By Ani Sargsyan

The Madrid Principles were first presented to the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in l'Aquila, Italy, in 2007. In 2009, they were first published and accepted by the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides as a basis for further negotiations. This means that the fundamental points were not subject to any amendments. On the basis of compromise the sides can only agree on the terms and ways of implementing the principles.

Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status is the pivotal issue of the negotiations. According to the principles, it is to be determined by means of legally binding expression of will by the Nagorno-Karabakh people (let us call it a referendum). Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status depends on who will take part in the referendum.

Last August, at a press conference in Armenia, the then OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Matthew Bryza stated the ratio between the Armenian and Azerbaijani population in accordance with the results of the last census conducted in the USSR – 75% to 25% - would be considered during the referendum. The question was: were the 25% Azerbaijanis to return to Nagorno-Karabakh before or after the referendum?

Before the updated Madrid principles appeared, the refugees were expected to return after the referendum (that is, the votes of 25% of Azerbaijanis were to be deducted from the total number of votes). On the other hand, the updated version indicates both Azerbaijanis and Armenians are to participate in the referendum. French Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Bernard Fassier made a relevant statement at the NATO PA Rose-Roth seminar in Yerevan this March. One of the points of the Madrid principles provided for interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh, which would enable the population to live in peace. Then the refugees were to return to their places of residence, peace-makers were to be deployed in the region and a referendum on status was to be held, he said.

That was a cause for Azerbaijan’s enthusiasm. After repeatedly accusing Armenia of being unwilling to make the first step, Azerbaijan stated it accepted the Madrid principles. In his turn, RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated: “Armenia has presented its proposals concerning the points of the Madrid principles that have not yet been agreed to the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs.” No wonder – the referendum results will be strongly dependent on whether the referendum will be held before or after Azerbaijanis’ return to Nagorno-Karabakh. In an interview with Euronews, RA President Serzh Sargsyan disagreed with that point as well. “Should refugees that will return to Nagorno-Karabakh before the referendum commit crimes, what laws should be applied to them?” asked the Armenian leader.

However, the Armenian-Azerbaijani-Russian presidential meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia, brought about a radical change. The Armenian Foreign Minister stated the sides had specified their positions and intended to continue negotiations on that basis. Interestingly, Edward Nalbandian was speaking of the Madrid documents in the past tense: “Of course, the Madrid document was at the past stage…” He said the same at his press conference jointly with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Later, on July 3, when the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs held a meeting with the Armenian President in Yerevan, an interesting note appeared on the RA President’s official website: “The President of Armenia discussed with the Co-Chairs issues pertinent to the current stage of the NK peace process, including the recent version of Madrid principles presented to the Presidents of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan at the negotiations in Saint Petersburg.” It meant Armenian diplomacy had managed to “get rid of “the undesirable updated version of the Madrid document though the RA presidential administration and the RA foreign office had not agreed on whether the Madrid document existed or had gone down in history.

Another point the sides disagree over is Nagorno-Karabakh’s participation in the negotiations. Azerbaijan stated it did not object to the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities’ participation at one of the negotiation stages. Armenia, in turn, insists on a trilateral format, doing its best for Nagorno-Karabakh to be involved in the process.

The following is worthy of note as well. Many people forget the fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem is being dealt with at a diplomatic level. Like in any other field, certain rules of settling disputes are in effect in conflictology as well. The apologists for conflict theory unanimously state that presenting a final decision to the public is the most difficult thing in the settlement of any conflict. The Armenian public objects to the point on the return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Since the point is incorporated in the Madrid document – and the points are not subject to any amendments – the issue is not to be discussed.

One thing is when the President of the neighboring country – even a fraternal one, like Armenia for Nagorno-Karabakh, - decides the fate of your people. Quite another matter is when your own country’s President decides your fate. Both the Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh Presidents will try to convince the people of the necessity to agree to the document. They are likely to address the people as freedom fighters, who fought for Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence, rather than as Presidents.

It is no secret that the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process is a two-stage one. At the first stage the sides are to agree on the fundamental principles. At the second stage a comprehensive peace treaty is to be drawn up. Nagorno-Karabakh is expected to be involved in the process after the fundamental principles have been agreed. Specifically, it is to participate in the preparation of a peace treaty, which will indicate Nagorno-Karabakh’s consent to the Madrid document.

The third point not yet agreed by the sides is the one dealing with the Martuni, Martakert and Shahumyan regions. The Armenian side demands that they be vacated: “As to the consequences of the conflict, the Martakert, Martuni and Shahumyan regions, occupied by Azerbaijan, must be vacated.” However, neither of the statements made by the three Presidents contains a single word about it.

In their joint statement the Presidents of the OSCE MG member-states pointed out that “the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan need to take the next step and complete the work on the Basic Principles to enable the drafting of a peace agreement to begin. We instruct our Ministers and Co-Chairs to work intensively to assist the two sides to overcome their differences in preparation for a joint meeting in Almaty on the margins of OSCE Informal Ministerial.”

The question is: did the Presidents mean the Almaty meeting was the step to complete the work on the Basic Principles?