Rotation In The Minsk Group Will Not Hinder Negotiations

PanARMENIAN.Net - Change of the co-chairman should not mean that American diplomacy is shifting accents in "Karabakh" policy. It is an ordinary rotation which regularly takes place in the Minsk group. Americans change their representative once in about two years. (Steven Mann was appointed in April, 2004). France and Russia do that more seldom. Mathew Bryza will become the 6th American representative. It is noticeable that the rotation usually takes place after an unsuccessful round of negotiations. A new person brings new ideas. But up to now rotation has not brought to any changes in the strategy of American mediators. U.S. interests in the region remain unchanged even after the change of presidents. Thus, little depends on the co-chairman's personality. However, in this case one can notice preconditions for global changes of the American politics in the region. The thing is that the rotation of the Minsk group co-chairman coincided with the appointment of new Ambassadors in Baku and Yerevan. And this is of course not accidental. (Both ambassadors have been appointed but have not visited capitals). The State Department is changing all the three diplomats responsible for the execution of Washington's policy in the South-Eastern Caucasus. This can prove serious changes in the tactic of American diplomacy where current priorities are first of all connected with the development of situation in Iran.

Thus, the new person coming in to the Minsk group does not have his predecessor's deep knowledge of the negotiation process and the essence of the conflict. Baku, Yerevan and Stepanakert are all interested in the question - whether the new co-chairman's appointment will hinder the negotiation process. Worries on this issue are well-grounded. What is significant is that Mathew Bryza himself asserts that "regulation of the conflict is possible during this year". He also says that currently parties are negotiating a very encouraging draft of a document. Braveness of the diplomat's judgments may look vulgar, since for the beginning he would need to get deeper in the state of affairs and analyze the information on what had been happening in the Minsk group before him. However, it looks like Bryze was doing that during the past three-four months. His indirect participation in the negotiation process became noticeable yet late in winter. His appointment was not unexpected for Yerevan and Baku since his deep interest in the Karabakh conflict allowed guessing that he was to become Steven Mann's successor. Since the beginning of this year Bryza has twice visited the region and had meetings with Ilham Aliev and Robert Kocharyan with whom he discussed Karabakh problem. He also accompanied mediators during their last visit. Thus, there can be no doubts that Bryza is already enough prepared and there is no need to expect stoppage in the negotiation process.

By the way, it is worth mentioning that the diplomatic level of Mathew Bryza is quite high which testifies to the fact that Washington assigns importance to the settlement of Karabakh conflict. At the same time, it is obvious that the State Department valued the professionalism of Bryza's predecessor who was appointed to quite a high post. Currently, Steven Mann is the State Secretary's assistant for Asian affairs.

Certain political forces in Azerbaijan usually try to make use of changes in the Minsk group for raising the issue of reviewing the negotiations' format and the mediatory mission staff. Azeris have repeatedly tried to discredit countries which are at the head of the Minsk group, accusing them of injustice. However, the attempts to bring the negotiation process out of OSCE into the frames of other international organizations do not have any prospects. The mediatory mission's format was agreed on the 26th of March, 1922 by the decision of OSCE summit and was indirectly approved by four UN resolutions. The group which is authorized to deal with Karabakh conflict regulation was formed by the membership of the following countries: Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Russia, USA, Turkey, France, Czechoslovakia and Sweden. Besides, it was decided to involve elected representatives from Nagorno Karabakh, as an interested party.

At the beginning the Minsk group was headed by one chairman. It was headed by a certain diplomat and not a country. The first chairman of the group was Italian Mario Rafaelly. Later on he was substituted by Yan Elliason from Sweden. The institute of co-chairmen was formed in 1944. Since then, the group has been headed by states and not certain persons. Azeris often raise the issue of Russia's withdrawal from co-chairmanship, arguing it by Russia's partnership with Armenia. However, those attempts are senseless since the OSCE summit has appointed Russia as a permanent co-chairman of the Minsk group and Minsk conference. Besides, the second co-chairman state was appointed by the rotation principle. At first co-presided with Stockholm, then with Helsinki. Triple co-chairmanship of Russia, USA and France was approved in December 1996. None of the mentioned three countries is able to reconsider the format. It is worth mentioning that no international organization has ever put to doubt the efficiency of the Minsk group's efforts. UN, PACE and European parliament have all approved resolutions where they expressed their full trust and support to the mediators' activities. Thus, there are no grounds to expect changes in the staff of co-chairmen within the coming years.