Azerbaijan, Baku, Dec. 3 /Trend, E.Tariverdiyeva/
The OSCE summit in Astana did not become a breakthrough in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but the statement made by presidents was a positive trend, experts say.
"This statement is very important. It was adopted in a 3+2 format, which points at even more strengthening efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict in the present moment, and is a confirmation of increasing efforts," Head of the Foreign Relations Department of Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Novruz Mammadov said in an interview with Trend.
The OSCE summit, not conducted over the last 11 years, was held in Astana on Dec. 1-2 under Kazakhstan's chairmanship to the organization. The summit brought together heads of states and governments of all OSCE member countries.
During the summit, the presidents of the conflicting countries - Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the heads of delegations of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries made a joint statement. The statement on the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict calls for a speedy resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.
Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group - Russia, France, and the U.S. - are currently holding the peace negotiations.
Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council's four resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions.
According to observers, the statement on Nagorno-Karabakh is positive, but the summit did not pay due attention to the conflict.
Member of Trend Expert Council, editor-in-chief of analytical information portal Vestnik Kavkaza (Bulletin of the Caucasus), Deputy Dean of History Department of Moscow State University Alexei Vlasov said that the expected results were not brought to the end in any direction: neither the questions of reforming the OSCE nor the theme of local conflicts or the theme of the post-crisis regulation in Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan.
According to him, the biggest challenge for the OSCE is matters of conflict resolution.
"Rather than trying to jointly promote the theme of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which still have some opportunities to be resolved, the summit hinged on in the solution of the Georgian conflict," Vlasov told Trend in a telephone conversation from Moscow.
Analysts' predictions come true 100 percent, Vlasov said.
"The statement on Nagorno-Karabakh was another declaration of intention. Of course, this is a positive document, but what is next? Where are those advances, which the international mediators mentioned?," Vlasov said.
According to Mammadov, the statement indicates that it is important to create conditions under which Armenia will not take destructive steps in this process and look for reasons for the delay of the settlement.
"Thus, this statement is a document that limits Armenia's possibilities to commit destructive steps. The statement determines the main target of resolving the conflict through peaceful negotiations and ensuring stability and security. At the same time, the statement implies the solution of the conflict within the international norms and principles of law without using force," he said.
According to Mammadov, in general, it should also be especially noted that as this is a statement by the presidents of the conflicting countries and the co-chairing countries, it must be understood as follows: the presidents of the co-chairing countries have committed themselves to be more active in the conflict settlement process.
"So far, particularly, for over a year, Russia has been the most active country. Obviously, if there are three co-chairs, each of them should be active in this process. And this was reflected in the statement," he said.
Armenian political analyst Stepan Grigoryan believes that the statement supports the document signed in Muskoka by the presidents of the co-chairing countries, - it is a basic agreement to further continue negotiations.
"Today there is every chance to continue intensive negotiations, with the necessary strengthening of the confidence-building measures, achieved in recent years. Now the sides are ready to proceed to the preparation of a large peace agreement," the director of the Armenian Analytical Center for Globalization and Regional Cooperation told Trend.
However, according to the European expert Michael Emerson, the results or non-results of the Summit show that the OSCE as an organization has very little leverage at all in these conflicts.
"As regards the positions of major powers, I think none of them are really willing to take a strong position given the lack in conflict parties themselves," Emerson, analyst at the Centre for European Policy Studies, told Trend in a telephone conversation from Brussels.
"They don't seem to be close to an agreement. And the OSCE itself rather unwieldy organization with 56 member-states being like the General Assembly without the UN Security Council. It is not very effective organization, because it is like a mini-UN General Assembly without the UN Security Council," he said.
According to analysts, there is little hope for the role of the OSCE chairmanship after the transition of chairmanship to Lithuania in 2011.
According to Vlasov, the probability of promotion in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution quickly and successfully after the summit is at the same level as before.
Lithuania, as OSCE chairman, will focus primarily on Georgia, he said.
According to Emerson, there is low expectation from Lithuania's chairmanship in the OSCE in 2011 despite the assurance expressed by Lithuania that resolution of the frozen conflicts at the OSCE area will be priority for it.
E.Ostapenko contributed to the article.