OSCE Minsk Group - of no need for Baku, of little use for Yerevan Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

The US administration has effectively admitted that the OSCE Minsk Group mechanism is no longer functioning and that Washington only participates in a peace settlement between Azerbaijan and Armenia through direct engagement with Baku and Yerevan. "The Minsk Group co-chairs' engagement process no longer works. We are directly involved with the parties in the peace process. I think it has come to the point where we can conclude this mandate by consensus. Azerbaijan has simply stated that it will no longer deal with the Minsk Group," Philip Reeker, senior adviser to the US Secretary of State for Caucasus Negotiations, said the other day.

It cannot be argued with. And it should be recalled that Baku made such a statement well before Reeker's appointment as US negotiator (this summer). That is, the Azerbaijani leadership made such a decision after the 44-day war, and so far no one's tricks or pressure has been able to force it to change its position. In fact, that is what Reeker acknowledged with his statement.

So far, formally, the OSCE Minsk Group exists and has not been officially dissolved, but in a practice, it is simply unable to carry out its activities. For two reasons. The first is that it is ignored by the Azerbaijani leadership because it is not needed. Secondly, after Russia's attack on Ukraine, Washington and Paris refused to continue any diplomatic cooperation with Moscow at the international level. That is, even the format of the triple co-chairmanship does not exist anymore.

How does the factual absence of the OSCE Minsk Group factor benefit Azerbaijan? And why is Yerevan still clinging to this format? What hopes does it pin on the MG? Prominent foreign experts shared their views on these issues with Caliber.Az.

"Mr. Reeker has enough experience to adequately assess the existing situation, which he does, in principle," says conflictologist, Doctor of Sciences in International Relations, Professor of Georgian Technical University Amiran Khevtsuriani. - At this stage, the OSCE Minsk Group as a mechanism for conflict resolution is not working, its activities have been suspended and, I am afraid, it will never be restored in its current format. However, objectively, it should be noted that the effectiveness of this format has always been questionable and the sides have been sceptical (especially the Azerbaijani side). This was natural because when the leading player in the troika (the Russian Federation) was directly interested in preserving the conflict, then achieving any positive result is illusory."

"According to Reeker's statement, the US administration has already started thinking seriously not just about freezing or temporary settling of the conflict but also about its complete resolution, which is very encouraging," the expert said.

"Washington is well aware that as long as this conflict persists, it is inappropriate to talk about long-term peace in the region. Of course, the US has all the power and resources to play, together with its partners, a crucial role in resolving this conflict, and its own time-tested economic diplomacy will help it do so. In this case, when the goal is clear and unambiguous, the presence or absence of the Minsk Group makes little difference: Baku does not need it, and Yerevan has little to gain," the conflictologist noted.

"As for Russia's influence in the South Caucasus, it is weakening intensively and will soon disappear for good. Both Baku and Yerevan are well aware of this and are intensively preparing for the new geopolitical reality. Now it is important that the sides do not miss this historic chance and directly, without preconditions, agree on perpetual peace," Khevsuriani said.

According to Russian political scientist Stanislav Tkachenko, a Professor at St. Petersburg State University, the fate of the Minsk Group reflects the turbulent and highly conflictual dynamics of inter-state relations in the South Caucasus region since 1994. The group was formed within what was then the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) at the end of its history and on the eve of its reformatting into the current OSCE.

"Over the past almost three decades there have been some shifts in priorities in the group's work, but overall it has proved ineffective. At critical moments in the Karabakh conflict, the group (primarily France, but also Russia and the United States) was more inclined to side with Armenia or to adopt a position of benign neutrality towards Yerevan. During the accumulation of forces and preparations for the return of the occupied territories, Azerbaijan cooperated with the Minsk Group, primarily with the three co-chair states. After November 2020, Baku's interest in this interaction dropped to almost zero, due to the pro-Armenian stance of some French political elites, as well as the reluctance of the United States to play an active role within the group," Tkachenko said.

"The Russian military operation against Ukraine in 2022 has once again changed the balance of power within the group, as well as around the Azerbaijani-Armenian settlement, he believes. On the one hand, the Kremlin's main focus is now shifted to conducting military action in Ukraine and confronting the West in its proxy war with Russia. Therefore, the periodically escalating conflict in the South Caucasus has become an additional burden for the entire Russian foreign policy. On the other hand, Russian diplomats probably understand better than their Western counterparts that peace in the South Caucasus will only be sustainable if both Azerbaijan and Armenia approve of it and are willing to maintain it. And Baku and Yerevan's partner states outside the region will support such a policy.

That is how President Vladimir Putin's words on peace between the two Caucasus states at the Valdai forum on October 27, 2022 should be understood. In particular, Putin then stressed that Moscow would not force Yerevan to make any decisions that it was not prepared to make. Nevertheless, '...if the Armenian people and the Armenian leadership believe that the so-called Washington version of this treaty, which, as I understand it, envisages the recognition of Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Karabakh, should be chosen, they can choose it' the Russian president outlined Russia's current position.

De facto, all the key players in the conflict both in the region (Azerbaijan, Armenia) and outside the region (Minsk Group co-chairs Russia, the United States, and France) have not used the Minsk Group for quite some time, because they believe that this structure is blatantly ineffective. There are many reasons for this, but we will highlight two.

First, the atmosphere of trust between Russia and the other Minsk Group member states has been completely destroyed. From a sufficiently long historical perspective, normal diplomatic dialogue between Russia and the EU/NATO member countries should be expected to freeze. In this sense, the Minsk Group has fallen victim to what Russia calls the 'crumbling world', in which old norms of state behaviour in the international arena do not apply, but new ones have yet to be written.

Secondly, the Minsk Group was created to maintain the status quo in the Karabakh conflict, to maintain a bad peace which is better than the best of wars. It is not, in principle, adapted to any other task. Any reference to the Minsk Group, especially on the part of Armenia, therefore serves as an unambiguous indication that the current stage of the conflict is assessed as more favourable than the changes that may follow in its development in the future. This desire to 'slow down the course of history' from the perspective of Armenia, which was militarily defeated in the Second Karabakh War, seems rational. This desire to preserve the status quo is also seen positively in Paris. The position of the United States and the European Union, formulated and implemented outside the Minsk Group, is considerably less clear-cut. Washington and Brussels would like to squeeze Russia out of the settlement process in the South Caucasus, but understand that this is now impossible. Therefore, by offering themselves as mediators and organisers of peace talks between Baku and Yerevan, including border delimitation issues, the states of the 'collective West' cannot offer the parties to the conflict anything of value and equally attractive to them. That is, in fact, they are prolonging the conflict," Tkachenko believes.

Therefore, he said, we can only hope that the negotiation mechanisms already launched with the participation of the Russian Federation will bear fruit, in which the borders will be fixed, Karabakh's status as a region of Azerbaijan will be finally confirmed (possibly with politically insignificant elements of special status), all state borders (including the Zangazur corridor) will be opened for transit of people and goods and Armenia's diplomatic relations with all neighbouring states will be restored.

"So far this looks like an action programme that will take several years to implement. But perhaps, for the sake of lasting peace in the region, there should be no hurry," the professor concluded.