AZERBAIJANI PUBLIC BEGINS TO DEBATE MINSK GROUP

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 BAKU 001164

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/08/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PBTS AM AJ
SUBJECT: AZERBAIJANI PUBLIC BEGINS TO DEBATE MINSK GROUP
CORE PRINCIPLES, SEES REFERENDUM AS REDLINE

REF: A) BAKU 1021 B) BAKU 976 (NOTAL)

Classified By: CHARGE D'AFFAIRES JASON P HYLAND PER 1.4(B,D)


1. (C) SUMMARY AND COMMENT: In the weeks since the OSCE Minsk
Group core principles for a settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict have become public, reaction in Azerbaijan
has shifted from official protestations of surprise and
knee-jerk sloganeering to a more nuanced discussion of the
merits of the principles led by a group of prominent
political analysts. There has been a distinct lack of angry
public outburst over the principles, most evident in the
Karabakh Liberation Organization's mild July 28 statement
that accepted the proposed return of five territories as a
positive step. However, all Azerbaijanis -- regardless of
political affiliation -- see the proposed referendum as a
redline that cannot be crossed. They also view long-term
arrangements for corridors in Lachin and Kelbajar as in need
of further scrutiny. More worrisome for the long-term
prospects for peace, most Azerbaijanis believe that the very
act of negotiating over the occupied territories constitutes
a concession on the part of Azerbaijan and, for this reason,
see the entire Minsk Group process as skewed in favor of
Armenia. With time, broad public debate over the core
principles of a peace deal hopefully will change these public
attitudes. The challenge now is to harness the fledgling
public debate led by a small group of political analysts into
a broader and far-reaching debate that helps steer the
general public into a conscious cost-benefit analysis of
peace. The lack of GOAJ public reaction to the analysts'
efforts to promote debate indicates that the GOAJ understands
the challenge and is giving political activists room for
debate. END SUMMARY AND COMMENT


2. (C) In the weeks following the public release of the OSCE
Minsk Group's core principles, the chattering classes have
slowly been debating the Minsk Group negotiation process and
the intent of the disclosure of the agreement. The initial
reaction of surprise to the release and the slogan-like
comments (ref a) have evolved into a more constructive
dialogue. Government officials, Members of Parliament (MPs),
political party leaders, political analysts, and members of
civil society consistently make the same point: that the idea
of conducting a referendum should not be up for discussion
until Armenia withdraws its forces from the territories.
Azerbaijanis from a broad range of views - whether
opposition, independent, or pro-GOAJ - agree that this is a
redline that should not be crossed.

KLO'S COMMENTS
--------------


3. (SBU) Not surprisingly, the strident Karabakh Liberation
Organization was quite critical of the principles. In a July
28 press interview, KLO Chairman Akif Naghi said that the
Minsk Group acts in favor of Armenia and that the Co-Chairs'
negotiations only serve Armenian interests. According to
Naghi, the disclosure of the framework agreement evidenced
the fact that for Azerbaijan, further participation in the
negotiation process is not reasonable. In contrast to his
typically negative comments, Naghi said that there is one
positive aspect of the framework - the liberation of five of
the occupied regions - but that the other aspects are "fully
in line" with Armenian interests. Naghi concluded that the
GOAJ is not taking serious diplomatic steps, and that because
peaceful measures have not been effective, Azerbaijan should
consider the use of force. In a separate appearance on a
television program, Naghi insisted that Azerbaijan should
never agree to a referendum, because the conduct of a
referendum could facilitate Armenia's claims to the
territories.

WORD FROM THE KARABAKH MPS
--------------


4. (C) In a meeting with Poloff, two MPs from the occupied
territories, Astan Shahverdiyev and Sevindik Hatamov shared
their frustration with the negotiation process. They said
that Azerbaijan is a strategic partner for the U.S. and that
they do not understand why the USG will not support
Azerbaijan in the conflict. According to Shahverdiyev, the
U.S. understands that Armenia is the aggressor, but does
nothing because of the influence of the U.S. Armenian lobby.
He said that DAS Bryza's comments that President Aliyev and
President Kocharian should prepare the public for compromise
is not accurate, because compromise with Armenia simply is
not possible. He also said that the Co-Chairs are being
unrealistic in proposing a referendum, because a discussion
on this matter will not be possible until Armenia withdraws

BAKU 00001164 002 OF 004


its troops. Shahverdiyev argued that returning five out of
seven territories does not make sense, and that the Minsk
group must be aware that the public will only accept the
return of all territories. Hatamov, who is from Lachin, said
that he cannot imagine a solution to the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict without a full return of Lachin. The two MPs said
that they frequently visit their constituents in the
IDP/refugee camps, and that a singular thought exists among
them - that of returning home.

THE OPPOSITION SPEAKS UP
--------------


5. (C) The Deputy Chairman of the Azerbaijan Democratic
Party, Sardar Jalaloghlu, told Poloff that the appointment of
DAS Bryza as Co-Chair of the Minsk Group was not aimed at
facilitating mediation, but rather to coerce the GOAJ into
compromising. In his opinion, the framework agreement is
asking Azerbaijan to make changes that are not a fair
compromise - namely the conduct of a referendum. Similarly,
opposition MP Jamil Hasanli told Poloff that he is pleased
neither with the decision to release the framework agreement
nor with the content of the agreement. He explained that the
issue should be viewed as black and white - as aggressor
versus victim. According to Hasanli, if the U.S. does not see
this distinction, resolving the conflict is impossible. He
said that the Azerbaijani people are upset with the way the
U.S. is treating the problem, and that because the Minsk
Group lacks the necessary mechanisms to solve the conflict,
the negotiation process should be left to Azerbaijan and
Armenia. Hasanli concluded that the Azerbaijani people feel
that the international community, particularly the U.S., is
pushing Azerbaijan to concede, and that the vast majority of
the population supports the GOAJ stance on this issue. Fuad
Mustafayev, Deputy Chairman of the Popular Front Party (PFP)
and Seymour Khaziyev, an active member of the PFP youth
movement, raised strong concerns over the idea of a
referendum.

FROM THE ANALYSTS
--------------


6. (C) Political analyst Leila Aliyeva told Poloff that the
release of the framework has put more pressure directly on
President Aliyev and President Kocharian. Although so far
there hasn't been much of a reaction to the release of the
framework, Aliyeva said, the public might react later. The
fact that most Azerbaijanis do not read newspapers, relying
instead on television news - which according to Aliyeva, is
completely controlled by the GOAJ - accounts for the
population's general political apathy. (Note: Aliyeva's
assessment does not take into account the independent ANS
television station, which reports on the conflict in Nagorno
Karabakh and the negotiation process in great detail.) As for
the content of the framework, Aliyeva feels that most of the
provisions are reasonable - with the exception of the
referendum. She argued that holding a referendum within
Nagorno Karabakh would not only contradict the Azerbaijani
Constitution, but also that it would be contrary to
international norms supporting a country's territorial
integrity. Aliyeva concluded that the Minsk Group is clearly
in favor of the Armenian side, and that the Co-Chairs are
largely ineffective.


7. (C) Rasim Musabayov told the Embassy that in his opinion,
the information was disclosed because the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chairs have run out of ideas and exhausted their options.
He also thinks that the timing of the release was intended to
bring the issue to light right before the G-8 summit.
Zardusht Alizade commented to the Embassy that the recent
events demonstrate in-fighting between the Minsk Group
Co-Chairs. He feels that the USG is trying to eliminate
Russian influence in the Caucasus, and wants to create GOAJ
and GOAM dependence on the USG in terms of conflict
settlement. Policy analyst and political activist Dadash
Alishov, in contrast, told Poloff that the disclosure of the
information was not surprising. He was pleased with the
honesty of the Co-Chairs and noted that the framework
agreement will provoke debate, bringing the issue to light in
both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Alishov commented, however, that
much of the general public does not seem to have noticed that
the framework agreement was released.


8. (C) In a joint statement released on July 28, ten of
Azerbaijan's most well-known political analysts praised the
disclosure of the framework agreement, but noted that a peace
agreement between the two sides is only possible if it is
accepted and supported by the greater public. The statement
argued that precise interpretation of the principles will be

BAKU 00001164 003 OF 004


necessary, and that two aspects must be further broken down:
the "liberation" of the Kelbajar and Lachin regions, and the
conduct of a referendum on the future status of Nagorno
Karabakh. The statement concluded that the proposed
principles are "balanced" and that their adoption might serve
as a strong base for the beginning of the peace process and
development of a wider agreement. In a television interview,
one of the analysts, Eldar Namazov explained that the intent
of the statement was not "pure acceptance" of the Minsk Group
proposals, but rather it was intended to reflect the areas
that need "correction" so that the framework may be used as a
basis for the peace process. He believes that the document
outlines a step-by-step approach that is acceptable for
Azerbaijan.

AN INDEPENDENT VOICE
--------------

9.(C) Asim Mollazade, an MP and the Chairman of the
Democratic Reforms party, told Poloff that he believes
releasing the information to the public was the correct step
to take at this juncture. He hopes that the announcement will
inspire serious public discussion on the negotiation process.
Echoing public sentiment, Mollazade explained that his party
does not support the idea of a referendum until after the
IDPs and refugees return to the territory. Only at that
point, he argued, can Azerbaijan seriously support peace and
work on building measures of confidence. That being said, he
continued, the Armenian side is clearly not ready to reach a
peace agreement. In Mollazade's opinion, the current Armenian
leadership has established power based on the conflict and is
not ready to relinquish its power.

A RULING PARTY PERSPECTIVE
--------------


10. (C) Yeni Azerbaijan Party MP Malahat Hasanova told Poloff
that there is a singular opinion in Azerbaijan on the
negotiation process, and that talking to oppositionists,
centrists, and pro-government individuals would yield the
same result. According to Hasanova, the core belief of the
Azerbaijani population is that Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity must be protected and, for this reason, that
discussion of a referendum would only be possible after
Armenia withdraws its troops. Hasanova recently spent several
days in her constituency (the village of Shamkir, which is
near Ganja),and said that people may not be aware of the
details of the negotiations, but they are certainly aware of
the principles. In conversations with her constituents,
Hasanova continued, people expressed their frustration of the
perceived lack of progress in the negotiation process, and
argued that compromise with Armenia is not possible. Hasanova
added that her constituents see the economy growing stronger,
and feel that Azerbaijan could easily strengthen its military
and prepare for war.

PUBLIC OPINION?
--------------


11. (C) In an attempt to gauge general reaction to the core
principles, we queried a broad cross-section of Embassy
contacts and ordinary Azerbaijanis and found that few people
were aware of the details of the core principles. Even the
well-educated and generally politically aware appear not to
be following the details, for example a returned Muskie
scholar who said he had been following the news regarding the
negotiations, but wasn't aware of the new announcement. He
expressed his opinion that many Azerbaijanis have not noticed
the release of the framework agreement because they are
constantly inundated with news about the conflict and the
negotiation process. Poloff spoke with many Azerbaijanis who
had no clue about the release of the framework agreement, but
each shared strong opinions against the idea of a referendum.
For them and for the overwhelming majority of Azerbaijanis,
this is a red line that they do not want their government to
cross.

COMMENT
--------------


12. (C) Public release of the Minsk Group core principles has
laid the groundwork for a nuanced discussion of the merits of
the principles. However, with public opinion overwhelmingly
opposed to any compromise that would affect the territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan, the small group of analysts leading
the debate right now faces a very tough challenge. In order
to create the environment necessary for a lasting peace, the
public must engage in a broad and far-reaching debate on the
merits of peace versus war, and the costs and benefits of

BAKU 00001164 004 OF 004


each to Azerbaijan's future. This presents an enormous policy
challenge for the GOAJ. Its lack of public reaction to the
analysts' July 28 statement, coupled with President Aliyev's
initial, positive reaction to the principles' release (ref
b),seems to indicate that the GOAJ understands the challenge
and is giving political activists room for debate.
HYLAND