process through Russia’s mediation continued in St. Petersburg. Don’t you think so?    

 

 

I consider that the April war initiated by Baku should change the logic of the negotiation process. Continuing negotiations in the previous manner is counterproductive for the Armenian parties to the Karabakh conflict and for maintenance of peace in the region. That is why the co-chairs should make new real proposals and Azerbaijan as the side should admit the new rules of the game.

 

Do you think all the three co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group are really interested in introduction of an international mechanism of control over the ceasefire and an investigative mechanism on the border?   

 

The joint statement adopted by the three presidents in Saint Petersburg, in which the sides agreed to increase the number of the observers in the conflict zone is a positive step but absolutely insufficient. Obviously, without implementing an international mechanism for controlling the ceasefire regime and mechanism for investigation of the incidents on the border one should not expect the Azerbaijani side to cease its provocations. After the summit the Azerbaijani authorities have stated that the number of the observers can be increased only by 6-8. It is abundantly clear that it is impossible to organize permanent monitoring with such a number of OSCE representatives. Thus, Baku in fact hinders the introduction of an efficient mechanism for monitoring the ceasefire regime and refuses to discuss the creation of mechanism for investigation of the incidents on the frontline. This means that Baku intends to continue with impunity its "military diplomacy" or power politics. Meanwhile, the US is mostly interested in the implementation of the abovementioned two mechanisms. In this light, I would like to recall last year's initiative made by Congressmen Royce and Engel. The initiative was supported by 80 congressmen and the US Department of State. The three steps proposed by the congressmen will allow ensuring cessation of military actions and maintaining stability in the short-term outlook. In the long-term outlook, these steps will contribute to reaching comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.  Particularly, the sides should sign an agreement on withdrawal of snipers from the Line of Contact, deploy equipment to identify the ceasefire violator, and increase the number of OSCE observers along the Line of Contact for improving the control over the ceasefire.   

 

Russia’s role in stopping the hostilities in early April, along with the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents’ St. Petersburg agreement to hold regular contacts with participation of the Russian president have enhanced the significance of Russia as a mediator in the Karabakh conflict. How much do you think this meets the interests of Yerevan and Stepanakert?    

 

The active role of Russia as one of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries in stopping the April war can be explained by the fact that in the OSCE Minsk Group Russia is the only co-chair country to have the tools to settle such problems in our region. Indeed, the agreement of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents to hold regular contacts on the Karabakh peace process with participation of the Russian president enhances the role of Russia.  However, the new format of exchange of opinions - as addition to the OSCE Minsk Group format - can be effective in case the NKR leader joins the discussions. In general, all the three parties to the Karabakh conflict benefit from the balanced mediation ensured by the OSCE Minsk Group.

 

What new approaches in the Karabakh peace process do you think have turned into necessary supplement following the April war?

 

Basing on the statements following the two post-April summits - in Vienna and Saint Petersburg - negotiations the priority is given to stabilization of the situation in the conflict zone and only after that to reaching progress in the negotiations. This means that the co-chairs and the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan at least at the level of statements think that it is impossible to reach agreement on political issues without strengthening the ceasefire regime and implementation of confidence-building measures. In practice, we see the Azerbaijani side's unwillingness to implementation of the mechanisms, which would ensure regional stability.