Foreign

Home page

Foreign

European analyst: It would only be natural for the EU to assume greater responsibility for the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict in order to guarantee stability in the region

21 July 2011 11:23 (UTC +04:00)

Washington. Isabel Levine â€“ APA. â€œIf the United States does decides to host a meeting between Azerbaijan and Armenia and, in general, decides to play a more important role in the peace process, that indicates that they are not accepting the status quo any more, which might be the catalyst for change that is neededâ€, Dr. Sofie Bedford, European analyst on Caucasus, who currently serves at the Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies of the Uppsala University, told in an interview with APA Washington DC correspondent.

â€œThere is however a riskâ€, she adds, â€œthat such an initiative would intimidate the Russian leaders, that have been leading the charge as far, and cause internal strife in the Minsk Group which could be damaging for the progress already madeâ€.

Meanwhile, the analyst adds: â€œThe fact that the US has been a member of the Minsk Group all along without being able to speed up the progress is also indicating that such an approach might not be the ultimate solutionâ€.

Speaking about Russiaâ€™s mediator role, Dr. Bedford mentioned, it is no secret that many Azerbaijanis view Russian involvement in the peace talks with skepticism, suspecting the Russian leaders of representing Armenian interests or trying to stall the resolution of the conflict in order to destabilize the region. â€œIn that respect a meeting hosted by someone other than President Medvedyev might be seen as more legitimate and perhaps have a greater chance of further progress/successâ€.

â€œAnother option is for the European Union to get more involved. Until now other international actors have, for better or worse, let the Minsk Group alone deal with the peace processâ€, she points out, arguing that given the expanding interrelations between EU and the Caucasus in terms of, for example, trade development, aid and security cooperation, it would only be natural for the EU to assume greater responsibility for the resolution of this conflict - in order to guarantee stability in the region.

â€œWith a new setting for the negotiations, new mediators that are considered more neutral and have the possibility to raise the stakes and demand greater accountability perhaps the stalling peace process could get new energyâ€, she added.

While describing the significance of the last meeting between Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Kazan Dr. Berford mentioned that since President Aliyev and President Sargsyan yet again failed to sign the Basic Principles, that have now been on the negotiating table since 2007, the significance of this meeting appears to lay in the fact that, despite the lack of progress, the talks are continuing.

â€œAs long as the Presidents are continuously expressing an interest in extending the peace talks and agree to sit down at the negotiation table the risk of a restart of the war, a fear often expressed by analysts and politicians, seems less imminent. Because of the limited details released about the discussions it is however difficult to judge more concretely how significant these continued negotiations areâ€, she adds.

The analysts also reminds that, on the one hand, the lack of physical results indicate that the peace process has come to a standstill and that other approaches, perhaps in a different setting than the Minsk Group, need to be considered.

â€œOn the other it is possible that there are informal results in the shape of an increased understanding of each others` viewpoints and changed conceptions. It would appear that the neither the conflict nor the peace talks have yet reached a so-called hurting stalemate. All of the parties involved, the warring sides as well as the mediators, seem so far satisfied with pertaining status quo, perhaps due to informal progress outweighing the need for drastic measures. As long as there is no change in the actual conflict context and none of the parties feel an imminent need to, or are experiencing sufficient external pressure to, change the circumstance or procedures of these negotiations they are likely to continue as before on a more or less regular basisâ€, the analyst adds.