Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

Azerbaijan + 1 more

Mediating in entrenched but acute conflicts in the South Caucasus

This text is a copy of an article originally published in the 2/16 edition of the Swiss Peace Supporter Journal (pages 14-16)

Georgia and Azerbaijan are two different examples of how post-Soviet independence conflicts can throw a pan-European security architecture out of balance. Unresolved local conflicts indeed have the potential to block efforts to create a peace order in Europe.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1990s, the South Caucasus has been characterized by unresolved conflicts, such as those involving Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and Armenia and Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh). Although these conflicts both have their roots in Stalinist nationalities policy, they clearly differ from each other in structure, intensity and possible approaches to resolving them.

In Georgia, the conflict concerns the secession of the two regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both have been under the protection – or from the Georgian perspective, under the occupation – of Russian troops since the wars of 1992 to 1994 and 2008. Georgia condemns the Russian occupation and recognition of both “states” as a violation of its territorial integrity and demands the reintegration of the regions. In this complex conflict questions about the status of the regions and therefore of a peace settlement are taboo. However, the Sarkozy Medvedev Agreement of September 2008 established the “Geneva International Discussions” as a lasting format for conflict management.

The Geneva International Discussions are moderated by a three­-member body comprising representatives of the EU, the UN and me as representative of the German OSCE Chairmanship. Representatives of the Russian and Georgian as well as the Abkhazian and South Ossetian sides also take part, although the latter are not recognized by Georgia as parties to the conflict. The Geneva International Discussions, which managed to complete 35 rounds by March 2016, convene every three months in two working groups to examine security and humanitarian issues. Some are highly controversial and provoke emotional responses, for example the return of displaced people or the freedom of travel for Abkhazians. Walkouts, where a delegation leaves the room for example as a result of a disagreement on fundamental procedural matters, are not uncommon. At the technical level, however, agreements have been regularly reached, for example on questions concerning irrigation or the protection of cultural property.

Together with the EU Monitoring Mission, I also moderate the “Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism”, known as the IPRM, where the Russian, South Ossetian and Georgian delegations meet once a month in an OSCE tent near a closed border crossing in Ergneti. So far almost 70 such meetings, lasting several hours, have taken place there. A telephone hotline is also available and is frequently used. The discussions are often about illegal crossings of the “administrative boundary line”. It is the local population who suffer most from the conflict. Time and again we wrestle over finding ways, for example to allow farmers to recover cows that have strayed across the boundary line without the risk of arrest. The issue of people who went missing during the civil war is especially tragic. The International Committee of the Red Cross deals with this aspect.

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh in its current form also dates back to the independence aspirations of the former Soviet republics. Nagorno-Karabakh, which translated literally means mountain black garden, is populated mostly by Armenians, and declared independence from Azerbaijan following a military conflict in 1992. Clashes along the “line of contact” continue to this day. In May the situation seemed quiet, which does not mean that it was stable. Since the unexpected escalation from 2 to 5 April and the ceasefire that was verbally agreed in Moscow between the conflicting parties, there have been daily violations. The conflict flared up again on 28 and 29 April; the readiness of troops on both sides to fight is alarming.

The regular OSCE monitoring by Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, the personal adviser of the OSCE Chairperson ­in­ Office for the Minsk Group, has a confidence-building effect. I was able to witness this myself during a monitoring visit in early May in which the German OSCE Chairperson in­ Office took part. Nevertheless, the OSCE monitoring mechanism is and remains a symbolic instrument. An effective OSCE mechanism would have to be part of a reinforced ceasefire agreement that combines monitoring with a fact-finding mechanism.

Azerbaijan would only accept such a concept, however, if Armenia were to withdraw its troops from the seven districts bordering Karabakh. Armenia, for its part, insists on establishing the status of Karabakh before it is prepared to make compromises in other areas. Following the war in April, the two sides and Nagorno-Karabakh now seem to be even further from a compromise than before; positions that have become entrenched over the past twenty years have hardened further. Scope for peace negotiations has become very limited. But time is running out, as major hostilities can break out at any time, all the more so as not only frustrations but also fears and fatigue are on the rise among the affected populations.

A solution is unimaginable in Georgia in the foreseeable future. Against this backdrop the Geneva format is helping to stabilize the militarily frozen situation in the region. By contrast, in Nagorno Karabakh all six components for a lasting peace are on the table, but no format for negotiations has been accepted that would integrate these principles within a structured process in a peace agreement. Instead clashes are constantly breaking out along the line of contact. Georgia and Azerbaijan are two different examples of how post-Soviet independence conflicts can throw a pan-­European security architecture out of balance.