Article
Thomas de Waal
{
"authors": [
"Thomas de Waal"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Azerbaijan",
"Armenia",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Karabakh: Can the Rhetoric Ceasefire Hold?
In the last few months the almost moribund peace process over Nagorny Karabakh has got back on its feet. This isn’t a resumption of full negotiations, but it is a start.
Published on Jan 22, 2014
In the last few months the almost moribund peace process over Nagorny Karabakh has got back on its feet. Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan met in Vienna in November for the first time in two years. Their foreign ministers are due to hold talks later this month.
This isn't a resumption of full negotiations. The two sides are still apparently stuck in a quasi-theological debate about the importance of the Basic Principles framework document. But it is a start. And U.S. secretary of state John Kerry has let it be known that if Washington sees a serious commitment to substantial talks he is prepared to invest more resources in supporting it.
Underpinning all this has been a commitment to uphold the ceasefire. And by a ceasefire I mean both a real and rhetorical one.
When it comes to the real ceasefire, signed almost 20 years ago in May 1994, 2013 was a relatively good year. Around twenty Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers were killed along the Line of Contact last year. That is obviously twenty too many—but it was still a marked improvement on recent years.
Then there is the war of rhetoric. This conflict may not be the most explosive in the world, but in recent years the language used by each side (and especially the losing Azerbaijani side) has been unusually aggressive and poisonous.
Probably the most important outcome of the Vienna meeting was that the two leaders pledged to calm their rhetoric. And they have done so (a development that has mostly gone unnoticed by the media, which always finds it hard to report on a non-event).
This makes reports of a clash on the Line of Contact on the night of January 19-20 a cause for concern. It is always hard to verify these episodes. All that we know for one sure is that one Armenian soldier died, and James Warlick, the lead U.S. negotiator expressed his regret.
The Armenian side says a large group of Azerbaijanis made a large incursion across the line. The Azerbaijani defense ministry denied the story.
Armenian experts speculated about an attempt to apply political pressure ahead of the new talks.
In the meantime parts of the media are still conducting themselves well. Earlier this month, the young Azerbaijani chess grandmaster Vugar Gashimov died at the untimely age of 27. Armenian chess-players, led by Baku-born Garry Kasparov, expressed their sympathies. This was not so unusual. What was that the condolences prompted a favorable commentary on a pro-government Azerbaijani website.
On both sides, the signals come from the very top. We can only hope that both ceasefires—of rhetoric and guns—persist into 2014.
About the Author
Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Thomas de Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
- Managing Montreux: Turkey and the Russia-Ukraine War in the Black Sea
- There Is No Shortcut for Europe in ArmeniaCommentary
Thomas de Waal
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie China
- Trump and Xi Are Angling for Three Years of StabilityCommentary
But their "principal to principal" model will only be as effective as the political strength of each leader back home.
Damien Ma
- China Sells Stability Amid American VolatilityCommentary
U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.
Chong Ja Ian
- Why Vietnam Is Swinging in China’s DirectionCommentary
Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.
Nguyễn Khắc Giang
- China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of EverythingCommentary
Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.
Damien Ma
- Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing DisorderCommentary
Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.
Elina Noor
