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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Building Mini-Refineries Will Not Solve Russia’s Gasoline CrisisCommentary
Official discussions about mini oil refineries are unlikely to come to anything—but the mere fact they’re happening reveals the regime is failing to deliver a functioning economy.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Are Russia’s Influential Rotenberg Brothers Headed for a Fall?Commentary
The security forces are targeting Arkady and Boris Rotenberg’s patronage network—and in Putin’s Russia, it’s extremely hard to stop a purge once it’s under way.
Mikhail Komin
- What Should We Take From Andrey Melnichenko’s Essay in the Economist?Commentary
Andrey Melnichenko’s essay offers no answer to the fundamental question of how, under any kind of negotiated settlement, Europe can protect itself from the Russian ressentiment that is inevitable in all scenarios except for an outright victory for Putin.
Leonid Bershidsky
- Parliamentary Elections in Occupied Ukraine Risk Backfiring for the KremlinCommentary
Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.
Konstantin Skorkin
- Snubbed by United Russia as Elections Loom, Medvedev Looks Condemned to Eternal ObscurityCommentary
Medvedev’s defeat in the battle for the position of speaker appears to signal that the long process of his marginalization in Russian politics has passed the point of no return.
Andrey Pertsev
