Commentary
Thomas de Waal
{
"authors": [
"Thomas de Waal"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [
"Turkey’s Transformation"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Russia",
"Europe",
"Türkiye",
"Eastern Europe",
"Caucasus",
"Azerbaijan",
"Armenia"
],
"topics": [
"Security"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Nagorno-Karabakh and the Minsk Group Negotiations
Negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are deadlocked, with serious consequences not only for the nations involved in the conflict, but also for the Armenia-Turkey reconciliation process.
Published on May 6, 2010
Source: World Politics Review
WPR: What are the principle issues that still need to be resolved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
De Waal: The fundamental unresolved issue in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the same one that triggered the conflict back in Soviet times in the Gorbachev era in February 1988: the status of the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. The Karabakh Armenians -- who have been in full control of the territory and surrounding regions since fighting ended between the two sides in 1994 -- insist that Karabakh be recognized either as independent or unified with Armenia, while the Azerbaijani authorities demand that it is a de jure part of Azerbaijan and must be reaffirmed as such. The document on the table attempts to resolve this issue with creative ambiguity about postponing the issue of status, but the two sides still have polarized positions and will not move until they get greater clarity supporting their own stance.
WPR: How is that conflict impacting Turkey-Armenia normalization?
De Waal: The non-resolution of the Karabakh conflict is the principle reason why the Armenia-Turkey normalization process came to a halt in April when Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian suspended Armenian official participation in the process. Turkey was insisting on making a linkage between Armenia-Turkey normalization and the Karabakh conflict that was not in the protocols the two sides signed in October 2009. That is not because Turkey cares deeply about the Karabakh issue as such, but it does care about its relations with its Turkic ally, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan did enough to lobby in the Turkish parliament and to threaten Turkey with higher gas prices to dissuade the Turkish government from pursuing the normalization policy. Now, unless there is progress on the Karabakh conflict, it is highly unlikely that the Armenia-Turkey process will move forward again.
WPR: Recent reports suggested progress has been made in the Minsk Group negotiations. What's the likelihood for a breakthrough?
De Waal: Unfortunately the Minsk Group negotiations are deadlocked at the moment. This time it is the Armenian side that does not want to engage properly with the latest version of the so-called "Madrid Principles" under discussion. On previous occasions, Azerbaijan has pulled back. But there are deeper problems with the negotiations: It is far too narrow a process to get the kind of traction needed to resolve a major conflict. There is almost no Track Two process involving the two societies and few international resources are being expended to support the U.S., French and Russian mediators. Observers of the peace talks have the perception that the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents actually prefer the narrowly based desultory peace process, which preserves the status quo and produces no results, to a more dynamic process that would force them to take hard decisions and make public compromises to the enemy.
About the Author
Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
De Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
- Europolis, Where Europe Ends
- Taking the Pulse: Is It Time for Europe to Reengage With Belarus?Commentary
Thomas de Waal, ed.
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 Europe
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.
Richard Youngs
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
- Europe on Iran: Gone with the WindCommentary
Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.
Pierre Vimont
- Taking the Pulse: Can European Defense Survive the Death of FCAS?Commentary
France and Germany’s failure to agree on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) raises questions about European defense. Amid industrial rivalries and competing strategic cultures, what does the future of European military industrial projects look like?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
