III. METHODS (“TECHNOLOGIES”) FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT

Whatever the final settlement of the Karabakh conflict may be, the greatest significance will be in the actions that each side will take in order to realize that solution. In reality, any of the above variants of solving the conflict is no more than an abstraction: how to solve the problem in reality (what we might call the “technology” of settlement) is a big problem in itself. Moreover, as it will be shown below, many of the proposed, and perhaps quite realistic, solutions were put aside due to the difficulties of their practical implementation. And the lack of mutual trust turns out to be the key problem.

1. Military solution

From a purely formal standpoint, this variant of actions of the sides, unfortunately, cannot be ruled out of the list of possible ones. That is, the Azeri side may undertake a military action to liberate the areas of Azerbaijan occupied by the Armenians and eliminate the insurgent enclave of Nagorno Karabakh. The Armenian sides, on the other hand, may, for example, seize new territories of Azerbaijan outside Karabakh, to force Azerbaijan to be more concessive. Formally, all parties to the conflict speak in favor of a peaceful settlement to the conflict, but recently, when the negotiations again came to a deadlock, Azerbaijan stressed that it did not rule out a military solution “for the restoration of the country’s territorial integrity in accordance with the principles of the United Nations”. In the opinion of the Armenian side, such behavior is not unexpected from the country which was defeated in the military operations. But it is also evident that these kinds of statements by official Baku damage the search for compromise most, which, above all, requires an atmosphere of mutual trust. In response, the Azeri side asks the following question: would Armenia be ready to conduct peace talks with Azerbaijan if the latter had, with the aid of Russia, occupied territories of Armenia populated by Azeris and demanded the formation of a new independent Azeri state on them?

2. “Package” solution

This type of action assumes the achievement of preliminary consent by the sides on all disputable questions, a conclusion of agreements “in a package”, that is taking into account all problems and aspects of future peace and implementation of these activities in the future¹.

Since, as it has been stated above, there has been no consensus on a number of major issues and first of all on the status of Nagorno Karabakh, it is natural that all “package” variants proposed by Russia in 1996 and by the Minsk Group co-chairmen in July 1997 failed to be realized and were put aside, although the current leaders of Armenia state about their adherence to the “package” principles of resolving the conflict².

3. Stage-by-stage solution

The staged scheme of conflict solution was proposed instead of the “package” variant in December 1997³(both can be found in the APPENDICES section). It proceeded from the fact that since the sides were unprepared for a complete settlement of the whole conflict, including its core problem, the status of Nagorno Karabakh, it was necessary to do what at least could be agreed by them. Namely, it could be possible to realize a partial withdrawal of Armenian troops from the Azerbaijan territories outside Karabakh (except the Lachin corridor), and also to achieve a stage-by-stage return of refugees to places of their former residence. It is natural that, even in this case, there would remain disputable questions (for example, about the boundaries of the Lachin corridor), which were supposed to be settled in the course of further negotiations. But in reality, these proposals also remained on paper – because of differences on a number of aspects of the settlement, RA President Levon Ter-Petrosian resigned and his successor Robert Kocharian holds the opinion that the conflict solution may be only a “package” one, for any processes that alter the current status quo without a guarantee of final solution are fraught with the threat of renewed hostilities, because they will break the positional balance that has been established since the establishment of the truce.

It is not difficult to notice that the “stage-by-stage solution” could lead, with a high degree of likelihood, to the aforementioned scheme of a “delayed solution” or the “Chechen scheme”. The sides possibly would not have formalized any agreement about a delay in defining the status of Nagorno Karabakh, but de facto, by mutual tacit agreement, it might turn out to be exactly this way. Renewed hostilities, of course, would not be ruled out either⁴.

Ambassador V. Kazimirov, as a committed supporter of the “stage-by-stage solution” (he calls the “package” solution one that “cannot get off the ground”), in his recent speeches expressed the idea that the proposed variants of the “stage-by-stage solution” so far have not been such in reality. He thinks that the way to resolve the conflict consists in multiple, small, but balanced, steps. “Of course, by “stages” we don’t mean beginning with meeting the demands of one of the sides (even if these are quite legitimate demands) and only then considering the problems concerning the other sides. At each stage small “packages” must be bound so that all the sides will have some of their demands satisfied (possibly even not completely). To begin with, let them not be the main issues. Surely during seven years, a number of problems could have been settled, creating a positive dynamic and a more favorable atmosphere, rather than sitting in a deadlock for years, driving people to despair and forcing them to abandon the country,” the diplomat says⁵.

4. “Backup plan”

In late 2003 Ambassador V. Kazimirov published proposals, calling them the “backup plan,” of the Karabakh settlement (in case the resumed meetings between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia fail to yield results, hence the name “backup”)⁶. In his opinion, the main problems led the negotiating process to deadlock because of an obvious mutual inability of the sides to even partially meet the opposite side halfway as far as its priority demands are concerned (the Armenians’ demands to recognize in the “package” the independence of Nagorno Karabakh or its joining the Republic of Armenia and the demands of Baku first of all in the stage-by-stage approach for a pullback from the occupied territories). As a result of excessive mutual toughness of the sides, the deadlock in these main problems blocks any progress in the negotiating process and is fraught not only with the preservation of a situation of “neither war nor peace” but also with an escalation of tensions.

Not to allow it and to gradually relieve tensions, the author offers “to start from little things” – to get down to solving other less important problems slightly opening the way to finding compromises on less significant pragmatic questions.“The “conceptual nucleus” of the “backup plan” is to bypass the “main barriers” and to subject them to gradual erosion, systematically reducing the tension by means of resolving the easiest particular questions first, which in themselves are quite solvable already, but which remain hostage to the situation when the most difficult problems are unresolved. In the situation of the current stagnation and a compete deadlock, the sides should be given a chance to demonstrate their complete “sanity”, that is, to solve at least some other problems. Only then, slowly but surely, to start “ascending from simple things to intricate ones”– he writes. Kazimirov believes that, at the same time, the sides should stop mutual hostile propaganda and specially prepare, or “train,” their societies for compromises beginning with small issues.  

Continuing top-level meetings in reasonable cases, the Russian Ambassador suggests that emphasis should be shifted on the conduct of internationally mediated regular (and continuous when necessary) negotiations of plenipotentiary delegations on the responsible level and with the attraction of experts. In his view the delegation of Nagorno Karabakh should also take part in these negotiations (Azerbaijan could consider the authorities of Nagorno Karabakh to be temporary or “de facto”). It is better to conduct negotiations in a flexible format: issues concerning all the three parties should be discussed with the participation of all delegations and the rest of the issues should be discussed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, or between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh (in these cases the third party is an observer). The agenda should be open. None of the questions should be excluded so that the sides and the mediators could prepare “exchanges” in any cases, sometimes even asymmetrically.

As for the role of the leaders, the author writes, “the most valuable contribution of the leaders would be such a manifestation of foresight and political courage as a declaration (jointly or independently) of the policy of overcoming disputes and achieving historic reconciliation between the Armenians and Azeris. Perhaps they would do it not at once, but progressively, in two or three public statements.”     

In his other article⁷V. Kazimirov specified that regular negotiations should be started in three “tracks”: 1) on the status of Nagorno Karabakh for the transition period and elements of its final status; 2) on the order of leaving territories, withdrawing external forces, return of displaced persons and refugees; 3) on the immediate measures to reduce tension and normalize relations.

Taking into consideration the obvious difficulties of the first two “tracks”, one should provide advanced rates at the third “track”, clearing up the general atmosphere of talks.      

5. Integration approaches

The above-mentioned “Stability Pact” document proposed by Emerson has something in common with the top-level discussion in 1998-2002 about ways to establish a collective security system in the Caucasus, since the Stability Pact for the South Caucasus was actually based on a unified approach to the restoration of mutual trust in the region and the creation of a system of mutual security guarantees. The formula “3+3+2” (i.e. the internationally recognized states of the South Caucasus, regional powers – the Russian Federation, Iran and Turkey – as well as the U.S. and the European Union) became the subject of discussion upon Armenia’s initiative. The U.S., the EU and Turkey, in principle, did not object to this approach, and even took a number of steps for the initiation of corresponding discussions in the South Caucasus’ capitals. However, the Russian Federation and Iran were categorically against this formula and were in favor of the “3+2” formula without the U.S., the EU and Turkey⁸.

The integration approaches were intensively discussed at international conferences in Lokkum (Germany) and Berlin in 2001, with the participation of representatives from all sides of the South Caucasus. During the Berlin conference, M. Emerson specified, and to some extent, altered some parts of his concept, but it failed to help to make the “Stability Pact” any more appealing to the political elites of the South Caucasus.

6. External coercion or the “Dayton schemes”

One possible way to settle the conflict could be achieved with the aid of external coercion by the world powers, which can be conventionally called the “Dayton Principle”. This solution can be compared with any of the above-mentioned variants. For example, the head of the analytical group “Image”, Rasim Agayev⁹, thinks it possible – on the basis of the tendencies observed after 9/11 – to introduce an operation of “superpowers”, the aim of which, according to the author’s logic, must be the restoration of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Nagorno Karabakh. Here are the main points of his proposal.

The inability of Azerbaijan and Armenia to find an acceptable solution to the territorial dispute creates an urgent need to find an internationally accepted system of coercive measures that would be directed at the elimination of conflicts which threaten the existence of whole regions and are capable of causing full-scale international crises. The legal basis of this model is the provisions of the UN Charter “The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes” and “Actions in Relation to the Threat of Peace, Violation of Peace and Acts of Aggression”, the agreements about the inviolability of borders in conditions of globalization, and the consent of all UN-member states to recognize the priority of the principle of territorial integrity over arbitrarily interpreted provisions of UN documents pertaining to the right of nations to self-determination¹⁰.

As far as the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh is concerned, the following system of measures aimed at separating the sides and restoring the status quo on the basis of the principles of international law appears to be possible to apply:

1. A Plenipotentiary Council of state-guarantors of peace and combat against international terrorism is set up (or the Azerbaijan Republic has the US Security Council consider the correspondence of the Karabakh Armenians’ demands for self-determination to international law in the context of the territorial integrity of UN-member states).

2. A resolution with strict demands on the self-declared republic and the central government to define the principles of autonomy within the framework of a single state is adopted.

3. In case of disagreement by one of the sides, the UN introduces strict sanctions of a compulsory character against the violator (like in South Africa and Iraq).

4. Combined military forces are brought to the conflict zone to control the implementation of the sanctions.

5. On the expiry of the period of sanctions, the UN is entitled to form supra-national bodies of control in the area, which coordinate their actions with the central authorities of Azerbaijan.

6. As to the forces and persons who sabotage the resolutions of the Council, the latter considers extradition measures or brings them to the international court (as was the case with Yugoslavia).

7. Conditions for the return of refugees and the establishment of peaceful life are gradually created.

Similarly, Emerson and Tocci¹¹consider as possible a scenario according to which the international community may use the “Dayton Method” to force the principles of “integration settlement” of conflicts in the South Caucasus which was proposed earlier by the same authors (see above). All these proposals remain purely speculative, since they have not been supported in any way by the political leadership of any country or international organization.

7. “The Dartmouth variant”¹²

This variant is called to remove the contradiction between the “package” and “stage-by-stage” principles, which during recent years was one of the serious obstacles to progress in the negotiations. It has much in common with “the Backup plan variant” which was described above, but is favorably compared to it as it contains a more detailed and concrete list of measures that can be undertaken at an early stage of the peace process basically aimed at strengthening mutual confidence between the parties to the conflict.

One more important feature of this variant is, so to say, its “informal authorship”. Unlike the other variants, “the Dartmouth variant” is a result of a long collective effort of public representatives of the parties to the conflict, in the true sense of the word, a fruit of “grassroots diplomacy”¹³. This factor can become important in the matter of its possible realization/application in practice.

The basic thesis of “the Dartmouth variant” is the initiation of  an all-round peace process, as a process of “continuous interaction at all public levels and in many spheres of social, political and economic life”.

The following basic principles are pinpointed:

1. All parties to the armed conflict confirm their adherence to the currently observed cease-fire regime.

2. All parties declare their obligation to refuse to use force or threat by force and to resolve disagreements by peaceful means.

3. All parties are ready to solve any conflicts and problems between them by negotiations in bilateral and multilateral formats. They confirm their adherence to the Minsk process and international participation.

4. All the parties, whose participation in the peace process is necessary for the implementation of reached agreements, will participate in the negotiations and become signatories to the concluded agreements.

5. All parties agree that strengthening of mutual confidence between the participants of the peace process requires the termination of hostile activities and especially propaganda.

6. Not only agreements elaborated during negotiations, but also the cooperation of all residents of this region are necessary for the establishment of a comprehensive, fair, and lasting peace.

7. All parties are interested in the development of such peaceful relations between them that will allow them to keep and develop their identity, to define their way of life and secure future.

8. All parties assume the obligation to secure the rights and needs of refugees and internally displaced persons with the participation of international organizations.

The document also contains a section entitled “the Explanation of the Logic of the Peace Process”. The following clauses are stated in it:

1. The logic of the peace process consists in offering new thinking in the field of the establishment of peace. This new thinking envisages that until the relations between the conflicting peoples change, the governments have no consent of these peoples to achieve agreements by means of negotiations. The peace process should change these relations with the aid of some interconnected agreements achieved in negotiations. Careful implementation of each agreement creates conditions for negotiations on the next agreement. Implementation of agreements will create new starting points for negotiations and will raise the level of trust in the peace process as a whole.

2. The first round of negotiations could define, for example, a complex of interactive steps for the resolution of such a major problem that can be solved in the interests of all the parties at this stage. Further steps will push the resolution of this problem forward.

3. The participation of plenipotentiaries from Nagorno Karabakh in the negotiations, as a party signing the agreements, assuming the obligations to implement the agreements, to form normal relations with its neighbors and mutual obligations on non-interference into the internal affairs of each other will create conditions that will be considered as the intermediate status of Nagorno Karabakh. Agreements reached and implemented by Nagorno Karabakh will actually constitute the recognition of this status.

4. Representatives of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh negotiate the mechanisms of the definition and legal registration of the final status of Nagorno Karabakh.

5. Afull and final settlement of the problem of Nagorno Karabakh implies the resolution of all the aspects making the essence of the problem and disputed questions that emerged on its basis. The comprehensive settlement of the conflict also supposes the realization of the reached arrangements and their development extended in time.

According to the idea of the document, the plenipotentiaries of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, according to the format of the Minsk conference, would conclude agreements on a number of issues. Those who assume obligations for their realization would be participants of the negotiations and signatories to agreements.

 An important feature of the offered scheme is that it is proposed to negotiate in two stages.“The first phase of negotiations should be concluded by intermediate steps which are confidence-building measures implying equivalent concessions of the parties in coordinated spheres. These measures should demonstrate the achievement of progress on the way to peace and create prerequisites for the resolution of final questions. At this stage of intermediate steps it is necessary to exclude questions concerning the final agreement,”the document states.And in the concluding phase of negotiations, questions that have not yet been solved will be discussed.

The document suggests the following list of questions to be discussed in negotiations:

1. Restoration of communications, economic and cultural cooperation synchronized with the course of the peace process.

2. The question of territories and borders. By mutual consent of the parties the withdrawal of troops from the controlled territories may be implemented in a manner synchronized with the course of the peace process, as well as their demilitarization at the level determined during negotiations and secured coordinated measures.

3. The question on refugees and forcibly displaced persons. Within the framework of the peace process the return of refugees and displaced persons to the territories upon which the parties will agree will be coordinated. At the same time, international participation in their reconstruction, rights of minorities are provided.

4. Aquestion on a legally formulated final status of Nagorno Karabakh and the conclusion of a peace treaty.

5. The establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Lastly, this variant, as well as the “back up plan”, supposes that the peace process should not be limited only to negotiations between officials. They require “mutually supporting steps both on the part of authorities and on the part of the residents to strengthen mutual trust and to make possible all-round implementation of the concluded agreements”.

---

¹The “package” solution itself when everything is coordinated and each side knows what it receives and what it gives would be ideal. But there are quite a few reasons to doubt its attainability andfeasibility in relation to Karabakh. The “package” would require that the leaders and political elites should have an ability to find the strongest convincing motivation in order to agree to very big counter concessions (it is impossible to build the “package” on small ones!). Today’s mutual demands of the sides practically exclude each other. They are so polar that such concessions would beget a shock and would sharply destabilize the situation inside the countries. Expectations that in 2004 after the elections the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia will draw up a salvation “package” are also naïve.
Besides, it is clear that the “package” solution to the conflict doesn’t at all mean an instantaneous realization of all reached agreements. It most likely would be alternating, echelonised. But for all that guarantees of complete and strict implementation by each side of all agreements without exception and in agreed terms are needed. The smallest failure in the implementation of the “package” agreement is fraught with considerable complications. At such a level of mutual distrust of the sides the reliability of the unimpeded implementation of the global “package” agreement or a number of agreements in the “package” (even supposing that this is reached) would still remain open to a serious question. (V.K.)_{Back to text}
²The insistence of Yerevan and Stepanakert on the “package” more and more create the impression that the Armenians want to win time simply trying to get a situation when everybody will get accustomed to the existing situation in the region of the conflict and in the meantime they are waiting for a proper moment to switch to more serious negotiations with Baku. It should also be said that each of the parties to this conflict liked to “bind” its own “semi-packages”: for example, the Azeris repeatedly linked the ceasefire with the liberation of Lachin and Shusha and then other territories occupied by the Armenians and during the negotiations agreed on the liberation of most of such areas only together with Lachin and Shusha.  Overstated unrealistic demands at every given moment became in this conflict a scourge for each side that was falling into maximalism. (V.K.) _{Back to text}
³The approach of all mediators seeking a settlement in Karabakh was stage-by-stage from the outset: for returning the conflict from the military plane to the political one it was first of all necessary to stop military operations. As a mediator Russia in the most consistent manner was trying to achieve and finally achieved the cease of bloodshed outlining further work in three stages: 1) to consolidate the ceasefire up to the guarantees of its non-renewal; 2)to conclude the agreement about the halt of the armed conflict which would also stipulate the liberation of the occupied territories; 3) to solve the question of the status of NK during the Baku-Stepanakert negotiations or the Minsk Conference (MC) of the OSCE. The OSCE summit in Budapest, pointing out the decisive contribution of Russia, set up a Minsk Conference co-chairmanship for it and entrusted the co-chairmen with the conduction of negotiations between the sides (after which the Minsk Group became no more than a mechanism for less frequent and less substantial consultations).
Blocking the completion of the coordination of the draft agreement the sides sometimes started to complain that it didn’t touch upon the key problems of the settlement. The western members of the Minsk Group, who were dissatisfied with the Russian draft agreement, using these complaints, initiated the “second track” in the negotiations: the discussion of key problems. The sides advanced four problems: security and the status of NK (the Karabakh Armenians); they were supported by Yerevan without putting forward its own topics; while Baku called the problems of Lachin and Shusha the key ones. Because of the positions of the sides the “second track”, just like the first one, reached the deadlock soon. But from this point on the transition from the stage-by stage solution to attempts of the “package” one (in the proposals of Russia in 1996 and the co-chairmen in 1997) began.    
In early 1996 the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Ye. M. Primakov (evidently remembering his attempt in November 1990 to coordinate the “package” with A. Mutalibov and L. Ter-Petrosian) gave instructions to prepare a draft “package” solution. Intensive work was done and in February 1996 Russia, using shuttle diplomacy, brought a new proposal to all three sides. Yerevan agreed to assume it as a basis for negotiations. But Baku and Stepanakert rejected it (see above note on page 33). At the end of February 1996, the intermediary mission of Russia was already considering three variants of actions: small, medium and big comprehensive “packages”. On these grounds the co-chairmen prepared proposals, which were called “the framework of package solution” before the trip of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office F. Cotti to the conflict region on 28 February – 1 March 1996. However, the sides failed to apprehend them. (V. K.)_{Back to text}
⁴One of the varieties of a stage-by-stage solution was the attempt to propose to the sides to coordinate certain agreements of temporary character, say, the status of NK for the period of transition. Even in case of the “package” approach sometimes such measures were proposed. Thus, in the proposals given to the sides by Russian mediators in February 1996 it was envisaged to simultaneously sign the agreement about stopping the armed conflict and a memorandum about the basic elements of a special status of Nagorno Karabakh which would abolish unilateral acts on NK adopted earlier in Azerbaijan and Armenia. It was supposed that the future agreement about a special status of the NKR would consolidate the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the highest degree of independence of NK (i.e. NK’s joining Azerbaijan on the grounds of contractual relations). During the visit of F. Cotti it was proposed in the document “The Framework of the Package Solution ” to establish a temporary status of the NKR until a decision was made on the final status at the Minsk Conference, as well as to abstain from unilateral actions and decisions concerning the temporary status and boundaries of NK. Doctor of law V. V. Pustogarov also considered it possible for the Azerbaijan Republic and the NKR to sign a memorandum about the basic elements of the special political status of Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan with the participation of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Armenia and the OSCE, with the view to continuing negotiations for the purpose of developing a full and final special political status of the NKR. However, these ideas and proposals were not accepted by the sides. Russian military historian S. V. Vostryakov published his proposals to solve the conflict in three stages in the “Obschestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost” (“Public Sciences and the Present”) magazine (issue #3, 1999). “The division of the conflict problems into separate independent components, their fragmentation and gradual settlements part by part are the most preferable methods,” he writes. Vostryakov lays down the measures of each stage in detail, but still the breaking down of problems into stages does not appear to be quite clear (V.K.)._{Back to text}
⁵V. Kazimirov.To help out the Karabakh settlement from a deadlock. // The Karabakh settlement. Principles, approaches and aspects. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, - Yerevan, 2002, - p.37._{Back to text}
⁶It was published on the same day – November 8, 2003 – in the “Echo” newspaper in Baku, the “Golos Armenii” newspaper in Yerevan and the “Azat Artsakh” newspaper in Stepanakert. On the same day, it was disseminated by the “Regnum” news agency._{Back to text}
⁷It was published in the “Ekho” and “Azat Artsakh” newspapers on January 10 and stated in the “Golos Armenii” newspaper on January 17, 2004._{Back to text}
⁸Here the position of Russia is not correctly stated. (V.K)_{Back to text}
⁹We thank R. Agayev for providing us with a copy of the article._{Back to text}
¹⁰This phrase of R. Agayev can mislead a reader: such agreements and such consent of all the states of the UN do not exist. These are only the author’s wishes or proposals. (V.K)._{Back to text}
¹¹M. Emerson and N. Tocci.The verbatim report of the speech “Stability Pact for the Caucasus – “New Deal” for the region as a whole” // The South Caucasus is an unstable region of frozen conflicts (the materials of the international conference on the Caucasus of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Berlin, November 26-27, 2001). – Tbilisi, 2002._{Back to text}
¹²This section is added in the edition of 2005._{Back to text}
¹³The Dartmouth initiative dates back to 1960 as a place of a meeting of citizens of the USSR and the USA on the improvement of mutual understanding between the two countries. In 1982, this forum created a working group of the Dartmouth conference on regional conflicts. In October 2001, the working group of the Dartmouth conference on regional conflicts organized a dialogue on Nagorno Karabakh led by the co-chairmen of the Dartmouth conference - Harold Saunders (the USA, ex-Undersecretary of State) and Vitali Naumkin (Russia). On June 24-26, 2005, the eighth round of dialogue of representatives of the public of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh took place in Moscow within the framework of this dialogue. During this round, a draft framework agreement on the peace process in the region of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, proposed by the co-chairmen of the Dartmouth conference, as well as a joint press release, were discussed and coordinated. Under “the Dartmouth variant” we mean the provisions of the draft framework agreement._{Back to text}