Commentary: Positioning for the Kazan Summit

The US government has also sounded a positive note. Indeed in her farewell message, the outgoing US ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, has expressed her regret that she is leaving Yerevan at a “critical” and “historic” moment, indicating that an impending solution is about to happen to the most intractable problem in the region.

The Russian president of the Minsk Group, Igor Popov, has specified that “the documents which will be discussed at the summit need more refinement and further deliberation, which are being conducted on the Foreign Ministry level. We do hope that in Kazan the parties will demonstrate some constructive approach.”

Even Turkey’s Foreign Minister Davutoglu has expressed a glimmer of hope.

The basic principles are composed of six steps, while those steps begin with the evacuation of “occupied territories” for Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Mamedyarov and the expression of the will of the people (referendum) about the Karabagh status, Kasprschik indicates that the interim status of Karabagh cannot be less than what the region enjoys at the present time, but what is crucial is that Azerbaijan will have to acquiesce to that status which eventually win international recognition.

One of the sticking points among the six principles is the composition of the peacekeeping forces in the interim period while agreements begin to be implemented on the ground. It is believed that the

Minsk Group negotiating parties will come up with that peacekeeping force.

So much criticism was directed at the Minsk Group negotiations that the pressure is mounting on the opposing parties to move forward. Russia’s Foreign Ministry has, in a way, verbalized that pressure through its official representative, Alexander Loukashevich. He has stated: “There is great hope that the Deauville declaration by the three presidents will help the sides to realize that the process for a peaceful settlement has reached a limit after which they have to come to an agreement to implement them. Any delay beyond that point will indicate a destructive intention.”

The French co-president of the Minsk Group, Bernard Fazier, has similarly expressed hope for action by stating: “We are hopeful that the presidents will give their approval at the Kazan summit to the final draft of the documents presented to them. We refer to the documents which were delivered to them in March in Sochi.”

While pressure is mounting form all sides and hopeful signs are in the air, Azerbaijan’s leaders continue their war threats or negative statements. Thus the Azeri president has visited Serbia and although Baku does not recognize Kosovo’s independence but Mr. Aliyev has seized the opportunity to reiterate his eternal refrain: “Serbia, like Azerbaijan, is suffering from separatism. We hope that your territorial integrity will one day be realized.”

Two other contradictory statements from Azeri officials indicate that Baku is in the process of using carrot and stick policy, hoping that one of them will work.

Thus the spokesman for Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry, Elbar Sabiroglu, has announced, “The Armenian side, through its actions is contributing to the possibility of a military solution to the Karabagh conflict. Azerbaijan will be liberating its occupied territories from the enemy. We are in the process of getting ready for war.”

Any government, prepared to sign a peace agreement, would prepare its population for that situation. These announcements are far from preparing Azeri people for a peaceful solution.

On the other hand, the deputy foreign minister of Azerbaijan has made an contradictory statement, perhaps intentionally, for public consumption as a carrot policy, saying: “We are not interested to renew the war. We still believe that there is possibility to resolve the problem through diplomatic means. Why should we think about war?”

In this chaotic atmosphere where contradictory statements and political pressures are in action, any positive step at the Kazan summit will constitute a miracle and hailed by all parties.