Madrid principles are none other than long-running renunciation of Nagorno Karabakh

Debates over Karabakh conflict ran high within the framework of OSCE at the level of Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Discussants insist on success of talks. However, information protection and inconsistency of views due to negotiation process cause concern and provide no opportunity to objectively analyze the situation.

Historian Eldar Ginesli provided an expert analysis of the talks to create public awareness.  He singled out a statement of Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov following results of the recent talks in Baku:  "There is awareness that compromise is possible. It is not easy; the conflict is the longest on the expanse of the former Soviet Union. But we are thankful to our Azerbaijani friends that ideas put forward by Russia at the bilateral level and as a chairman of OSCE Minsk Group. Today and yesterday’ contacts made it possible to better understand how we are going to move forward". 

With its “bilateral status” and as Co-chairman of OSCE Minsk group Russia is engaged in pushing forward measures as set forth in “Madrid principles” (MP). Bearing in mind “unilateral”, it may be supposed that the point here is about «Russian peacemakers» in Nagorno Karabakh, explained the expert.  

“Attempts of this sort have been made since ceasefire in 1994. Note that the implementation of Madrid principles is none other than time-expanded surrender of Karabakh to Armenians”, Ginesli noted. He suggested to detail each item of arrangements reached:

1. Return of territories around Nagorno Karabakh under Azerbaijani control.
2. Granting of intermediate status to Nagorno Karabakh to guarantee its security and self-governance.
3. Ensuring of corridor linking Armenia with Nagorno Karabakh.
4. International security guarantees and conduct of peacemaking operation.
5. Return of all internally displaced persons and refugees to places of their permant residence.
6. Determination of the future legal definitive status of Nagorno Karabakh by means of legally obligatory declaration of will.

What is behind these Clauses?

1.A blockade of the Azerbaijani-Armenian and Turkish-Armenian borders is lifted in exchange for deoccupation of territories around Nagorno Karabakh, i.е. Armenia is led out of the economic blockade. However, "return of territories around Nagorno Karabakh" does not stipulate for “return” of Lachin and Kelbajar regions of Azerbaijan. A road via Lachin to connect Nagorno Karabakh with Armenia, so under no circumstance Armenians are going to decline from it; sources of many rivers supplying mountain and low-lying Karabakh are located in Kelbajar. Also, Armenians are not minded to liberate this strategically important region.

2. The so-called “intermediate status " is a choplogic invented by the Minsk Group  (Russian Federation, France, United States) with the object of camouflaging the true nature of accords: any status, either intermediate or permanent, is a status as such. It envisages the recognition of the Armenian occupation regime of occupied territories which is currently unrecognized nor has status. After status, interim though, is granted, the Armenian occupation authorities will be automatically legitimized, internationally recognized and become a subject of international relations. 

3. The point to be emphasized is that the bringing of "peacemakers" suggests that the occupation regime with its "intermediate will be under their protection. Allowing for the fact that at present the Azerbaijani army is in face-to-face contact with the enemy and may start anti-terroristic operation to liberate Armenian- and local separatists-occupied territories, and this is a serious negotiation factor, so with bringing of "peacemakers" the parties will be separated, and no military option is possible: if necessary "peacemakers" will be assisted by "reinforcements" in the person of Russian soldiers from a Russian military base in Gumri. Even worse, how can you be sure that these "peacemakers" won’t be Russian soldiers? 

4. Return of Azerbaijani refugees is formally declared but impracticable in reality. Being aware of phobia prevailing in Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, local Armenian authorities are sure to breed unbearable, life-threatening conditions for Azerbaijani natives of Karabakh. It would be childish to count on effective aid by "peacemakers". Suffice it to remember developments of later 1980-earlier 1990s where units of the Soviet army and internal forces jointly with Azerbaijani militia failed to protect Azerbaijani villages of the region against attacks and violence of armed Armenians.

Worthy of note is the fact that it is permissible to have the number of Karabakh Azerbaijanis which cannot exceed percentage ration of Armenians prior to 1988. In other words, the number of Azerbaijanis is sure to be much lower than that of Armenians. It matters most for Clause 6. 

5. All actions as set forth in provisions 1-5, Clause 6 are as follows: holding a referendum on the territory of Nagorno Karabakh occupied by the Armenian army to finalize its international status definition. Results of such a referendum cause no doubt: Armenian majority is sure to vote for independence. The Minsk Principles emphasize that results of voting will be "legally binding", i. e. mandatory for the authorities of the Azerbaijani and Armenian Republics under international guarantees. In other words, they will have adopt them forcibly even despite possible objections. To let out negative sensations, mediators perpetually say that the referendum will be held indefinitely when “conditions come to a head”. 

The above mentioned reasoning makes it possible to unveil the truth of Madrid principles on the so-called "commonly shared compromises". It is worth pointing out that compromises are expected from the Azerbaijani party only, in the matter of its territorial integrity and recognition of occupation consequences.

Following the effectuation of Madrid principles, Armenia is sure to attain its goals as set forth in “Miatsum-1988” – “reintegration into its historical motherland Armenia”.

In this connection, there is an unexpected and contradictory statement made by the Embassy of the Azerbaijan Republic in Austria of which jurisdiction extends over Slovakia as well. Note that a meeting of Foreign Ministries of Azerbaijan and Armenia was held in the capital of Slovakia - Bratislava. On the one hand, the statement says that Azerbaijan remains committed to the policy of peace resolution within the framework of the OSCE (i.е. "Madrid principles"); on the other hand, Azerbaijan «sees the determination of the status of Nagorno Karabakh Republic as a part of Azerbaijan to comply with the Azerbaijani Constitution and legislation” (Constitution authorizes voting process on the whole territory of the country only). 

However, OSCE Minsk mediators, Russian Foreign Ministry and Lavrov personally keep dinging that «it is the mission of Karabakh population to decide its own future». The statement says that the resolution to the issue is legally permissible on the basis of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan only.

The essential point to remember is that the statement unexpectedly an incanous Budapest memorandum of 1994 which highlights the bringing of «peacemaking contingent» into the conflict zone. Note that the above-stated does not fit in successive settlement measures as set forth in Madrid principles.

It’d be appropriate to remind words of S. Lavrov who said in the course of his recent meeting in Baku: «We are grateful to our Azerbaijani friends that ideas put forward by Russia in the bilateral aspect and as Co-Chairman of OSCE Minsk Group find receptive audience», historian E. Ginesli brought his analysis to a close.