International Herald Tribune: "Diplomats see chance to end Azeri-Armenian stalemate"

Fighting between Armenians and Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh killed at least 18,000 people and displaced more than a million in the early 1990s. The region, and a fortified area around it, has been under military occupation by Armenian-backed forces since a cease-fire in 1994, creating a military front in the western mountains of Azerbaijan.

The territory has remained a source of violence and lingering social costs, with expelled civilians living in grim conditions away from the front. Commercial and social contacts between the populations are almost nonexistent, and the conflict has been a drag on the region's economic development and a threat to its stability.

The International Crisis Group, an independent organization that assesses conflict areas, said in a report last year that the occupied region, about 31,000 square kilometers, or nearly 12,000 square miles, and almost 14 percent of Azerbaijan, hosts "one of the world's most militarized societies" and risks sliding back to war.

But diplomats involved in the negotiations said there was now a possibility of a settlement. They have been preparing for a meeting in France of President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and President Robert Kocharian of Armenia on Feb. 10 and 11, with hopes the presidents will agree to a comprehensive plan.

The United States, with France and Russia, is a co-chairman on the so-called Minsk Group, a body of mediators working under the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, under whose auspices the cease-fire was reached. The co-chairmen on Wednesday visited Baku, the Azeri capital, for more meetings with Aliyev.

Similar meetings are planned with Kocharian in Yerevan, the Armenian capital, on Thursday. No one as yet is predicting success, and Azerbaijan signaled reservations before the mediators' arrival. But several diplomats said there was potential for agreement.

"There has been a mass of very thoughtful negotiations that have brought us to this stage," said a senior State Department official who is familiar with negotiations. "We are now at the point where the presidents need to turn the corner from negotiations to decisions, and close the remaining gaps."

The official, like several others, spoke on condition of anonymity because both sides have sought to keep much of the contents of negotiations out of the public discourse. Several people familiar with the talks, however, said a document summarizing the core issues has become the basis for proposing a two-stage process: first an agreement in principle, then work on details.

One possible plan would involve a withdrawal of Armenian-backed military forces from much of the territory around Nagorno-Karabakh, accompanied by international security guarantees and an international peacekeeping force. At a later date, the diplomats said, a referendum could be held to determine the enclave's political status.

The first step toward settlement, the diplomats said, would be for Aliyev and Kocharian to endorse a broadly defined plan based roughly on these proposals. If the presidents were to agree, delegations from both countries would work with mediators on details, including the timing and chronology for troop withdrawals. All involved said any referendum would be years away.

Keith Jinks, a spokesman for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said the proposal covers other issues, including creating a secure corridor in and out of the area, return of displaced civilians, reconstruction of infrastructure and mine clearance.

While talks have become more constructive in recent months, the diplomats said, the presidents still disagree on critical issues.

For Azerbaijan, a central issue is territorial integrity, and restoration of control over a region within its internationally recognized borders.

"We stand for the reintegration of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, while Armenia wants to disintegrate Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan," Araz Azimov, the Azeri deputy foreign minister, said in a telephone interview. "Azerbaijan understands that all territory should be returned."

For Armenia a central issue has been the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, which it maintains is historically Armenian. The region's fate and political affiliation should be determined by its inhabitants, the Armenians say. "That is the core issue - because of that the conflict erupted," Vartan Oskanian, the Armenian foreign minister, said by telephone from Yerevan.

Diplomats familiar with the proposals also cautioned that enough complexity remains that even were Aliyev and Kocharian to reach an agreement, working through details would require at least several months and might lead to a new impasse.

"Once we begin to work on a compromise document, I think new problems will continue to emerge," Oskanian said.

Still, diplomats said 2006 offered a window for negotiations. There are no national elections in Armenia or Azerbaijan this year, allowing negotiators to work without the pressures of a campaign.

Azerbaijan is also anticipating surging revenues from oil and gas pipelines expected to come on line late this year, and Aliyev is using new income to strengthen its military. This has raised concerns that Azerbaijan could be preparing for war - and raised hopes for a settlement before more militarization occurs.

The senior State Department official also said the mediators have tried to impress upon both sides that new fighting would be a catastrophe. "An attempt to bring about a military solution would not succeed, and it would have disastrous humanitarian and economic effects," the official said.

Azimov said renewed fighting is not in Azerbaijan's plans. "We are not interested in a war solution," he said. He added: "But war does not recognize any normal logic, and it happens when no expects it and regardless of what people want."

Sabine Freizer, author of the International Crisis Group's report, said the Azeri position has hardened as the country has gained wealth and frustration has grown. "There is a level of belligerence that is just incredible, because they think that ultimately they can win," Freizer said.

Another problem, diplomats and Freizer said, is that the respective populations, largely isolated from one another since the war, have been subject to propaganda and hate-mongering in their domestic news media.

There have been isolated signs of tolerance and cross-border dialogue, including a thoughtful interview of Mehman Aliyev, director of an independent Azeri news agency, posted on Jan 23. on the Web site of the Investigative Journalists of Armenia.

But media coverage in both countries has often fomented more disagreement. Instances like the interview with Aliyev are rare. The senior State Department official said that if peace is to have a chance, both presidents will have to prepare their populations for compromise, or could find they have little negotiating room. "As we go deeper into the process, they have to start to work on their publics," the official said.

Another diplomat said a settlement formula is less important than the political will of the two presidents to risk one. "There are significant portions of both populations that are virulently opposed to any peace deal," the diplomat said. "The key is not the details. The key is whether there is the willingness and capability in the political leadership."

By C.J. Chivers The New York Times