CC BY
81
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
Andrei GALIEV
Ph.D. (Political Science), Co-Worker at the Abylay Khan Kazakh University of International Relations and World Languages
(Almaty, Kazakhstan).
KAZAKHSTAN AS A PLATFORM FOR HOLDING TALKS ON SETTLEMENT OF THE ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT
Abstract
T
his article examines one of the ways to resolve the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict—the most protracted
and laborious controversy in the Caucasus. The author looks at the attempts of many countries, international organizations, and
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
prominent politicians to settle the disputes and contradictions between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The paper points out that Kazakhstan, as a prestigious state with sustainable economic development, could assume the mission of guiding the talks on peace-
ful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It suggests creating a negotiation platform (in Almaty or Astana) and establishing a special Assistance Fund for improving the socioeconomic situation in Nagorno-Karabakh as a way to reach such settlement.
Introduction
When the bipolar system collapsed, participation in regional conflicts and their settlement became a key problem for the largest international organizations and one of the most important vectors in the foreign policy of the leading world nations. The dimensions of international peacekeeping operations abruptly increased, while these operations themselves are mainly militarized and aimed at so-called peace enforcement between the conflicting sides.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the republics that acquired their independence created the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), hoping for mutual support, assistance, and development of close political, economic, and cultural relations. However, between 1988 and 1991 alone, more than 150 ethnic conflicts broke out in the former Soviet republics, about 20 of which claimed human lives.
The Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has at least three core elements (ethnona-tional, geopolitical, and state legal) and is essentially defined by methods (including armed) to gain power chosen by the political and national elites depending on the dominating interpretation of the two fundamental principles of international law that legalize ethnonational interests—the right to a state's self-determination and territorial integrity.
The conflict is caused by the following geopolitical and ethno-legal factors: the collapse of the Soviet Union; the influence of the U.S. and Turkey in the Caucasian region; Armenia's aggressive actions; socioeconomic disproportions; and mutual mistrust between the Azeri and Armenian ethnicities.
The numerous armed conflicts in different regions of the post-Soviet expanse largely serve as a reminder that force is all but the last argument used by many states when carrying out their domestic and foreign policy tasks.
I
The danger of armed conflicts in contemporary history lies, as before, in the fact that the world community has practically no mechanisms for preventing or rapidly settling them. In the conditions that have developed after the fall of the bipolar world order, the U.N.'s mechanisms have proven entirely ineffective. And even if the Security Council either does or does not adopt some decision or another in a crisis situation, it more often than not meets the interests of the initiators of the armed conflict rather than its victims. This causes local or regional armed conflicts to become extremely drawn out and tend toward escalation.
The Central Caucasian region continues to pose several military and military-political threats that directly or indirectly affect the national security interests of Kazakhstan and its allies in the Caucasus and the CIS as a whole. For this reason, the situation involving Nagorno-Karabakh, which still hangs in the balance, cannot help but concern Kazakhstan too.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
The conflict between the Central Caucasian countries arose in 1988 owing to Armenia's territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh and seven of the regions adjacent to it—20 percent of Azerbaijani territory—are occupied by Armenian armed forces.
The cease fire agreement signed in 1994 in the zone of the Karabakh conflict only effected a temporary halt in the military opposition, and for several years now both Azerbaijan and Armenia have been living in a situation that can be described as "neither war nor peace."
And even though the OSCE Minsk Group has managed to preserve the truce regime in the conflict zone for almost 20 years now, it has been unable to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
During its 20 years of independence, Kazakhstan has made immense strides in socioeconomic development and reform of the political system, while also achieving high prestige on the international arena. Kazakhstan is perceived by the European and world community as the clear leader and key partner in the Central Asian region and as an influential participant in the geopolitical processes in the post-Soviet expanse.
Acting on the world political arena as a unique international mediator and reliable, long-term partner, Kazakhstan has acquired a new global platform for establishing a dialog and advancing its initiatives.
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliev said at a meeting with President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev in the fall of 2011: "We are grateful for Kazakhstan's position with respect to settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev constantly keeps this topic in his field of vision and brings it up at important meetings with world leaders...
"An end must be put to this conflict and occupation of our territory. The resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, the highest international authority, must be implemented. The U.N. Security Council has adopted four resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict demanding immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Armenian occupational forces from the territory of Azerbaijan. But, unfortunately, they are not being executed. Our territorial integrity has been violated. During its years of independence, Azerbaijan could have achieved immense success were it not for this grievous problem. We are determined to resolve this issue within the framework of international law and the Helsinki Final Act, which clearly sets forth the principles and priority of a state's territorial integrity."1
A year ago, as the OSCE chairing country, Kazakhstan offered Azerbaijan and Armenia a dialog platform for peace talks on Nagorno-Karabakh. Some observers expected that the summit in Astana would bring about a shift in peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But no breakthrough was forthcoming. And there is little hope that the situation will change in the near future.
In my opinion, it is not advantageous for Armenia to take any real steps toward peaceful settlement of the conflict, since it is obvious that international opinion far from favors Erevan. Moreover, the breakdown in geopolitical forces in the region benefits Azerbaijan, keeping in mind the West's interests in the country's energy resources. Understanding this, it is more advantageous for Erevan to preserve the status quo as long as possible by drawing out the settlement process for an indefinite amount of time. And all of this makes the attempts of the world community to settle this crisis fruitless.
As Thomas de Waal, Coordinator of the Caucasian Project of the Research Institute for War and Peace, noted, "no one has yet to talk about the need for building a common future for Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Soviet Union, which brought all the republics of the region together, no longer exists. While Europe and America are far away."2
1 [http://www.zakon.kz/4454296-my-blagodatny-pozicii-kazakhstana-v.html].
2 Quoted from: "Kak razreshit konflikty na Kavkaze? Politika SShA na Kavkaze," available at [http://www. moldova.ru/index.php?tabName=article&owner=39&id=554].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
In keeping with the 20-year-old official request to mediate in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the foreign ministers of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries called on the sides in the conflict to manifest the political will needed to reach secure and peaceful settlement. This is mentioned in the joint statement of the foreign ministers of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov, Secretary of State of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Foreign Minister of France Alain Juppé: "We urge the leaders of the sides to complete work as soon as possible on the framework agreement and subsequent final settlement—based on the Helsinki Final Act principles of non-use or threat of force, territorial integrity, and self-determination and equal rights of peoples; the United Nations Charter; and norms and principles of international law—which will allow the entire region to move beyond the status quo toward a more secure and prosperous future."3 According to this statement, the peoples of the region have suffered the most from the consequences of the war, and any delay in reaching settlement will only prolong their suffering.
During the years of the conflict, dozens, if not hundreds, of different statements have been made at various meetings, conferences, and so on. But there is no solution to the problem in sight. In 2008-2012 alone, for example, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev held more than ten meetings with his colleagues, the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia. As we know, no groundbreaking result was achieved. For example, the failure of the Kazan meeting in June 2011 could have direct consequences for Dmitry Medvedev's peacekeeping initiative. Many experts say that Dmitry Medvedev was so disappointed by the meeting in Kazan that he was ready to stop his mediating efforts in the Karabakh vector. Medvedev essentially issued the participants in the conflict an ultimatum that the next trilateral summit would only be possible if a plan on Karabakh had been prepared for signing at it.4
So, the same gloomy and ruthless picture is seen on the line of contact between the hostile sides in Karabakh: exchanges of machinegun fire and death from snipers. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia are using drones on the contact line today, which means that the conflict will most likely acquire a new above-ground dimension (we have already seen the first signs of this). There will be more clanking of weapons, military exercises, and a hike in defense budgets.
Under certain circumstances, Azerbaijan might be compelled to shift to forceful settlement of the Karabakh problem. This was stated by Azerbaijani Defense Minister Safar Abiev during a meeting with his Iranian colleague Ahmed Vahidi. "We are willing to liberate our land by military means, and no one should have any doubt that Azerbaijan will liberate its territory from occupation. Today, the fate of more than one million refugees, villages, settlements, and towns destroyed by the aggressor, as well as material and spiritual monuments, has fallen victim to double standards."5
Department Head at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis (Russia) Sergey Markedo-nov says: "In my opinion, we cannot talk about any resolution of the conflict while we have no common terminology. The Azeris say that they are for resolution of the conflict. The question is what do they understand by this? Of course, the flag in Stepanakert is Azerbaijani. To be more exact, not in Stepanakert, but in Khankendi, as official Azerbaijani historiography and propaganda call it. What does settlement of the conflict mean for the Armenians? They say: we are for resolution of the conflict. But they understand this as self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh. The basic terms and concepts for settlement of the conflict are not the same for both sides. And so throughout."6
3 Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Countries, available at [http://www. osce.org/mg/89076].
4 [http://www.nr2.ru/moskow/337058.html].
5 "Armianskoe mnenie," Den, 5 May, 2009.
6 "Pravila igry," July 2008, available at [http://www.presidentfoundation.kz/ru/activity/smi/700/].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
The Minsk Group is the target of much criticism. Kazakhstan supports the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group and the governments of Azerbaijan and Armenia in their attempts to find some kind of peaceful solution to Nagorno-Karabakh. And this is absolutely correct. During a meeting in Seoul on 26 March, 2012, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told U.S. President Barack Obama how dissatisfied he was with the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group. He said: "During the past two decades the OSCE Minsk Group has not succeeded in settling the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And since the issue has reached a deadlock, I suggested that we talk to Azeris and Minsk Group co-chairing France, Russia and the United States try to persuade Armenia, so that they can solve the issue."7
Most Kazakhstan politicians think that Nagorno-Karabakh is Azerbaijani territory, while official Astana is trying not to express any particular likes or dislikes, saying that it is against any bloodshed. So President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev offered Azerbaijan and Armenia the Kazakh course of peaceful settlement, which is currently being processed by the sides as the most suitable compromise.
Kazakhstan is in favor of a well-balanced and responsible search for peaceful ways to resolve this matter. Kazakhstan believes that not one ethnic conflict today can be resolved by military means alone. Given that the bone of contention between the two fundamental principles is the right to territorial integrity and inviolability of territory, on the one hand, and the right of nations to self-determination, on the other, this problem should be resolved gradually, within the framework of international law.8
At the first stage, the question of the territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic must be resolved based on Paragraph 1(III-IV) of the Final Act of the Council for Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki).
It emphasizes: "The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers. Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State. .. .The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States."9
After the territory of the Lachin, Agdam, and other Azerbaijani districts alienated as a result of the hostilities has been returned to Azerbaijan, we can move on to deciding the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. This approach will make it possible to resolve a very important humanitarian aspect—how to return hundreds of thousands of refugees and forced migrants to their homes as quickly as possible.
If we think about it, we will recall that various solutions have already been offered for resolving the conflicts in this region. For example, as early as 1992, the model of a protectorate over the conflict territory was offered that suggested temporary joint administrative and judicial governance carried out by representatives of international bodies and the local administration. As for a permanent administration regime, the model proposed by Italian lawyers from the University of Padua appears very
7 "Obama, Erdogan Discuss Karabakh, Armenian Genocide Bills at Seoul Talks," 26 March, 2010, available at [http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/03/obama-erdogan-discuss-karabakh-armenian-genocide-bills-at-seoul-talks/].
8 See: B. Sultanov, "Vystuplenie na kruglom stole na temu: 'Azerbaidzhan i Kazakhstan: dvustoronnie otnosheniia i reguliarnye vzaimosviazi,'" 13 September, 2010, available at [http://sam.gov.az/uploads/files/SAM%20%26%20KISI. pdf].
9 [http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
attractive here. It introduces the concept of transnational territory, the legal status of which is determined by the following elements:
(1) an agreement among the ethnic groups residing in this territory;
(2) an agreement between the state of which it is a part and its neighboring states;
(3) a decision of international bodies to guarantee the transnational character and special form of autonomy of this territory;
(4) the presence in this territory of a special international body responsible for its protection and development;
(5) membership in international structures and bodies.
It must be confessed that all the regional players in the Caucasus are only playing their own games. This is what Fiona Hill, senior researcher at the Brookings Institution, believes. In her opinion, it is very interesting to compare the Caucasus with the Baltic countries, where the same discussions as in the Caucasus have been held or are still being held—on integration into Europe, cooperation with NATO, and so on. The Baltic countries have successfully resolved these issues because they acted jointly. They have been able to formulate common goals, although this was not always easy. These countries differ greatly from each other, each of them has its own unique history, although several aspects of their past are very similar. The Baltic republics share the concept of Russia as a threat, which has made it possible for Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to form a consolidated platform.
In the Caucasus, the situation is very different. There is no common agenda that could promote the joint development of the Central Caucasian republics. Nowadays we are seeing rivalry among the three Central Caucasian republics, whereby this rivalry is not only going on within the region, but also in Paris, London, Moscow, and Washington.10
It must be stated that Kazakhstan has very good relations with both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Since the time Kazakhstan and Armenia acquired their independence, bilateral relations between the two countries have been developing in the spirit of partnership and mutually advantageous cooperation. A trust-based dialog has been established that relies on alliance relations developed within the CSTO. There are no contradictions between the two states.
A constructive political dialog has been established between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are distinguished by close positions on pertinent regional and international issues.
Kazakh-Azerbaijani relations are developing in accordance with the precepts and provisions of the Treaty on Strategic Partnership and Alliance Relations signed after Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbaev's official visit to Baku in May 2005. In the multilateral format, the sides are actively cooperating within the framework of international and regional organizations (the U.N., OSCE, CICMA, CIS, TURKSOI, and others).
By reinforcing traditionally friendly, good-neighborly, and partnership relations, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are upholding a course toward expanding political and economic cooperation and are equally interested in strengthening the regional security, international stability, and prosperity of their countries. At the current stage, Azerbaijani-Kazakh cooperation is developing successfully and intensively. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are two fraternal states, strategic partners working together to build bilateral cooperation and ensure security in the Caspian Sea.
So Kazakhstan has very good, friendly relations with both these CIS countries that have very complicated and conflictive relations. Russia, in my view, is not the country that could be a mediator in resolving the current difficult contradictions. There are many people in Azerbaijan who believe
1 See: B. Sultanov, op. cit.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
that it is not Armenia, which is essentially a part of Russia today (although I do not share that viewpoint), that is a side in the conflict. However Azerbaijan does not have the capacity to fight against Russia.
On the other hand, Azerbaijan also has its reasons for cooperating with Russia. Its relations with the U.S. cannot be called trouble-free either. In addition to everything else, there is a large and influential Armenian lobby in the U.S., which is able from time to time to force Washington to act in the interests of Armenia, ignoring the interests of Azerbaijan (as, for example, in the case of the American embargo still in effect on deliveries of weapons to Azerbaijan).
While it was chairing the OSCE, Kazakhstan offered Azerbaijan and Armenia a dialog platform for peace talks on Nagorno-Karabakh. Kazakhstan has everything necessary for taking successful steps to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. It should be confessed that this peacekeeping mission is also advantageous to Kazakhstan itself for raising its prestige on the international arena.
Kazakhstan is precisely that country where a center for resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can and should be set up (in Almaty or Astana). Attention should be focused on an economic approach. After all, Nagorno-Karabakh is essentially unable to develop normally, while Azerbaijan has certain resources for development and may be able to resolve many socioeconomic problems by investing in Karabakh. Other countries and primarily economically developed ones should also join this vector. This is in the interests of many.
Conclusion
This article has analyzed the difficult situation that has developed around Nagorno-Karabakh. This situation is very tense, but I am convinced that it is potentially resolvable. For more than 20 years, dozens of attempts have been made to settle this problem. However, all of them have been unproductive. The Minsk Group has also been unable to reach a positive result for the conflicting sides.
But a solution must be sought, otherwise a war may breakout with all its unpredictable and extremely tough consequences, whereby not only for Azerbaijan and Armenia, but also for the entire Caucasian region. There is no question that the other CIS countries, as well as Turkey, the EU, and the U.S. will be caught in the fray too. One of the possible solutions to the impasse that has developed is to create a special platform in Kazakhstan (in Almaty or Astana) for holding talks on resolving the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, particularly since President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev has already made this suggestion. Nursultan Nazarbaev is perhaps the most authoritative politician in the CIS at the moment, and I think that in hospitable Kazakhstan territory and with his direct arbitration, such talks are possible and even expedient.
A special Fund (Bank) of Development of the Nagorno-Karabakh Region could also be created in Kazakhstan. The resources going into this Fund (Bank) from different sources could be used to finance industrial facilities, assist housing construction, create infrastructure, and develop medicine and education in Nagorno-Karabakh with the aim of promoting sustainable high socioeconomic development of this area. So we believe that it would be expedient for the expert community to study this idea.
