Why the Minsk Group is unable to address the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict

The Minsk Group, which functions under the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), was formed in 1992 to mediate between Baku and Yerevan during the first violent phase of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, when Armenian militias illegally occupied and claimed the Azerbaijani region. 

Since then, except for mere ceasefire calls and the condemning of occasional cross-border clashes between the two Caucasian countries, the Minsk group has done nothing substantial to address the issue other than offering lip service. The group's cosmetic moves mirror that of the Arab League's, which maintains an elusive relationship with Israel, while claiming to be the representatives of oppressed Palestinians.

According to the UN and other international organisations, the Armenian occupational forces should leave the Karabakh region, but the US, Russia and France, the three powerful founding members of the Minsk Group, are not keen on the notion of an Armenian withdrawal.

Experts see one particular reason connected to why the three countries are being soft on Armenia. The answer, according to them, lies in the large Armenian diasporas the US, Russia and France are hosting. 

“The US, Russia and France are the three countries, where the Armenian diaspora is the most powerful, compared to other countries,” says Esref Yalinkilicli, a Moscow-based Eurasia political analyst.

“It gives you a definite idea why the conflict could not be resolved,” he told TRT World. 

Since the renewed clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia in July, the Minsk group has laid out nothing serious, except for the condemning of violence and urging a ceasefire in its typical fashion. 

“The main problem of the co-chairs is not to develop any comprehensive peace approach toward the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. There is no tangible work on something like the Minsk peace plan,” says Bulent Aras, professor of international relations at Istanbul Policy Center-Sabanci University. 

“The co-chairs appear to see keeping violent clashes under control and non-fighting status as a success,” Aras told TRT World. 

The group’s recent reaction to the escalation of tensions has once again shown that the co-chairs have no vision with which to address the conflict. 

“We condemn in the strongest terms the recent escalation of violence . . . [and] call for an immediate cessation of hostilities between the relevant military forces,” said Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Emmanuel Macron and US President Donald Trump in a joint statement. 

But the group has urged nothing close to demanding the withdrawal of Armenian occupied forces from the Karabakh region, frustrating both Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey. 

“It is not acceptable that the Minsk group is still in search of a ceasefire,” said a frustrated Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a speech. 

“In order for there to be a solution, the occupiers must withdraw from these lands. It’s time for results, and our Azeri brothers and sisters have taken matters into their own hands,” he assessed. 

Minsk bias toward Baku

While the three co-chairs of the Minsk group claim to be neutral in the conflict, their bias towards Baku has been apparent in each one of their dealings with Armenia, its diaspora and the overall conflict for decades.  

“In the (Minsk) process, France became pro-Armenian while Russia tends to support Armenia. The US interest in the conflict has also decreased. As a result, Russia has become the only country to decide the direction of the conflict,” says Aras.

“Russian choice has been to protect the status quo, turning the crisis into a frozen conflict. This policy has created a political status where there has been no war and no peace,” he analyses. 

Keeping the quarrel frozen helps Armenians continue their occupation of the Karabakh region, says Yalinkiliclı. 

Russia has reportedly backed Armenia in the conflict since the 1990s for various reasons, among which is the Armenian lobby. “It is the strongest one in Moscow,” says Yalinkilicli. 

Some prominent Armenian-origin journalists run Russian media outlets, including Russia Today. Russia’s powerful and long standing Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, also has an Armenian father. 

During the events of 1915, Russia also backed the Armenians against the Ottoman Empire, leading to both sides suffering from bloody clashes. 

France, a country that has passed resolutions in the same way the US Congress has previously done in order to condemn Turkey’s position regarding the 1915 events under the pressure of the Armenian diaspora, has traditionally sided with Yerevan against Baku. 

Last week, Macron made that stance clear, accusing Azerbaijan and not Armenia for recent clashes. 

“I wanted these attacks to end. I explicitly condemned these disproportionate attacks,” said the French president last week, appearing to accuse Baku for recent clashes without mentioning any Armenian provocations. 

He went even further, directly accusing Azerbaijan for the recent escalation of friction in the region. 

“It was determined that the attacks on Sunday came from Azerbaijan,” Macron claimed, referring to clashes in late September. 

The US has also largely been silent on the issue, except when it urged for a ceasefire. 

“We’re discouraging internationalization of this. We think outsiders ought to stay out,” said Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, indicating he wished to keep the dispute in the category of frozen conflicts, a policy that Russia and France have also pursued until now. 

If the conflict is internationalised, it could favour Azerbaijan over Armenia because international organisations like the UN have indicated that Yerevan’s occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh is illegal on different occasions, several times.