And for this we are thankful.... - Armenian Reporter

The Armenian Reporter | November 22, 2008InternationalSettling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict:ProposalOutcomeNagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh)Territory andpopulationStatusCitizenshipArmenia–Nagorno-KarabakhpassageAzerbaijan-NakhichevanpassageStatus quo ante (from1921–23 to 1988–91)1[imposed by Stalinand the USSR]Nagorno-Karabakh AutonomousRegion, a self-governing entitywithin the Azerbaijani Soviet SocialistRepublic within the Unionof Soviet Socialist Republics2The Nagorno-KarabakhAutonomous Regionoccupied 4,400 sq kmand had a population ofabout 190,000 in 19893Citizens of SovietAzerbaijan and theUSSRSeparated by Lachin, 7 km at itsnarrowest4Free movement overArmeniaStatus quo (since thecease-fire of May 12,1994)[As a result of war,Karabakh took controlof more than7,000 sq km of additionalterritory.]Republic, declared in 1991, and notrecognized by any country, includingArmenia.Over 11.5 thousandsq km, of which about7,000 sq km are sevendistricts of AzerbaijanNo internationallyrecognized citizenship;carry passportsof the Republic ofArmenia.Free passage over four routes:the Goris-Lachin-Shushi-Stepanakerthighway, Sotk-Kelbajar-Martakert,Goris-Kubatly,Kapan-ZangelanLand passage is carriedout over IranRussian-brokereddocument, June–November 1994Superceded by December5–6, 1994Bucharest summit.7No mention of status“Package option”:“ComprehensiveAgreement on theResolution of theNagorno-KarabakhConflict,” July 1997.Rejected by theArmenian side“Nagorno-Karabakh is a state and 4.4 thousand sq km and “Nagorno-Karabakhterritorial entity within Azerbaijan” the Lachin corridor (underOSCE supervision) Azerbaijani passportscitizens will havewith the special annotation,‘Nagorno-Karabakh.’”“Azerbaijan leases the corridorto the OSCE, which will sign anagreement to provide it for theexclusive use of the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities.”“Stage-by-stage0ption”: “Draft Agreementon Ending theNagorno-KarabakhConflict,” December1997Rejected byNagorno-KarabakhNo mention of status. Deals exclusivelywith consequences.4.4 thousand sq kmand the Lachin district(1,835 sq km)Not covered.“Nagorno-Karabakh forces arebrought inside the 1988 boundariesof the Nagorno-KarabakhAutonomous Region, except inthe Lachin district.”“Common State”: “On Rejected by Azerbaijanthe principles for acomprehensive resolutionof the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,”November 1998.“Nagorno-Karabakh is a state andterritorial entity in the form of arepublic and with Azerbaijan comprisesa ‘Common State’ withinits internationally recognizedborders.”4.4 thousand sq km andthe Lachin corridor“As identificationdocuments, citizensof Nagorno-Karabakhwill have Azerbaijanipassports with thespecial annotation‘Nagorno-Karabakh.”“The question of the use of theLachin corridor by Nagorno-Karabakh to provide for unfetteredpassage between Nagorno-Karabakhand Armenia issubject to a separate agreement.”Paris–Key West “unofficial”proposal,spring 2001Rejected by AzerbaijanNagorno-Karabakh, along with theLachin corridor, becomes a sovereignterritory of Armenia.Citizens of Armenia Sovereign Armenian territory Azerbaijan receives a“sovereign passage” toNakhichevan throughthe south of Armenia.Prague-Madrid principlesCurrently underconsiderationInterim status recognized; finalstatus to be determined by referendumor plebiscitePrepared by Tatul Hakobyan for the Armenian Reporter. November 20, 2008.4.4 thousand sq km andthe Lachin corridor;also Kelbajar until referendum/plebisciteorinterim statusInterim statusNarrow passageMediators play down prospects of early Karabakh settlementn Continued from page format, was rejected by Armeniansthrough Stepanakert.In December of the same year,the mediators presented a “stageby-stage”proposal (addressing securityissues and the consequencesof the conflict immediately andleaving the status of Nagorno-Karabakh’s open to an unspecifiedfuture date). This proposal, whichwas accepted with serious reservationas a basis for negotiations byPresident Levon Ter-Petrossian,led to his resignation.A year later, in November 1998,the OSCE Minsk Group presentedthe “common state” proposal,which was accepted by Yerevan andStepanakert with some reservations;Baku rejected it. Azerbaijanalso rejected the Paris-Key Westproposal in the spring of 2001.With the rejection of successivedraft agreements by one side oranother, the OSCE Minsk Groupco-chairs adopted a new approach.They held series of separate andjoint talks with the foreign ministersof Armenia and Azerbaijan,known as the Prague process. Then,in August 2005, they presentedPresident Robert Kocharianof Armenia and Mr. Aliyev with aone-page statement of principlesaround which they sought to securethe agreement of the Armenianside (Armenia and Nagorno-President Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan, left, with U.S. Secretary of State ColinPowell and President Robert Kocharian of Armenia in 2001. Photo: Photolure.Karabakh) and the Azerbaijaniside. Only after the framework wasagreed to would negotiations overa settlement agreement begin.Moreover, if in the past the mediatorsprepared the proposalsfor the consideration of the parties,now the majority of the workwas done by the foreign ministers.This method was meant to give thesides a greater stake in the resultingdocuments and make it moredifficult for the parties to reject theoutcome out of hand.As in the past, the negotiationsare confidential. However, the announcements,statements of concern,objections, and at times thedeliberate leaking of informationby the parties, the mediators, anddifferent international organizationsgive us the opportunity topresent the principles that arecurrently on the negotiating tableand are being called the MadridPrinciples. Madrid is where, exactlya year ago, the foreign ministersof Russia and France, SergeyLavrov and Bernard Kouchnerand U.S. Deputy Secretary ofState Nicolas Burns presented athree-page document to the foreignministers of Armenia andAzerbaijan.The main difference between the2005 Kazan and 2007 Madrid documentsis that as negotiations havecontinued, issues, concerns, andsticking points have emerged; themediators have set forth proposedsolutions, and a one-page proposalhas morphed into a three-page proposal.However, the four core principlesaround which Yerevan and Bakuare negotiating have been preserved.Let us present the four mainprinciples.First: The status of Nagorno-Karabakh will be decided thougha referendum or a plebiscite at atime to be determined later. Participationin the referendum or plebiscitewill reflect the demographicpicture of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, asit was prior to the beginning of thewar in 1991.It is evident to all parties that thechances that a new referendum willactually be held are very slim. Butit is very important for the Armenianside, specifically Yerevan, forBaku to agree (which it so far refusesto do) that the status of Nagorno-Karabakhis a matter to bedecided by referendum – a matterof self-determination. This pointcontinues to be a sticking point inthe negotiations.Second: Until Nagorno-Karabakh’sfinal status is determined,Baku and the international communitywill recognize that Nagorno-Karabakhhas an “interim status.”The interim status would reinforcetoday’s status quo, except inthe regions of Kubatly, Jebrail, andZangelan, and the parts of Fizuliand Aghdam that are under Armeniancontrol.Third: The return of the territoriesunder Karabakh’s controlwill be carried out by a 5+1+1 (Kubatly,Jerbrail, Zangelan, Fizuli,and Aghdam + Kelbajar + part ofLachin) formula. In other words,the stage-by-stage method is to beused for the return of the territories.The issue of the five regionsis certain. The return of Kelbajarwill be linked to the implementationof the referendum or, alternatively,to the recognition of theinterim status. As for the Lachinregion, some parts of it would bereturned, and a corridor wouldremain within the borders of Nagorno-Karabakhas a land link toArmenia.Fourth: This principle concernssecurity guarantees.The Madrid Principles are inmany ways similar to the stage-bystageproposal of 1997, where thefinal status of Karabakh is left tothe future. However, in contrast tothe 1997 stage-by-stage proposal,this proposal could be called a foreseeablestage-by-foreseeable stageproposal.f