Russia gets results: Azerbaijan and Armenia sign declaration on Karabakh

First published in November 8, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Russia brokers Armenia-Azerbaijan commitment to “a political settlement,” more talks
First joint declaration in peace process since 1994 cease-fire
Short on substance
by Emil Sanamyan

Washington - The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, meeting on the invitation of the Russian president in Moscow on November 2, pledged to reach "a political settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" via intensified talks mediated by Russia, the United States, and France.

The text of the five-point declaration was read out by President Dmitry Medvedev on Russian television and carried in full by the Regnum news agency.

In substance, the declaration does little more than reiterate the parties' previously announced readiness to achieve a settlement through continued negotiations. It painstakingly avoids contentious issues and waters down any language that could be interpreted as a concession by either Armenia or Azerbaijan.

But the very fact of the declaration is likely to renew expectations for a peaceful settlement and provide for an important milestone in the peace process. Not since May 1992 have the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a declaration of this kind.

Russian mediation, coming soon after the war in Georgia and Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, is meant to reaffirm Russia's leadership role in the South Caucasus.

No commitment to the nonuse of force

The tortured language of the declaration is almost as important in what it painstakingly avoids to say through omission or deliberate vagueness as in what it says.

The first point commits the parties to a "political settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict." Importantly, it does not commit parties to maintain the cease-fire in place or the nonuse of force.

A political settlement, the declaration says, would be on "the basis of principles and norms of international law and solutions and documents adopted in their frames." It does not mention territorial integrity or self-determination or any specific solution or document.

The second point refers to developing "basic principles of a political settlement" in the future. Importantly, it refers to the "meeting" between the mediators, Armenia, and Azerbaijan during the OSCE Ministerial in Madrid in November 2007, rather than the principles offered by the mediators at that meeting. In effect the declaration leaves room for a substantial deviation from the so-called Madrid principles.

The third point stresses the need for "legally binding international guarantees of all . . . aspects and stages" of a peaceful settlement. The purpose of this point is not immediately clear. But it does mention "peaceful settlement" and "international guarantees" favored by Armenia, and "stages" favored by Azerbaijan.

The fourth point reiterates the presidents' commitment to continue with the settlement format in place since 1999 - bilateral meetings of the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan along with the three co-chairs, with occasional meetings of the two presidents.

The fifth point refers to the need for "confidence-building measures." Such measures have long been advocated by Armenia and the mediators; but far from committing Azerbaijan to dropping its hate rhetoric and implementing such measures, the declaration only stresses the importance of "promoting the creation of conditions" for the implementation of such measures.

The absence of any possibly controversial passage from the declaration confirms the impression that the Russian mediators wanted very much to have the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents sign a joint declaration at the end of the summit initiated by Russia.

An important milestone

Although largely devoid of meaningful commitment to a peaceful settlement, the declaration is nevertheless historically important, since only twice before have leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan signed declarations committing themselves to finding a settlement of the Karabakh conflict.

The first was a joint communiqué (declaration) signed on September 23, 1991, in Zhelznovodsk, Russia, by Presidents Levon Ter-Petrossian and Ayaz Mutalibov, with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia and President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan. That declaration pledged a cease-fire and the annulment of both Armenia's decision to reunify with Karabakh and of Azerbaijan's decision to abolish Karabakh's autonomy; the declaration was followed by intensification in violence and a full-scale war in Karabakh.

The last time Armenian and Azerbaijani heads of state signed a joint declaration was in Tehran on May 7, 1992. That declaration was signed by President Ter-Petrossian, Azerbaijan's acting president Yaqub Mamedov, and Iran's President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The declaration was followed by the first major Armenian military success in Karabakh - the liberation of Shushi - and the subsequent overthrow of Mr. Mamedov.

President Ter-Petrossian and President Heydar Aliyev later acceded to declarations by the heads of state of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Moscow in April 1994 and the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in Budapest in December 1994 that called for efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict, which continue to this day.

The May 1994 cease-fire agreement, mediated by Russia, was endorsed by the speakers of parliament of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and subsequently by the defense ministers of the three republics.

Russian leadership

More than anything, the Meiendorf Castle declaration of November 2 sought to underscore the leadership role played by Russia in the South Caucasus.

Early international mediation efforts in the Karabakh conflict were marked by competition between Russia and the West over who was best suited to help reach an agreement and, by extension, lead a peacekeeping mission in Karabakh.

By 1994 a compromise solution was found, where Russia would co-chair the CSCE (later OSCE) Minsk Group, with European countries rotating as the other co-chair every year.

In early 1997, Russia agreed to a further compromise, establishing a permanent troika of France, Russia, and the United States. A June 23, 1997, declaration by Presidents Jacques Chirac, Boris Yeltsin, and Bill Clinton in Denver (during a G8 Economic Summit) gave high-level political support to the format that continues to this day.

After the failure of the three troika proposals in 1997–98 to achieve a breakthrough, the United States took the initiative in the mediation process, brokering a direct meeting between Presidents Heydar Aliyev and Robert Kocharian in April 1999 during the NATO Summit in Washington. That effort culminated in the near-agreement at Key West, Florida, in April 2001.

Following the U.S. attempts, it was Mr. Chirac’s turn to hold Armenia-Azerbaijan summits. But a high-level meeting between Presidents Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev at Rambouillet in February 2006 and other France-led efforts also failed to produce a breakthrough.

Significantly, neither U.S. nor French efforts produced any joint declarations, even of the watered down kind made at the Russian president’s Meiendorf castle.

Likely impact

At this time, the Karabakh standoff offers no attractive solutions to either Armenia or Azerbaijan.

The most recent effort by Russia is unlikely to lead to an actual settlement, since such settlement presents both the sides and mediators with more problems than the current status quo.

The peace process serves as a kind of a pressure release valve in the uneasy and dangerous standoff over Karabakh. The Moscow declaration can provide this process with a fresh lease on life, making the existing relative peace just a little more durable.

Moscow declaration on Karabakh welcomed, analyzed in the West
by Emil Sanamyan

Although France and the United States were not involved in drafting of the Moscow declaration on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, the document is nevertheless "totally supported" by the United States, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and envoy to the Karabakh talks Matt Bryza told Azerbaijani media on November 2 and 3.

Mr. Bryza and his French colleague were invited to the summit between the Russian, Armenian, and Azerbaijan presidents, but apparently were kept out of the trilateral talks held near Moscow on November 2, Mr. Bryza told the Trend News Agency.

While hosting Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev in Ankara on November 5, his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gül expressed support for the declaration. A statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry carried by news agencies on November 6 similarly expressed Ankara's desire to "contribute" to the conflict's settlement via mediation by France, Russia, and the United States.

While most Western commentators sought to downplay the declaration's importance, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's leading Caucasus expert Liz Fuller described it as a "victory for Armenia." In a November 3 analysis, she particularly noted that while President Aliyev previously threatened war against Armenia, he has now pledged a political solution to the issue.

Writing for Eurasianet.org on November 4, the Russia-skeptic Stephen Blank noted that while "Moscow's opposition to the use of force can be justified for many reasons, but it also is probably the only way Baku could ever stand a realistic chance of recovering its lost lands. All of this means that Russia has imposed limits on Azerbaijan's negotiating position, leaving Baku in an extremely disadvantageous position."

Azerbaijan ceased issuing public threats of going to war after the Georgian attack on South Ossetia resulted in a massive response by Russia.

A report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) on October 29 suggested that even though Azerbaijan had spent some $4.5 billion on its armed forces in recent years, "for now at least, the delicate military balance with Armenia probably still holds."

The ICG report also complained about the lack of even basic public oversight over Azerbaijani government spending, but noted that "a modern and efficient army, even if subject to democratic, civilian control, is not unproblematic while the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh remains deeply resented."

Congrats to Obama, U.S. policy

First published in November 8, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Regional leaders offer courtesies to President-elect Obama

Following the election of Barack Obama as president on November 4, foreign leaders communicated their desire to strengthen their respective countries' relations with the United States.

In congratulatory messages, President of Armenia Serge Sargsian and President of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Bako Sahakian spoke of a "new quality" in relations and "epochal changes" in world politics that they expect the Obama presidency to bring about.

In his message, Mr. Sargsian underscored the importance of the Armenian-American community, which "repeatedly conveyed" to Armenia's president "their enthusiasm for the changes" Mr. Obama has promised the American people.

Both Armenian presidents stressed the role the United States is playing as a supporter of Armenia and a mediator in the Karabakh peace process.

Also noting the mediating role of the United States was Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev, who in his message appeared to hold out hope that the United States would help Azerbaijan to "put an end to Armenia's aggression and liberate our occupied territories." Mr. Aliyev also underscored a "strategic partnership" between two countries based on Azerbaijan's oil sales to the United States.

Both Azerbaijani and Turkish commentators expressed concerns about Mr. Obama's pledge to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide. Speaking in reference to the issue, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed "hope that some theses raised during the election campaign will stay there," in the past, as campaign issues; he also noted the "strategic nature" of bilateral ties, Turkish media reported.

From Georgia, one of the few countries in the world where the public was more sympathetic to Sen. John McCain's foreign policy approach, leader Mikheil Saakashvili also highlighted positive expectations from President-elect Obama.

In televised remarks reported by www.Civil.ge, Mr. Saakashvili cited Mr. Obama's supportive comments and the role played by Vice President-elect Joe Biden in securing the pledge of $1 billion in U.S. assistance to Georgia following the August war with Russia.

A congratulatory telegram from Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev had perhaps the most reserved tone. In a message posted to www.Kremlin.ru, Mr. Medvedev said he "counts on a constructive dialogue [with President Obama] based on trust and consideration of each other's interests" in order to promote bilateral cooperation "for the cause of international peace and security."

U.S. diplomats, Armenian commentators disagree on trends in U.S. Caucasus policy

Although Barack Obama ran with the slogan "The change we need," American diplomats posted in the Caucasus say they do not expect U.S.' regional priorities to change.

The Democratic candidate renewed his pledge on the Armenian Genocide and stronger relations with Armenia in a statement released on the eve of the election.

Nevertheless, the Regnum news agency cited a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan, Terry Davidson, telling Azerbaijanis "not to fear" Mr. Obama's pledges to speak clearly on the Armenian Genocide, and promising continuity in U.S. regional policy.

But Ruben Safrastian, a Yerevan-based Turkey expert, cautioned against expectations that the United States could influence Armenian-Turkish relations. He said, "Turkey's approach toward Armenia can only change through a fundamental reassessment of the priorities of the Turkish elite, which needs considerable time to play out."

At the same time, Mr. Safrastian remained hopeful that changes in U.S. policy under the new president would occur. In particular, U.S. affirmation of the Armenian Genocide will now be "more realistic" and would contribute to strengthening of U.S.-Armenia relations, he said.

Vahan Hovhannesian, a National Assembly member from the ARF, similarly suggested that the election result provides Armenian-American organizations with "new serious opportunities for promoting Armenian interests."

Interview with Serge Sargsian

First published in October 27 2007 Armenian Reporter

Serge Sargsian: “External challenges cannot bring us to our knees”
In an interview with the Reporter, Armenia’s prime minister discusses security threats and domestic problems
by Emil Sanamyan



WASHINGTON – U.S. and Armenian officials held biannual talks on economic cooperation as Prime Minister Serge Sargsian wrapped up a visit to the United States with meetings with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senate leaders Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), National Democratic Institute president Kenneth Wollack, and leaders of Armenian American organizations.

On October 23, Mr. Sargsian and Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs Jeffrey Reuben signed an agreement on civil aviation security and safety, a key step in the effort to open a direct air link between the United States and Armenia. Later that day, the prime minister’s delegation flew to France for an official visit there.

In an interview with The Associated Press the previous day, Mr. Sargsian said that while Armenia hopes the Armenian Genocide resolution would eventually pass the U.S. Congress, he did not lobby U.S. officials on his visit, with their talks focusing on economic and security issues.

Asked about cooperation in intelligence sharing, Mr. Sargsian recalled that his first official visit to the United States was in 1996 in the capacity of Armenia’s national security minister on an invitation from his counterparts from the Central Intelligence Agency. He said that both security and military cooperation between the two countries have picked up since 2000.

Also on October 22 Mr. Sargsian talked with the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan about Turkey’s genocide denial, ways to deal with Azerbaijan’s threats over Karabakh, relations with Iran, and concerns over Armenia’s domestic developments.

A translation of that conversation follows.

Does Turkey want Armenia to demand territory?

Reporter: In your interview with the Los Angeles Times on Friday [October 19] you mentioned that the campaign for Armenian Genocide affirmation has two dimensions: one has to do with historical justice and the other with Armenia’s security today. Could you elaborate on how you see the link between this process and Armenia’s security challenges? Does this process also relate to the Karabakh conflict?

Sargsian: The unresolved nature of the Karabakh conflict is indeed the biggest challenge to Armenia’s security. And Turkey is certainly playing a role in that conflict. Denial of the fact of the Genocide is already a danger. The only way to achieve reconciliation is through admission of mistakes.

We are not blaming today’s Turkey, the modern-day Turkish government for the genocide. Therefore, the nonadmission by the Turkish government of today of mistakes of past rulers contains an element of danger for us.

In a way, the [postwar] Turkish government was on a right track, having condemned [the Young Turks] and having sentenced them to severe punishments.

Why would the [Turkish] government of today forget about that? Do they have certain hidden motives? That tells me that there is a problem.

I am also surprised by conclusions of certain second-tier Turkish officials that [recognition of the Genocide] would lead to some other claims. This is surprising, because it is unclear how one would lead to the other. How can any territorial or other claims be realized anyway?

Reporter: The latest issue of the Economist [October 20] suggested that “Over the past few months the Americans have been working on a proposal calling for Turkey to establish formal ties with Armenia and to end its blockade. In return, Armenia would recognize its existing border with Turkey and publicly disavow any territorial claims, including the claim to Mount Ararat, its national symbol. A deal of that sort might have helped the Bush administration head off the genocide resolution, and could possibly have squashed it for good.” Are you familiar with such a proposal?

Sargsian: No. And I would be surprised by something like this, because for years our policy has been establishment of diplomatic relations without any preconditions. Doesn’t that already mean that we have no further claims? Establishment of diplomatic relations is a form of mutual recognition. What else might anyone want?

Last April I was at NATO headquarters in Brussels, where we discussed the progress of Armenia’s Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO. Naturally, Turkey’s
ambassador was there as well, and he hinted at this issue. In my response I said that I am getting an impression that Turkey wants us to have claims against it.

In reality, we have no claims and [Turkey] is saying, “No, they have them.” This is hard to understand.

Keeping peace through economic development and reliable defense

Reporter: Both Azerbaijan’s threats of war and Armenia’s defense capabilities are well known by now. At the same time, aggressive steps from the other side cannot be ruled out. What should Armenia do to further raise the cost of any potential aggression for Azerbaijan and, thus, decrease its likelihood?

Sargsian: The only way is to further develop Armenia’s economy and continue to care for the battlereadiness of the Armenian armed forces. It is no secret that should Azerbaijan launch provocations over Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia would not remain indifferent.

It is in fact the case that today Azerbaijan has more funds than we do. But money alone cannot produce a battle-ready army, especially in a relatively short period of time. And we too are now forced and are able to spend considerable sums on defense. I do not believe that a difference of half a billion dollars can result in Azerbaijan’s superiority over Armenia.

The experience of the early 1990s shows that Azerbaijan’s considerable superiority over us, in terms of funds, manpower, and weapons, could not be translated into superiority on the battlefield.

Reporter: Are you worried by recent acquisition of more advanced weapons systems by Azerbaijan, be that aircraft or long-range artillery? Could that tip the scales in a
potential war?

Sargsian: I don’t believe so. We have serious air defense systems that are capable of preventing Azerbaijani air forces, including the newly-acquired MiG-29s, from
reaching the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Our objective is to use fewer resources to maintain parity with Azerbaijan and everyone knows that a jet costs much more than an air defense system.

Reporter: But doesn’t that provide the other side with tactical opportunities that Armenian armed forces, with their reliance on defense systems, do not have? Doesn’t that leave the initiative in their hands?

Sargsian: That is not so much about initiative as it is about an arms race, and we would prefer not to engage in such a race and really cannot afford one. Indeed, we do not have aggressive intentions, but if we are forced to defend ourselves this would not be a static, but dynamic and active defense.

Reporter: Following your visit to Moscow in late September, Azerbaijani media claimed that the Russian military presence in Armenia would be expanded to include a new base near Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan and Georgia. Is there any truth to this?

Sargsian: None at all. We already have a defense agreement with Russia [concluded in 1995], which is very well respected there. That agreement governs the location and size of Russian forces in Armenia. More importantly, we rely on our own armed forces.

Reporter: You mentioned to the Los Angeles Times that estimates show that Armenians
around the world hold somewhere between $100 and $300 billion in assets and cash. How much of that can support Armenia’s security needs in order to counter Azerbaijan’s military spending with its government-estimated oil revenue of more than $120 billion over the next decade?

Sargsian: When we talk about such large funds, we talk about “clean money,” and it is understandably difficult for diaspora- Armenians to contribute for the benefit of the armed forces of a foreign country, even if it is their homeland. So, I have never allowed myself to discuss this subject with our major [Diaspora] businesspeople. Nevertheless, they are participating indirectly.

For example, earlier today I met a businessperson who has launched a high-tech company in Armenia. If this company operates successfully, employing local specialists, this will mean that the well being of their families in Armenia would be secured, that they would be paying their income taxes, and in the end some of this revenue would be used for our defense.

But certainly I do not rule out a possibility that should we ever reach a critical point we would turn to our compatriots for their help to ensure that we are successful.

Reporter: With the return of Armenia’s former President Levon Ter- Petrossian to active politics, the debate on whether Armenia is capable of developing without serious compromises to Turkey and Azerbaijan is likely to be rekindled. What is your argument today vis-à-vis this thesis voiced by the ex-president in 1997–98 and one that he appears to continue to endorse today?

Sargsian: I don’t want to build my case on disputing views of others. And I view presidential elections as an opportunity to present to the electorate my vision and my plans.

But how can this thesis hold true if to this day Armenia has not fallen behind either Azerbaijan or Georgia in economic terms? This means that we do have development opportunities.

I am not one of those to argue that it doesn’t matter if relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan remain unresolved and borders closed and that the [status quo] does not interfere with our development. Of course it does and this has been my view for 15 years.

At the same time, I believe that these challenges cannot bring us to our knees. I don’t want to sound pretentious but this is the heart of the matter.

Certainly we should continue to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict with Azerbaijan. We should seek to establish normal relations with Turkey and resolve our outstanding issues directly rather than through statements for mass media.

But such efforts cannot mean that we just give up on our core interests. Our opponents’ impressive economic figures cannot result in our capitulation. Any such capitulation would be truly devastating for Armenians and may even seal the fate of our nation.

Armenia must maintain Iran relations

Reporter: The issues related to Iran continue to dominate international headlines. I would imagine the issue came up during your meetings in Washington, which overlapped with the Iranian president’s visit to Yerevan. How can Armenia strike the right balance between concerns raised by the United States and others and the fact that Iran is a very important neighbor?

Sargsian: I think that Americans understand our situation. For Armenia, Iran is a very important country. For us, it is one of just two countries that serve as conduits to the rest of the world. Iran is an energy-rich country and that helps
us address our economic security challenges.

For these reasons, we are not ready for any other approaches. And I believe we will continue our relations with Iran. No one in Armenia is above the law

Reporter: Earlier this year, the Financial Times reported that your government “will put economic development ahead of human rights improvements.” Is this accurate and do you think greater democracy might somehow hinder economic development?

Sargsian: This is not what I told the Financial Times. What I told them is that when [a government] is unable to provide its citizens with normal economic opportunities, it is hard to talk about other rights.

This certainly does not mean that economics trump democracy, not at all. I don’t think the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, with whom we are implementing Poverty Reduction programs, are disinterested in democracy. But it is simply the case that the right to a decent life is the most inalienable right for any individual.

Reporter: The president just fired Judge Pargev Ohanian. That came after he ruled unfavorably in a case brought by the government. Do you not see a contradiction between this decision and the government’s stated goal of strengthening judicial independence?

Sargsian: How can a firing of a single judge lead you to such conclusions? God forbid. We are advised to be strict with our judges [when they violate the law]. So, why is the official motivation behind this decision being questioned? I absolutely disagree with such an approach.

Reporter: Also, it appears that last year and earlier this year there was a spike in criminal activity in Armenia. Do you share the perception that the situation with crime in Armenia is getting worse?

Sargsian: I completely disagree that there has been an increase in crime in Armenia. There are official statistics readily available that contradict such views. Anything
else is just political spin.

My good acquaintance in California asked me why the Armenian Public TV satellite transmissions into the United States include [the Armenian version of the Most Wanted] program. It leaves people with an impression that there is a major crime problem in Armenia, which is not at all the case.

Sure, we are not capable of resolving every single crime. But show me a country which is. In fact there has been an overall decline in crime, and there are no forces in Armenia that can act with impunity.

Reporter: But there is widespread perception that certain figures in government and in business can do exactly that.

Sargsian: There is a difference between perception and reality. I state with all responsibility that today in Armenia there are no individuals or groups that are above the law.

The tax collection targets that our government has set for 2008 will also help dispel such perceptions. If we are able to meet our targets it will become clear to everyone that no so-called oligarch is above the law.

We have a complex approach to corruption that includes introduction of stricter legal punishments for economic crimes, such as tax evasion; higher salaries for state officials; more transparent administrative mechanisms. Perhaps in this issue we are lacking a public relations campaign that would showcase punishments for corrupt officials.

That is not to say that we do not have shortcomings, we have plenty of them. And I appreciate all criticism of such shortcomings. It is criticism for the sake of criticism that I reject.