Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Part I
The Madrid Principles served as a basis for the negotiations dedicated to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict for the last three
years. Proposals included making some changes to the Principles in order to renew the peace process between Azerbaijan
and Armenia. But the dynamic of the current negotiating process over of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict itself appears to
reflect more positions of regional superpowers rather than the countries involved in this conflict. The key players in this
region are Turkey, United States, European Union, and Russia. Iran is not likely to intervene in the conflict. As a result,
Iran’s active partcipation in the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict not to be expected. It is unrealistic to advance the
peace progress without regard for interests of the regional powers in this context.
If we assume that the interests of these actors clash in this geography, attainment of a consensus in the near future
seems utopian. The outside pressure on the parties to the conflict might turn the Southern Caucasus region into a center
of a hot conflict zone again. Even, if some tentative agreement will be reached between the regional powers, while their
interests do not coincidence, the conflict is likely to reignite. A long-term solution can be established only, when the
societies of the states involved in the conflict have internalized democratic values. The absence of dialogue between the
government and the people demonstrates the great democracy deficit, as flagrant violations of human rights continue in
the both countries. One of the main obstacles to a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is a historic failure
to establish link between the unsuccessful democratization process in the both countries and the unresolved conflict. Even
in the best case scenario, international efforts to produce a lasting solution to the confilict will be futile. At the same time,
it is vital to convince both societies that only peaceful solution is the preferred solution.
Sometimes experts expressing their opinions on the negotiation process focus their attention exclusively on the position of
the one of the key actors, disregarding the fact that each of them ( Turkey, US, EU, Russia) is in possesion of powerful
instruments of influence in the region. What is evident is that it is unrealistic to expecta a peace settlement without prior
achievement of a consensus, whereas due a consideration is given to the interests of the regional powers. Another may be
far-fetched, but not unrealistic scenario is a new war in the South Caucasus – the war precipitated by the main powers in
order to force the hand of the party which is disinclined to a true reconciliation and peace. This kind of war might be
enticing as conflict resolution mechanism in this international conflict. It might be offered more likely by US or Russia as a
final solution model. That kind of settlement is likely, if the above mentioned countries are not able to reach aa consensus
Russia) is very important. But the actor with the main represantative role or the mediator should be appointed only with
concurrence of the participants of the conflict, i.e. Azerbaijan and Armenia. And it seems, that there are pressures are
being applied on them for that reason. It is also important, at the first phase, to get consensus between the powers of
interests in the region before encourage Azerbaijan and Armenia to sign a peace agreement . In order to get success in the
process of determining of Nagorno-Karabach’s status, the diplomatic maneuvers undertaken by the Azerbaijani authorities
are very important. Armenia countered Azerbijani maneuvers by its diplomatic initiatives. For example, Azerbaijan’s
approachement with Russia as well as the improving relations of Armenia with the West can be seen as indication of
shifting positions of the two South caucasian nations. It is a new evidence of the complexity of the South Caucasian
dynamic. Despite the offers by the parties, factors such as shared participication by the regional powers (Turkey, U.S., EU
and Russia) in the peace process complicates the settlement of the conflict.
There is common thinking that short-term tactical moves and the importance of the unresolved issues of the past
overshadow both the most regional and the international predictions about the Nagorno Karabakh problem. This
document puts both of the parties into a desperate situation and makes them prefer the status quo rather than movement
Before reaaching the peace agreement outlined in the packet of Madrid principles, it is important to mention that, any
agreement should be signed only after carefully examining all the alternative peace scenarios. Also it should be
determined whether the current situation, or the situation that is expected to ensue after signing a peace agreement
Orkhan Gafarli
www.kafkassam.com
Leave a Comment