
We had previously commented on the American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Ambassador James Warlick’s statement on the issue of peace in Nagorno-Karabakh. Ambassador Warlick had delivered a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on May 7. In his speech, he outlined what he indicated was the US policy towards the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The US State Department later on confirmed that Ambassador Warlick’s statement indeed reflected the US state policy towards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
On May 11, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the ceasefire agreement that ended armed clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh on 12 May 1994, the three co-chairs of the Minsk Group issued a joint statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Portrayed as being a joint-statement reflecting the position of the three co-chairs, the statement is mostly a copy-paste version of the statement issued by Ambassador Warlick four days earlier. This, in essence, is susceptible to be construed as that France and Russia adopted the position of the United States in terms of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is curious that the US and Russia, who are locked in a heated dispute over another regional conflict that may show parallels to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, have managed to come to an agreement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and in so doing effectively sidelined the conflict.
In essence, the joint statement of the co-chairs highlights the same points that Ambassador Warlick had previously highlighted. In the joint statement, the co-chairs underlined the following six points: (1) the return of the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan, (2) providing an interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh that guarantees security and self-governance, (3) creation of a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, (4) determining the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh by a legally-binding expression of will, (5) the return of all internally-displaced persons and refugees to their original place of residence, and (6) providing international security guarantees that include a peacekeeping operation. Points (1), (4), (5) and (6) are constructive proposals in terms of finding an equitable and peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
In point (2), the co-chairs indicated that the Nagorno-Karabakh region must be provided with the right for self-governance. In this point, just like Ambassador Warlick, the co-chairs jointly failed to explicitly indicate that Nagorno-Karabakh is legally a part of Azerbaijan and is currently under Armenian occupation, and must therefore be returned to Azerbaijan.
In the more sensitive point (3), the co-chairs indicated that a corridor must be established linking Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The co-chairs, just like in the case of Ambassador Warlick, did not come up with an equally important and balancing proposal for the creation of a similar corridor that would connect Azerbaijan with its exclave Nakhchivan, which is cut off from the rest of Azerbaijan by Armenia. In the spirit of an equidistant stance, co-chairs at the very least should have proposed such a corridor that would balance the similar predicament of Azerbaijan. By not doing so, the co-chairs’ joint statement - just like Ambassador Warlick’s - is prone to be construed as reflecting bias in favor of Armenia.
In our comment for Ambassador Warlick’s statement, we had indicated that his statement demonstrated that there is a certain disregard for the interests and problems of Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The same can be said for the joint-statement of the co-chairs. The co-chairs should have sought the counsel of the other members of the Minsk Group before issuing such an important statement regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, yet they did not do so. Therefore, the last part of our comment on Ambassador Warlick’s statement has become even more valid: In view of both statements, and in view of the recent international political conjecture; the co-chairs of the Minsk Group are, at least from the point of view of Turkey, beginning to lose their capacity to represent the views and core principles of the Minsk Group.
© 2009-2021 Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM) All Rights Reserved
No comments yet.
-
THE TERRITORIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA BEFORE THE ECHR
Mehmet Oğuzhan TULUN 11.02.2014 -
ATTEMPTS AT DIASPORIZING TURKISH ARMENIANS – III
Mehmet Oğuzhan TULUN 07.05.2019 -
THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA AND THE VENERATION OF TERRORISTS
Mehmet Oğuzhan TULUN 23.01.2020 -
ATTEMPTS AT DIASPORIZING TURKISH ARMENIANS - IV
Mehmet Oğuzhan TULUN 04.03.2020 -
THE FIGHT AGAINST EXTREMISM AND THE OTTOMAN LEGACY
Mehmet Oğuzhan TULUN 11.05.2022
-
CO-FOUNDER OF THE ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION AND ONE OF THE PRECURSORS OF ARMENIAN TERRORISM: KRISTAPOR MIKAELYAN
Ahmet Can ÖKTEM 14.04.2021 -
UKRAINE’S DECISION CONCERNING “THE STATUS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES”
Şevval Beste GÖKÇELİK 11.08.2021 -
"RUSSIA USING the ‘ARMENIAN CARD’" - COMMENTARY PUBLISHED IN HURRIYET DAILY NEWS
Turgut Kerem TUNCEL 01.12.2015 -
POLITICAL INSTABILITY BRINGS OBSTACLES TO MOLDOVA ON THE WAY TOWARDS THE EU
Gülperi GÜNGÖR 23.06.2020 -
THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA AND THE VENERATION OF TERRORISTS
Mehmet Oğuzhan TULUN 23.01.2020
-
Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri Üzerine Ömer Engin Lütem Konferansları 2021 -
A Letter From Japan - Strategically Mum: The Silence of the Armenians -
Japonya'dan Bir Mektup - Stratejik Suskunluk: Ermenilerin Sessizliği -
Türk-Ermeni Uyuşmazlığı Üzerine Ömer Engin Lütem Konferansları 2020 -
Anastas Mikoyan: Confessions of an Armenian Bolshevik -
Sovyet Sonrası Ukrayna’da Devlet, Toplum ve Siyaset - Değişen Dinamikler, Dönüşen Kimlikler -
Türk-Ermeni Uyuşmazlığı Üzerine Ömer Engin Lütem Konferansları 2019 -
Türk-Ermeni Uyuşmazlığı Üzerine Ömer Engin Lütem Konferansları 2018 -
Ermeni Sorunuyla İlgili İngiliz Belgeleri (1912-1923) - British Documents on Armenian Question (1912-1923) -
Turkish-Russian Academics: A Historical Study on the Caucasus -
Gürcistan'daki Müslüman Topluluklar: Azınlık Hakları, Kimlik, Siyaset -
Armenian Diaspora: Diaspora, State and the Imagination of the Republic of Armenia -
Ermeni Sorunu Temel Bilgi ve Belgeler (2. Baskı)
-
BALKANLAR'DA SOYKIRIM KAVRAMININ HUKUKİ TANIMININ VE İÇERİĞİNİN DEĞİŞTİRİLMESİ İÇİN YAPILAN YERSİZ VE YOZLAŞTIRICI GİRİŞİMLER -
AVİM 2021 YILLIK RAPOR | ANNUAL REPORT -
DEGENERATING DISCURSIVE ATTEMPTS IN THE BALKANS TO ALTER THE LEGAL DEFINITION AND CONTENT OF THE CONCEPT OF GENOCIDE
-
BOOK PRESENTATION - “THE TURKS AND EUROPE” BY GASTON GAILLARD