"Results of conflict solution much depends on efforts and fair position of mediators"

The passing 2010 was remembered with the recent OSCE summit in Kazakhstan. On the backdrop of criticism by many experts over the summit, what are your comments on the summit in Astana?

In fact, for the first time, the leaders of the UN, EU, CIS, CSTO, NATO and OSCE met on one site at the OSCE summit in Astana, which testifies maintaining the balance between the East and West. On the other hand, the geopolitics of Eurasia is now rapidly changing. The logic of geopolitical changes in the Eurasian region is to expand the boundaries of the concept of "European security". Therefore, the European political circles now increasingly speak of Eurasian security, not separating Central Asia and South Caucasus from "old Europe". Furthermore, the actual content of the "security" term has changed in the 21st century, since fundamentally new risks and challenges of social, economic, environmental and informational nature have appeared.

Today, the international community actively urges the authoritative international organizations, primarily the OSCE, to pay more attention to transnational problems. In particular, it deals with regional conflicts, aggressive separatism, terrorism. Mechanisms for resolving these problems were to be discussed and worked out at the Astana summit. The Astana summit demonstrated certain helplessness of the OSCE in making significant and qualitatively new decisions. The fact that for 15 years, the OSCE has not been able to develop a common agenda urgent for all participants indicated the low level of part of the European political elite's understanding of the realities and challenges of modern times. And still it seems that the agreed text of the final document contains certain contours of the organizational and substantial evolution of the OSCE, which allows this organization to transform into an international organization capable to quickly and effectively respond to the challenges of the rapidly changing world. To realize this purpose, the OSCE should move away from double standards and abandon the old world order rivalry of states for influence and for global domination.

Summing up 2010, what can be expected from the OSCE in terms of regional peacekeeping operations in the near future? How do You assess the statements adopted within the OSCE summit regarding the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement?

After the end of the Cold War, the expectations of effective mediation for peace negotiations and subsequent control over compliance with the terms of a future agreement on a comprehensive political settlement were linked exactly with the OSCE. However, like the approach to other regional issues, in the issue of the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement, the political face OSCE as an international organization reflects all the convulsions of the world order at the turn of the millennium. Paradoxically, most Western experts note with regret that the OSCE is still far from becoming a spokesperson for the voice of the international democratic community, despite that it officially proclaimed human rights above the rights of individual states. OSCE's position on critical issues of modern time, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is defined as the resultant of many political factors in a specific period of time.  

The OSCE summit in Astana was not a breakthrough in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but the statement made by presidents was a positive trend. This statement is an important document because it was adopted in the 3+2 format and points to the need to intensify efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict. The statement targets resolving the conflict through peaceful negotiations and approves the principles of the supremacy of international law. We have to admit that the decisive role in the OSCE is played by a group of so-called "big states", among which the United States and the whole EU dominate. It is not accidental that adopted at the Astana summit, the statement means that the presidents of the co-chairing countries were obliged to be more active in the conflict settlement process.

And how this document will contribute to establishing atmosphere of security and cooperation in South Caucasus?

It is generally known that good intentions reflected in the documents of previous OSCE summits have not yet been implemented. This suggests that the OSCE has not yet become an effective mechanism for implementing the political will of the international community to maintain stability and ensure fair solution of the regional problems. I would like to hope that the document adopted within the OSCE summit in Astana will be implemented in practice, because the solution to the conflict affecting interests of tens of states and the international community as a whole is real taking into account the real capacity of the largest OSCE participating states.

The statement adopted during the OSCE summit in Astana will contribute to establishing an atmosphere of stability and security in the South Caucasus if big OSCE participating states, especially co-chairing countries, demonstrate a single political will based on a single universal morality and force Armenia to withdraw its troops from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Taking into account the destructive policy instruments of Armenia against Azerbaijan, and using contemporary international practice, the OSCE may make a petition before the UN to adopt "measures to implement the peace process" or "measures of coercion to peace".

It deals with organizing an international operation to restore and maintain peace, which is conducted without the consent of the side initiating the conflict by using the elements of humanitarian action within the UN peacekeeping forces. Objectively, such a will and morality can be formed within the OSCE, whose mission is to prevent conflicts and ensure supremacy of law.

Why the MG OSCE cannot find a solution to this conflict? Given the nearly 20-year ineffective activities of the Minsk group...

Firstly, still there are not real progresses from the Armenian side in an agreed understanding of the problem and switching it to joint solution. In addition, the stagnation in the negotiating process is linked with the fact that Armenia obviously counteracts any peaceful initiatives of the international organizations. Secondly, there are other reasons affecting basic aspects, particularly important from the point of view of international law. One of the main reasons is that the solution of the Karabakh conflict within the OSCE Minsk Group, including the diplomatic efforts of the major powers, involves actions aimed at achieving a "negative" peace, that is prevention and non-admission of the resumption of war or hostilities in the conflict zone.

However, "negative" peace in Nagorno-Karabakh is insufficient and it is only an important part of a larger political process, to which the traditional diplomacy, including the Minsk Group, occasionally helps and it does not allow to achieve certain successes. It does not to forget that there is a "positive" peace. However, unfortunately, the Minsk Group does not make anything to achieve it.

The "positive" peace means eliminating the internal reasons and conditions that cause forced conflict, at prevention of which the "negative" peace process is aimed. In this regard, it must be noted that the Minsk Group is not an independent institution, that is, the actions of mediators are authorized and carried out by the co-chairing states. In fact, since its formation, the Minsk Group has become a platform on which geopolitical games began, which are not directly linked with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but more related to the study and search of modern geopolitics of the South Caucasus. It is evidently advantageous for the co-chairing states to use the international organizations and in this case the OSCE Minsk Group, since such joint activities allow dividing common responsibility for the intervention, but not laying it on one of these countries, even if it takes positive and effective measures.

Thus, to promptly reach an agreement, the traditional diplomacy in the person of the Minsk Group often uses non-positive methods of conflict solution, which lead to establishing "negative" peace. If "positive" peace is not achieved in such a complex geopolitical situation, the "negative" peace could easily collapse, which somehow will bring to the resumption of hostilities. This process can take a quite long time, which confirms the current impasse around the issue of the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement, where a fragile "negative" peace has been lasting for about 16 years. Obviously, the failure of the conflicting sides, which interact with the international community, to achieve "positive" peace jeopardizes the "negative" peace.

Analysis of the OSCE Minsk Group's activities allows to confirm that its work is determined by the above-mentioned approach. Nobody is trying to belittle the role of mediators and reduce their activity to a zero result. Nobody denies the fact that the international mediators have made quite persistent attempts to resolve the conflict, but unfortunately, the Minsk Group made a serious mistake, because from the beginning wrongly approached the issue of settlement, trying to balance between the aggressor and the suffered side.

As known from the international practice, the results of conflict solution largely depend on the active efforts and fair position of the mediators, as well as on what means they use to avoid confrontation and its extremely negative consequences. The current geopolitical situation requires continuing the negotiation process and our country remains committed to the peaceful solution of the conflict. However, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly stated that the patience of the Azerbaijani people is not limitless. And therefore, if necessary, Azerbaijan has the right at any time to go for the liberation of its occupied territories.


/Trend/