Your trusted source

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a statement following the trilateral meeting of the Armenian, Russian and Azerbaijani Presidents in Astrakhan October 27, saying: “I consider these meetings useful. First, because the talks are always better than the active phase of the conflict, second, this cannot be only termed as talks but advance.”

From the first sight, Russian President’s statement comes to hint Astrakhan meeting holds some progress. In fact, the sides agreed to exchange war prisoners and bodies of those killed. Yet, can it be called progress? Perhaps, though, it depends what we take as a start-point.

If it is the situation created by the Azerbaijani side lately (regular cease-fire violations, subversive activities, violent assassination of lost people and captives) that we take as a start-point, we can say the agreement to exchange captives and bodies is progress, indeed.

Moreover, it’s very significant advance as this agreement and its implementation assumes that the lives of civilians and soldiers near the line of contact are less endangered than they were before Astrakhan agreement. On the other hand, one can only wonder why a statement was needed, moreover, why the sides needed to negotiate to agree on it when all the prescribed provisions derive from the direct obligations of the states they have assumed in the frames of the international humanitarian law. However, at least here the sides were able to make a positive advance and this can only be hailed.

As regards the effect of the statement on the conflict in general, here there is some progress reached as well. Eventually, it’s not a secret that the increase of tension lately was mainly conditioned by this very humanitarian factor. The analysis of the development of the course of events allows to say the tension was a result of practicing “response steps”. Hopefully, Astrakhan agreement will break the closed cycle and will ease the current tension.

To take the issue from a wider point of view, we can say Astrakhan meeting registered no substantial changes. Noting that the settlement of the conflict has never been bypassed at any meeting and voicing a hope that the basic principles of settlement of the conflict could be coordinated within a month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev added: “There are still lots of issues, but there is also will from both sides to reach agreement on yet non-agreed, textual controversies. I think, results are possible to achieve. This seems somehow optimistic. Yet, the essential part of the work is still to come.”

This statement inspires no optimism. The term “textual controversy” is a kind of euphemism and it would be confusing to think this is the only reason the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides cannot reach agreement. In fact, the discord is quite deep while it becomes textual only around a negotiating table. Consequently, the sides will not manage to overcome these within a month and the presidents well realize this.

To sum up, we can say that Astrakhan meeting, like the previous trilateral meetings, recorded no progress in terms of the conflict resolution. The meetings are more aimed at making the conflict more managible, and controlled, while ‘the general settlement issue’ is merely not bypassed.