Karabakh Conflict: The Need for a Context Change

The destructive and aggressive rhetoric of the conflicting parties cannot be considered as a kind of precursor of the meeting, because it is designed more for internal use, taking into account public sentiment. For they are not yet in favor of the line of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs on the need to prepare the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities for peace.

The meeting platform should consider the statement of the co-chairs dated March 1 of this year, which was the product of their high-level meetings in Yerevan and Baku. Let us turn to the most important statement, which forms the basis of the abstract roadmap for conflict resolution:

"Referring to some controversial recent public statements on the substance of the Minsk Group process, the co-chairs confirm that a fair and lasting settlement should be based on the basic principles of the Helsinki Final Act, including, in particular: 1) non-use or threat of force; 2) territorial integrity; 3) equal rights and self-determination of peoples. It should include additional elements proposed by the presidents of the co-chair countries in 2009-2012:

-the return of the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh to the control of Azerbaijan;

-the temporary status of Nagorno-Karabakh, providing guarantees of security and self-government;

-a corridor connecting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh;

-the future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through legally binding -expression of will;

-the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence;

-international security guarantees, which will include a peacekeeping operation.

The Co-Chairs emphasize their view that these principles and elements should be the basis of any just and lasting settlement of the conflict and should be considered as a whole. Any attempt to put some principles or elements over others makes it impossible to achieve a balanced solution."

From this, it follows that the Minsk Group offers a comprehensive, unified, but in the form of implementation, a phased approach.

Before the meeting with Aliyev, Pashinyan said that he intended to receive clarifications in Vienna on how the co-chairs see the operation of the three principles and the six elements of settlement within a single whole. Aliyev did not ask any questions about this, but this does not mean that he has no questions similar to what Pashinyan puts.

You can understand Pashinyan if you look at the problem in an isolated form. That is, the conflict is considered and resolved outside the regional context without taking into account the real coexistence of Armenia and Azerbaijan within the framework not only of the South Caucasus, but within the Greater Caucasus, which involves the Russian North Caucasus and the Lesser Caucasus with neighboring Iran and Turkey. More importantly, the consideration of the conflict within the framework of the strategic European integration line of the transformation of the geographical European Caucasus into a political one, in which the South Caucasian countries are involved.

Both mediators and participants in the peace process would be worth including in the draft settlement a strategic component of European integration with a clear vision of the coexistence of the two countries in the near future within the European political and value field. In this case, the conflict is not a two-way, South Caucasian problem, but a European one can receive completely different positive impulses from the point of view of perspective and alternative to a narrow and in reality dead-end approach to solving the problem.

The resolution of the conflict as a single whole within the framework proposed by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group is possible. For example, the basic contradiction of reciting principles and their perception can be resolved according to the scheme: self-determination within the framework of territorial integrity and with continuation - self-determination of Armenia and Azerbaijan within the framework of a single union of the South Caucasus and then the European Union. This approach creates a different platform and perception of conflict. All other principles are derived and are solved in a purely technical sense.

It is not difficult to say whether leaders today are ready for such an approach. At different times, both Pashinyan and Aliyev voiced similar approaches, but they retreated under the pressure of circumstances, the main of which was the lack of readiness of the people for peace.

The people cannot come to an understanding that there is no alternative to the peace in the narrow framework of the presentation of the settlement of the conflict, which is proposed by the mediators.

Time is required to work out a broader and more long-term perspective in order to break out of the vicious circle of such negatives as tragic historical memory, hostility, and distrust.