The Former US Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group James Warlick gave an exclusive interview to Armenian News – NEWS.am. He touched upon the possibility of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the activation of mediation efforts by the EU, reffered to when and under what circumstances the issues of Nagorno-Karabakh status and the implementation of the right to self-determination could be on the table again. Ambassador Warlick commented also the announcement of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that the US and France have canceled the Co-Chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group.
You have left the Minsk group 6 years ago. How much do you think the group has changed since then in terms of its role and productivity.
Ever since it was founded the Minsk Group and the Co-Chairs have played an especially important role in bringing the parties together. It was a unique format as well as the part of the OSCE. It did bring together as Co-Chairs France, The United States and Russia, and even as relations between the US and Russia became strained over other issues, Nagorno-Karabakh was one of the issues where we generally saw eye-to-eye and could work together. I had very good cooperative relationship with my Russian counterpart and I’m proud to say that we worked very well, collegially and cooperatively together. I hope that will be the case in the future.
After the Second Karabakh war Aliyev keeps stating that the Minsk Group has exhausted itself and is no longer needed since the conflict, he says, doesn’t exist anymore. Do you think that the Minsk Group mandate is not needed any longer?
Read also
I think there still is a role for the Minsk Group. If not the Minsk Group and the Co-Chairs, then there needs to be another part of the international community that can take responsibility. I don’t think that it should be left solely in the hands of Russia and I do think that the parties involved in the conflict need the kind of support that comes from the international community in working through the issues. I do believe that there is a role now: if you want to create a new kind of vehicle, I perfectly understand that, but that does need to be some sort of vehicle like the Minsk Group.
Aliyev also says that the Minsk Group has been of no use over these years to the resolution of the conflict. How important do you think were the efforts of the Minsk Group for the negotiation process?
I do think that the Co-Chairs and the Minsk Group managed to keep discussions underway and possibly avoided a serious conflict much earlier. As it turned out, there has been a conflict not surprisingly after these many years, but there continues to be a role for the implementation and decisions that need to be taken following the hostilities. I do believe that the Minsk Group can continue to play a role.
The Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders agreed in Brussels to start preparation for peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. There was no mentioning of the Minsk Group in European Council President Charles Michel’s final statement following the meeting. Russian Foreign Minister stated that the United States and France have canceled the format of the Co-Chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group refusing to communicate in this format with Russia. Does this mean that the Minsk Group is being pushed out of the process altogether?
That’s a good question. Given the current tensions between the United States, France and Russia it’s not surprising that the Minsk Group can’t operate now in a collegial and co-cooperative way. That doesn’t mean it can’t play a role in the future, I do believe that it could play a role. Now it’s the Council of Europe or another body wants to step in its place and I certainly welcome seeing the European Council President’s step in such a way. That can work equally well, but as I said, it’s important that there be international community mediation in some way.
There is a tension in Nagorno-Karabakh for almost a month, but the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group have made no one announcement about it up to now. In general, the Minsk Group has acted very passively after the Second Karabakh war. Don’t you think that the Minsk Group itself didn’t function at its full capacity during the past one and a half year?
It’s essentially comes back to the parties involved. If the parties don’t want to have the Minsk Group, the Minsk Group can’t be effective. The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan need to decide whether the Minsk Group can still play a role, and if so, what role that would be. I believe that the United States with France and Russia could play that role. What we don’t want to see happen is that the conflict be lost among many other issues and the international community does no longer pay attention to what is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh or that Russia becomes the sole arbiter and mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, that too will be unfortunate. I do believe there continues to be a role for the Minsk Group, and I believe that is an issue that needs to be further talked about in the OSCE and with the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan wants the peace talks with Armenia to be held on the basis of the 5 points that proposed earlier to Armenia. These points are mostly about recognizing of each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity: no word about the rights of Karabakh people. How does this scenario comply with the vision of the settlement that Minsk Group Co-Chairs have always aspired to?
I think, you come back to the basic principles that have been around for some time. They still form the basis for a lasting peace. Territorial integrity is an important part, and I understand that the Foreign Ministers have been tasked with just such a discussion on where borders are. But those aren’t the only issues that need to be addressed: there continues to be the issue of status that needs to be a part of the discussions. I’m actually encouraged to see that the parties are engaging with each other, that the Prime Minister and the President met with each other, that the Foreign Ministers have established a group to begin these discussions. There will be a lot more issues: it’s not just about territorial integrity, it’s about resource share, communications. For the Armenians, of course, it’s about the status.
Azerbaijan insists that Armenia should withdraw all territorial demands to Azerbaijan thus enforcing the territorial context to the conflict, while the Armenian side says it’s not about territory; it’s about the right to self-determination of the Armenian people on their historic land. During the years you were in office. What was your impression of the essence of the conflict?
It’s always going to be very difficult conflict to resolve because there is a natural tension between the issues of territorial integrity and status, and that same tension continues to be. But if it’s going to be a lasting peace, everyone knows that all of the issues need to be on the table for discussion and not simple the territorial integrity. I believe that Azerbaijanis have always understood that, that there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved. What we don’t want to see is that they are resolved in the battlefield; this has to be done in negotiations. These negotiations will not be easy; they are going to take time, there are a lot of issues to work out, but it needs to be done for a lasting peace for both parties.
All Co-Chair countries have announced that the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is unresolved. There is often an impression in Armenia that these statements conclude a status out of Azerbaijan’s control. What’s your impression – what status exactly do Co-Chair mean when speaking about the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh?
It’s an issue that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh need to be involved in. It has always been the case that the issue of territorial integrity needs to be resolved, but there will also need to be consultations and some form of referendum at the correct time by the people of Karabakh. I think that’s still on the table and that can form the basis of status. I believe that’s still a case and I believe that would be a part of discussions as the parties move forward.
In one of your recent interview you said there will be no lasting settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh without the issue of status being addressed. When and under what circumstances can the issues of the Nagorno-Karabakh status and the implementation of the right to self-determination of the people of Karabakh be back on the agenda again?
That needs to be on the agenda. I hope the Foreign Ministers are talking about it, because there can’t be just the issues of establishing borders and redrawing map: there needs to be some discussion on the issue of status. I believe that Armenians are insisting on that and I believe that Azerbaijanis understand that this needs to be a part of discussions. If you want to start with delineation of borders particularly in light of the presence of Russian forces there and all of the changes that come in the wake of the conflict, that’s understandable too. But it can’t be done if you want a lasting peace to simply set aside simply set the issue of status. It does need to be one that is addressed by the parties. I think it will be in the course of the discussions.
