The European Union must take the lead in the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

The ethno-territorial conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia has continued for about two decades now. The ceasefire agreement signed in May 1994 established the OSCE Minsk Group as a primary mechanism for the resolution of this conflict. With all the seeming achievements, today the OSCE Minsk Group remains dysfunctional and is not representative of more relevant international actors such as the European Union. The EU has the potential to replace France in its capacity to co-chair the OSCE Minsk Group.

Need for Civilian Power

Until now, prospects for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have largely depended on the distribution of power between the United States and Russia. Regional balance of power has created so-called cold peace – a state of no war/no peace.  However, emerging challenges to security in South Caucasus cannot be managed merely with traditional balance of power. The side effects of the NK Conflict go far beyond the interstate confrontation of Azerbaijan and Armenia; drugs and human trafficking in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan go unchecked; there is little or no civilian control over military sector in Armenia and Azerbaijan; finally, the migratory trends of refugees and IDPs create social tensions in both countries.

There is a need for an actor that would engage with the NK Conflict as a civilian power. In the absence of actual warfare between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the EU should aim to empower civil society in both countries. The EU should make civilian control of foreign and defense policies in Azerbaijan and Armenia its priority. Therefore, the European Union must take the lead and mobilize diplomatic efforts to achieve political representation in the OSCE Minsk Group.

Energy Security of EU

The European Union is a community of states with differing demands for energy consumption. The states which have the biggest stake at the Southern Energy Corridor lack political representation in the OSCE Minsk Group and hence they are unable to play a meaningful role in averting potential future crises with regard to the NK Conflict. After all, they are the ones most vulnerable to supply disruptions. Even though disruptions affect a few countries, ultimately it is the EU economy that suffers most. The co-chairmanship in the OSCE Minsk Group would enhance the Community’s crisis management capability in a region critical to EU’s energy security.

Relevant Security Actor

The EU representation in the OSCE Minsk Group would transform the Union from a passive by-stander into a relevant security actor in Eurasian affairs. Unlike traditional balance of power approaches that underline the primacy of state security, the EU conceptualization of security goes beyond this level and includes human security which is well explained in the Human Security Doctrine of the Council of the European Union.

The EU co-chairmanship in the OSCE Minsk Group would bring the lacking human dimension of security to counter-balance traditional balance-of-power approaches. However, it remains to be seen how this pillar of the EU Foreign and Security Policy will evolve vis-à-vis the established US and Russian conflict resolution schemes. The EU needs to consolidate the foreign policy apparatus as the EU External Action Service has been functional only for two years since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty in 2010.

The strongest impetus for reforms in the OSCE Minsk Group format should eventually be based on the political will of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Given the geographic proximity, shared history, economic and security considerations, the co-chairmanship in the OSCE Minsk Group would speed up the consolidation of the EU Foreign and Security Policy.                         

   by Anar Abdullayev (IRES 2012)