NK Peace Talks emerging on the international agenda
February 10, 2006 at 12:05 pm 4 comments
Between today and yesterday, President Kocharian and President Aliyev have been meeting in Paris, France as the world anxiously watches and hopes for a peaceful settlement of the NK issue. Onnik has recently written a series of posts covering these recent peace talks on Nagorno Karabakh and does an excellent job in alluding to details, providing background and currents events concerning the conflict. Also, Notes from Hairenik Blog provides some insight into aspects within the peace negotiations that should really be of concern and more than “vochinch” to Armenians.
As the presidents are once again meeting, civil society has been talking as well. There are concerns within Armenian civil society about some of the points which are being raised over and over again within the proposed resolution. As it has been mentioned before, international peacekeeping troops would be brought to this region to protect the borders and Armenian soldiers would have to leave the liberated lands or occupied territories. Yet, where is all this attention coming from? Why is it that after almost 15 years later the international community is so concerned about the resolution of the conflict? Some Armenian civil society leaders are skeptical about this heightened concern over the Transcaucasus region. There are concerns which have been expressed one of the indirect reasons for this heightened attention to bring international peacekeeping troops into to Nagorno Karabakh would be so that they could have some pressure and influence on Iran and its agenda to develop nuclear power. As the West is continuing to feel pressured that it is losing its control and drifting further away from the Near East region, the recent increasing attention towards the Nagorno Karabakh conflict could be an attempt to gain influence once again- especially by deploying peacekeeping troops.
Within the past few months alone, more international organizations have been visiting the Transcaucasus region and consulting with Armenian and Azerbaijani organizations and emphasizing the importance of a resolution as soon as possible. Yet the sentiment among NGO leaders here is that these talks are not going to resolve anything. They will simply be a “political agreement”. These NGO activists propose a “stage by stage” approach to this conflict resolution process in order to ensure security and stability in the region. In discussing some of the key points to the proposed NK resolution, Christian Garbis also points this out in Notes from Hairenik:
Oh, and one other thing–Azeris would be allowed to return to their native homes if they so desired, the reason why they would consider doing so is also unthinkable since it’s hard to believe that Armenians and Azeris could once again live somewhat peacefully together. From the recent reports I have been reading, the Azeri side is still not willing to give up on the idea that Karabagh be returned to Azeri control. So what’s to come of all this?
On the other hand, Armenia’s civil society is pointing to the importance of the overall democratization of this region in order to resolve all conflicts. They argue that in order to obtain an agreement that the people will agree with, the people must be involved in the negotiation processes. They must feel that they are being represented in the entire process. It is more important to focus on the implementation of democracy in Armenia and work on issues regarding transparency, corruption and human rights protection.
Ultimately, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is interrelated with the authorities in Armenia and Azerbaijan and their willingness to cooperate with their citizens.
Furthermore, these leaders are skeptical that the international community will seek to increase the democratic processes in this region because they believe the international community maintains the importance of a peaceful resolution, even though they are agreed upon with not-so-democratic regimes.
Entry filed under: Blogging, Caucasus, Civil Society, Politics. Tags: .
1.
Onnik Krikorian | February 10, 2006 at 1:57 pm
The South Caucasus is an unstable region and the West does not want frozen conflicts threatening to erupt in the future. The Azerbaijani military budget is 6/10 th of the ENTIRE Armenian STATE budget and will increase each year. Armenia can not keep up with this arms race in the South Caucasus. It is also becoming more and more isolated from regional projects. The Iran issue is of course related to all of this, but this is not an unprecedented event.
Armenia and Azerbaijan were close to a deal in 1997/8, 1999 and 2001. This is not some new interest in resolving the conflict. Simply, after being preocuppied with Afghanistan and Iraq, the West has turned its attention back to the South Caucasus and not least because it is also a gateway to Central Asia.
At the same time, if Armenia and Azerbaijan want to move closer to Europe, this conflict has to be resolved. How and when is another matter, but after falsified elections in both countries in 2003 and last year, the West has the ability to put pressure on both Presidents.
Another issue is that while the conflict is unresolved, it will be impossible to move further in the democratization process. Karabakh is both a hindrance to that process, and also, is the argument every nationalist uses to resist calls for democratic elections and the growth of civil society which is pitiful in both republics.
The situation in both Armenia and Azerbaijan is not only responsible for the two leaders being in power, but also a way to retain power, and this is why Karabakh is seen as an obstacle to fighting undemocratic and corrupt practices in a semi-militarized society.
Interestingly, the way Karabakh has influenced the democratic process in Armenia and Azerbaijan has also been responsible for the widespread apathy in society. I doubt many Armenians care about whether the territory around Karabakh is returned or not, as long as Karabakh is independent and it has a land border with Armenia.
Besides, as I recall, the war was about Karabakh and not the territory surrounding it. The only main concern about this deal is that a referendum is held later rather than at the beginning of a phased peace deal on Karabakh.
Closed borders and isolation from regional projects will continue unless someone works out a strategy for the future, but nobody in government, the opposition or civil society has any idea at all, being concerned with short term gain instead.
Anyway, my posts are not at oneworld.am, they are at http://oneworld.blogsome.com.
2.
Onnik Krikorian | February 10, 2006 at 2:01 pm
I’d also like to add that if civil society and opponents actually bothered to read reports from RFE/RL from the end of 2004, they’d understand that today’s meeting is not unexpected at all. In fact, as early as spring 2005, people were expecting the meeting to happen sometime after parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan and a referendum in Armenia.
Now suddenly, civil society is arranging discussions after discussion in the few weeks before the meeting when if it had done its job properly it would have started to have done something significant to engage society last spring when Sarkisyan and Kocharian started declaring there was a need for concessions.
3. Oneworld Multimedia :: Notes from the Armenian Blogosphere :: February :: 2006 | February 12, 2006 at 6:05 pm
[...] Ironically, even those charged with the task of regional integration and peace building initiatives feel the same. Tamar from the Civil Society Institute (CSI) in Yerevan says pretty much the same thing on Armyouth. This is a common view held by most of those in civil society and opposition political parties who are supportive of Karabakh’s right to self-determination. On the other hand, Armenia’s civil society is pointing to the importance of the overall democratization of this region in order to resolve all conflicts. They argue that in order to obtain an agreement that the people will agree with, the people must be involved in the negotiation processes. They must feel that they are being represented in the entire process. It is more important to focus on the implementation of democracy in Armenia and work on issues regarding transparency, corruption and human rights protection. [...]
4.
armyouth | February 13, 2006 at 9:51 am
Overall, this post was really to summarize the opinions of some of Armenia’s civil society leaders. From experience with my own research regarding Armenia’s civil society, there is not much research in this field and I hope it does serve as something meaningful to those who might be looking for something like this. It is important to provide updates of what’s going on “on the ground,” as you’ve mentioned before. I would not necessarily say that I am in agreement with everything they say, but would rather refer to these leaders for further explanations about these viewpoints. Thus, it would be important to understand and analyze where these attitudes are coming from? Why do some these civil society leaders believe international peacekeeping troops in NK would not necessarily be helpful?
In addition to that, I’d also like to add that I do believe civil society in Armenia is not dead and nonexistent. Maybe this is a more idealistic viewpoint but I do believe there are some efforts underway to lead to some developments in Armenia. I would argue that one of the fundamental problems is that Armenians are bad at publicizing such efforts. For example, CSI is working on a development project sponsored by USAID to initiate cultural, political, social and economic activities in the Tavush and Gegharkunik marzes. Doesn’t appear much on the website, does it? So I have been pushing CSI to publish such activities and to analyze the outcome and also the negative aspects of their efforts.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, I also do not believe civil society has all of a sudden emerged out of the cracks to talk about NK and are beginning to hold discussion after discussion since the presidents were supposed to meet in France this past weekend. To provide an example, the Resource Center has been holding many different activities since May 2005, when Sargsyan and Kocharian announced that they would begin peace talks with Azerbaijan over NK again. There have been many discussion forums and other activities as well. What is the point of such discussions anyway? Should the civil society not be trying to influence policymakers and the President himself in regards to the peace talks, since he is the one doing the primary negotiations? For in the end, it is true that as a result of the NK conflict there has been much insecurity and instability within the region and has led to the further isolation of Armenia in the Caucasus region from many different political projects. In the end, I am in agreement that integration in the region and resolution of conflicts are necessary in order to lead to democratization and further development in Armenia. Except for one thing—how is this peace deal supposed to actually be successful if we know that the people will probably not be in agreement with it? Really it is the human right of the Azeri and Armenian refugees to be allowed to return to their homes. Yet it is now years later and so much has changed – can Armenians and Azeris really live with one another again? Maybe I have repeated this many times already but this is ultimately the question. We have stereotyped one another to such a great extent that right now a campaign must be made in order to prevent such propaganda and stereotypes from continuing.
As of right now there has been no peace deal made. In the meantime, efforts of civil society should be increased so that they are given more of a voice within these peace talks. They are the ones who are a bit more representative of the population in comparison to the president who is completely isolated from the people (and I would argue that this is his preference). Realistically though, it is unlikely that Armenia’s civil society will have much of an impact on the NK conflict because of the lack of a democratic state- the channels for them to do so are simply not there. Yet one thing has been made obvious through history, and that is that multi-track diplomatic efforts have been much more successful than first track diplomacy. This is because they have been more inclusive of the people and ultimately, the people are the ones that have to uphold any peaceful agreements.
Onnik, I apologize for not posting about your site in the correct way. In future posts, I will refer to it as http://www.oneword.blogsome.com