Status and Negotiations

24 Jun 2009

The final status of Nagorno-Karabakh is more intractable than any other element of the negotiations that have dragged on for years; indeed, the process remains a dynamic one.

The central component of Karabakh’s final status has been the question of a referendum. An eventual referendum has been one of the OSCE Minsk Group’s 'core principles' or 'basic principles,' announced publicly in the summer of 2006. The Azerbaijani side has insisted that any plebiscite to change Azerbaijan’s borders should take place nationwide in Azerbaijan, as spelled out in the country’s constitution. But in July of 2006, the Minsk Group implied that a referendum should be held in Karabakh only. Since 2007, however, the Minsk Group has been far less vocal on the subject.

When I asked Mr Petrosyan about a referendum, and whether this component of the Minsk Group’s 'core principles' may have changed, he confirmed that it was indeed a 'dynamic process.'

“And what you have mentioned from the summer of 2006 was only a part of the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. In particular, we have had a chance to meet with the OSCE co-chairs and during those meetings, we clearly and concisely spelled out our position on different issues as well as the conduct of a referendum.”

Nagorno-Karabakh has held two referenda – one in late 1991 on the creation of an independent state, and another in December 2006 on approval of a new constitution. Referring to the 1991 referendum, held before war broke out and boycotted by Karabakh’s Azeri population, Petrosyan said: “For example, the [Minsk Group] co-chairs are saying that our previous referendum is not recognized because the Azerbaijani population did not participate in that referendum…the Azerbaijani population was also invited to take part in that referendum, but for different reasons, for political or accidental reasons, the OSCE co-chairs do not want to consider that the Azeris had a chance, but if you go to our history museum you can find the ballot papers that were prepared in the Azerbaijani language.”

It was during our discussion of the referendum issue that Petrosyan first mentioned the fact that Nagorno Karabakh was not allowed to face the Azeris at the negotiating table as a full participant.

“Conducting a second or third [new] referendum is really senseless. But if the negotiators say that it will boost or contribute to the negotiation process, then we are ready to conduct another one, but for which there will be one pre-condition: To agree to that, we have to be a direct participant in the negotiation process. You have probably heard about this on numerous occasions… And the surprising thing is that it looks like many journalists, many experts and political leaders, are closing their eyes to this fact – they are pretending that we are not here, that we do not exist. They can do so if they wish to, but we are here, we exist, we have rights…”

“We are clearly stating that we are not happy with any process that does not include us as a part whereby we can sit and discuss our future as a full-fledged member, whereby our future and our fate is decided by others. So any process, anything, any action that does not involve our participation to decide our own fate is not satisfactory for us.”  

'Conceptual breakthrough'

The OSCE Minsk Group reported that progress had been made when Presidents Serge Sargsian and Aliyev met in Prague on 7 May and again on 4 June in St Petersburg. After the Prague summit, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza announced a 'conceptual breakthrough' and described a 'new situation' for Karabakh that would be subject to negotiation during an interview with Ekho Moskvy Radio.

Bryza’s use of the Russian word ‘obstanovka’ (situation) has caused some confusion, with Bryza taking pains to explain that external pagehe was misquoted by Ekho Moskvy.

Petrosyan, for his part, said that Bryza was inclined to describe a 'new situation,' a new 'obstanovka' every time he gave an interview on Nagorno Karabakh.

“After each new interview with Mr. Bryza, a ‘new situation’ is emerging. It’s always a new ‘obstanovka’!”

“It’s hardly possible to understand a diplomat [such as Matthew Bryza].Because he thinks one thing. He says another thing. And he considers [still] another thing. And I hope that when the co-chairs arrive in Stepanakert on their next visit – I think I have good relations with Matt Bryza – I will have a chance to ask him, ‘What did you mean, Matt, when you said obstanovka?’ And I will try to understand which of the three aspects he meant when he said ‘obstanovka.’ Otherwise, I will have to explain to him that I had an American journalist who asked me a question and I wasn’t able to answer him correctly.”

President Aliyev has talked about “self-government” for Karabakh recently, a seemingly significant development. I asked Petrosyan if he had the feeling that Aliyev had become more flexible, and even that he might allow the NKR to become a full participant in negotiations.

Petrosyan, ever fond of anecdotes and analogies, said: “Will you allow me to tell you a joke? And consider this an answer to your question. There was a family living in hardship, and they went to the village elder – a wise man whose opinion is respected. And the elder asks, ‘What is your problem?’

And the man replies, ‘You know, I have a very small space, and a very big family. Myself, my wife, my four children.’ ‘What else do you have?’ the elder asks. ‘I have a cow, four sheep, several hens.’ And the elder says, ‘Bring your cow into the house!’ And the man returned later and said, ‘The situation is now even worse since I brought the cow into the house!’ And the elder said, ‘OK, now bring your sheep into the house with you.’ And the man says, ‘It’s impossible!’ But the old man says, ‘No, you must also bring the hens into the house!’ After a few days, the man returns, and tells him how awful the situation is. But the elder tells him, ‘Now you should move the hens out.’ So he does, and then after a few days, he comes back and the elder asks how it’s going, and he says, ‘You know, it’s a little better!’ And the old man says, ‘OK, now move out the sheep.’ So after a few days, he says, ‘Now move the cow out of the house.’ And then the man returns and says, ‘Now it’s OK!’"

“So don’t you think that what is happening today is very similar?” Petrosyan suggested. "[President Aliyev] put into the process whatever was possible to put into it, and now he is taking out something and asking, ‘Are you feeling happier?’"

"Now, about this progress, he talks about progress. It’s the same thing as with the hens. And knowing all of this, what should I think about it?”  

Full partnership, only option

There are options other than full statehood for Karabakh, I reminded Petrosyan. Might Nagorno-Karabakh have an eventual status similar to a UN Trust Territory or would you consider ceding overall responsibility for Karabakh to some other international organization if that meant a lasting peace? How willing would the NKR be to compromise if it meant a final settlement?

“If Azerbaijan is trying to reach a compromise with Armenia, then we ask a question: at what cost and whose cost?” Petrosyan asked. “That’s why we are saying, and not just saying, we are insisting that we should sit at the negotiating table, and if Karabakh representatives are not going to be at the negotiating table, then there is a hardly a chance that there will be anything viable reached.”

JavaScript has been disabled in your browser