One more round of negotiations in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process under the OSCE Minsk Group’s auspices took place late last week. Following their meeting with the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, as well as with the Nagorno-Karabakh leaders, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, who represent Russia, France and the USA, re-affirmed their commitment to a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The parties to the negotiation process called on the conflicting parties to show political will for peace, respect the cease-fire agreement and reject strong-worded statements. The Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) newspaper turned to Russian Ambassador to Armenia Vladimir Kazimirov (ex-head of the Russian mediation mission) for comments. Below is an excerpt from his interview.

- The progress in the negotiations dates back to mid- or late 1990s. What would you say of the present stage in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process?

- Since late 2007, the basic principles of conflict settlement, which are supposed to underlie the peaceful agreement, have intensively been negotiated. The parties’ fundamental disagreement is on the essence of the conflict. Official Baku will not agree to a free and legally binding referendum on Nagorno-Karabakh’s status, while the mediators and the international community view this as a way out of the situation. Baku, in turn, agrees to a referendum on a status for Nagorno-Karabakh only as part of Azerbaijan, with the referendum to be held throughout Azerbaijan.

To “cushion” the matter, Azerbaijan is focusing the negotiations and its propaganda on the aftermath - rather than on the causes – of the armed conflict. President Ilham Aliyev is viewing Nagorno-Karabakh in this context. His father was more diplomatic as he was well aware that the negotiations might reach a stalemate. Baku is doing its utmost to conceal the fact that the seven regions would have never been occupied but for Baku’s own blunders in seeking victory and its obstinate refusal to stop all the military operations in time.

The expectations to get the territories back “freely” seem rather unrealistic as well – the international community is intolerant to occupation. Like Georgia in its conflict with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Azerbaijan is strongly against a non-use of force agreement. Rather, it is stressing its preparedness for new war, its militant rhetoric, huge military expenses and incidents on the Line of Contact being evidence thereof. In their turn, international organizations and outstanding figures in many countries stress the impossibility of a military settlement of the conflict. In this situation, despite permanent threats, Armenians are not at all in a hurry to leave their fortifications.

- The latest statements by both the conflicting parties are evidence of growing tension in the region. What is the cause of intensified militant rhetoric?

- The latest incidents on the Line of Contact largely intensified the military rhetoric. The incidents are no mere coincidences. Rather, they are the result of the “no peace for occupants” principle. One of the parties’ refusing to withdraw troops after the ceasefire was established, in defiance of the previously reached agreement, and, later, drawing its positions closer to the opposite side provoked new incidents.

This also includes refusal to withdraw snipers from the frontlines and unwillingness to allow the incidents to be investigated. We must admit that the promise to withdraw snipers and allow incidents to be investigated only after the Armenian troops have left does not at all sound constructive.

Special emphasis should be placed on the same party’s dishonoring the agreement on strengthening the ceasefire regime. The three conflicting parties signed it as far back as February 1995, but it has not been honored since. This policy deserves condemning. Regrettably, the mediators fail to find the right words or are “ashamed of” qualifying the conflicting parties’ actions thereby “capitulating before” their intractability.

- This, however, does not absolve Russia of responsibility, it being one of the three OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. What are the emphases Russia is placing at the negotiations?

- Russia has since the outbreak of the conflict been the most active mediator. First of all, we insist that any aggression be ruled out and compromise be reached on any controversial issues. This conflict is much more involving our national interests that the interests of France or the USA because the Transcaucasian peoples are closest to Russia.

However, we have to admit that the sides are apparently unable to find the way to “reciprocal exchanges” now. The forthcoming elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia rule out any flexibility by the conflicting parties for the next two years. The Russian president is likely to consider this factor as well, which will, to a great extent, be decisive in setting the priorities. Despite the elections both countries seem able to step up public and expert efforts to lay the foundations for rapprochement.

- Since the parties do not yet show any tangible rapprochement, would a different format make the dialogue more constructive?

- It is not the format or mediators. The stalemate is the result of the conflicting parties’ actions, their inability to make balanced and realistic demands. Moreover, the same conflicting party continues objecting to Nagorno-Karabakh returning to the negotiating table as a third negotiator. During the war, official Baku signed a dozen documents with Nagorno-Karabakh, including the agreement on ceasefire and settlement of incidents. We have not a scenario of reaching a speedy peace agreement. The present situation requires patience and persistence.

- Still, what concrete steps need to be made for the conflict to be settled in the future?

- My conviction is that an agreement on non-use of force is the shortest way. With firm international guarantees, it would facilitate the withdrawal of Armenian troops and the free expression of will by the Nagorno-Karabakh population. The mediators have recently stated their dislike for the status quo, which is not at all “blessing the war.” One of the conflicting parties is trying to shift the emphasis on the demand for withdrawal of Armenian troops. However, military threats, militant rhetoric, dishonoring the commitments, hostile propaganda and so on are unacceptable as well. No doubt, the settlement requires a comprehensive approach, rather than considering the parties’ “likes or dislikes.”