Trend European Desk Commentator Elmira Tariverdiyeva
One cannot call the situation of the protracted territorial dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan just stagnation. The stagnation in negotiations shows a clear negative trend. A year ago, Baku officials were hopeful in achieving progress through the negotiation process given the efforts of the mediators. But today it is clear that Yerevan is reluctant to move the negotiations forward from the current dead point. One can understand this.
It is convenient for Armenia to maintain the status quo. Taking into account the difficult internal situation in the country and the unsteadiness of the Armenian authorities' situation, any minimal progress in negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will aggravate the problems for the regime. The Armenian diaspora, which freely rules the situation in Armenia, will not forgive Serzh Sargsyan if he liberates an inch of the Azerbaijani lands from occupation. So, officially Yerevan has done everything he can not to move the negotiation process forward over the Nagorno-Karabakh deadlock.
The OSCE summit in Astana was a great disappointment. Both official Baku members and mediators rested their hopes upon this summit. Moreover, no real serious and significant steps were made for the peace process over Nagorno-Karabakh during the summit. The tone of discussions over the Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial dispute in Astana was depressing.
Of course, the joint statement made by the heads of delegations of the OSCE Minsk Group, co-chairing countries within the OSCE summit - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, U.S secretary of state Hillary Clinton, as well as the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan, can be considered a positive moment. The statement once again highlighted the need for more decisive efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
It is difficult to predict the progress that needs to take place in resolving the conflict in 2011 by summing up the results of 2010. The talks will certainly continue. But their results are under question.
As for mediators, it is obvious that Russia is likely to continue maintaining active negotiations, by exerting efforts to reach any agreements between the parties. However, the U.S.'s minimal role as a negotiator is unlikely to change. Washington is more likely to focus on resolving local and global issues that are urgent to the U.S. in 2011, rather than the long-running territorial dispute in the South Caucasus. It also includes the NATO coalition in Afghanistan and the consequences of a financial crisis and the beginning of the struggle for the Oval Office.
However, the only innovation can come about by enhancing the role of the European Union as a negotiator in the peace process.
There are prerequisites for this. The EU as an institution may become the main platform for negotiations. It brings together the conflicting countries in the Eastern Partnership program.
The European Union as a whole can act in resolving the problem. It can also play a more important role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Brussels could become a unifying element that would enhance the interest of European politicians in achieving stability in the Caucasus, and coordinate efforts of the EU capitals in resolving the territorial disputes in the region.
The issue of separating the EU's role from that of the OSCE Minsk Group's becomes more urgent if there is a larger role for the Armenian Diaspora in France and the United States in the negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian lobby in the West plays an active political role in the decisions made by the U.S and French authorities, as opposed to those of the Russian diaspora.
In this context, it would be better if the EU shared more political involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement along with the Minsk Group. The EU mediation can be successful, especially given the project for European integration, in which all the Caucasus countries are equally interested. The project, hampered by the lack of stability in the region, can become the basis for dialogue between the parties in the conflicts, including Armenia and Azerbaijan. The EU needs to be better acquainted with the realities of the conflict to become an active participant in the settlement. Many European leaders are not sufficiently aware of the nuances of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They do not know about the occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory.