Il Nagorno-Karabakh like South Tyrol. Second Mario Raphael, negotiator and chairman of the first and most important peace conference (1992-93) on this Azerbaijani region inhabited by Armenians where war has returned in recent weeks, the "South Tyrolean solution" is the only practicable way to extinguish this frozen conflict and intermittently thawed.
In the PSI until 1994, then independent, Mario Raffaelli has now chosen Action, the movement founded by Carlo Calenda. He was undersecretary several times in the 2010s and since XNUMX he has been the president of Amref Health Italy, an international non-governmental organization based in Nairobi. He has followed many and different conflicts in his career, always as a mediator to affirm peace processes, especially in Africa (Mozambique, Somalia, the Horn of Africa) and in Nagorno Karabakh, in fact.
It must be said that in that piece of the Caucasus it all began even before the dissolution of the USSR. In full perestroika, at the beginning of 1988, the Armenians ask Moscow to expel the Azeris from 127 villages, but without waiting for Moscow's answer, in a single night, they destroy the town of Chodgiali, inhabited by the Azeris. The Azeri reaction is very harsh: the city of Sumgait falls, inhabited by thousands of Armenians who are slaughtered. Gorbachev tries to restore order, but by now the bell has rung for him too. And so, between one ignored order from the CPSU and another, we arrive at 1991, when lo strange coup against Gorbachev. The Azeri they understand that an era has ended and, before the red flag is lowered by the Kremlin, they hasten to leave the Union and proclaim itself an autonomous republic.
Even in Nagorno-Karabakh we want to take advantage of the imminent fall of the USSR to heal the odious contradiction invented by Stalin, who had forced Armenians to live in Azeri territory. And therefore an independent republic is proclaimed here too. The Azeris try to respond with the law, abolishing the autonomous statute of the region. But they are contradicted by the still living Soviet Constitutional Court: it is no longer a matter on which Azerbaijan can legislate. cheer up, the Armenians of Nagorno vote in a referendum confirmation to which they follow elections for a new Parliament. On 6 January 1992 the republic was officially proclaimed and on the 31st of the same month the Azeris take up arms bombing the region. Armenians of course answer and war breaks out which we are still talking about today. Since then the situation on the ground is the same: the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic exists de facto, but it is not recognized even by Armenia. The re-exploded conflict now sees heavier fighting than the last ones, which took place in 2016. It is not easy to get out of it because for both sides it is a question of identity, which no one wants to ignore. But since that area of the world is crucial in terms of international security (it is right next to Iran), as well as being a fundamental transit route for the energy that reaches Europe from the Caspian (we Italians are involved in the passage of the Tap, Trans Adriatic Pipeline, on our territory), it is better to find a solution. And then the word to Mario Raffaelli, connoisseur of the area and the problems it poses.
26 years have passed since the end of the first conflict between Azerbaijanis and Armenians and we are back to square one: did you expect it?
«Unfortunately yes, because in these 26 years the "Minsk group" has not made any progress. The situation that has arisen, therefore, is commonly defined as a "frozen conflict". But it is a debatable definition because, from time to time, conflicts thaw and armed confrontation can resume. It happened in 2016 and, again, last July. This essentially depends on the changed balance of forces and on Azerbaijan's perception that this indefinite prolongation of the "frozen conflict", without the slightest negotiating progress, inevitably leads to the simple consolidation of the status quo. A situation which, in addition to the territorial dispute over Nagorno Karabakh, also involves the occupation of seven Azeri districts adjacent to Nagorno and occupied at the time by Armenian troops".
Let's go back to those years, 1992/1993: what was the Minsk Group?
«The Minsk group was formed in 1992 by the CSCE (today the OSCE) to try to manage the Nagorno crisis. Nine countries were part of it (Germany, United States, Belarus, France, Italy, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, Czech Republic) and Italy, in my person, was entrusted with the Presidency. The intention was to arrive quickly at a Peace Conference which should have taken place in Baku. On the contrary, apart from the innumerable procedural difficulties (which role to assign in the negotiations to the representatives of the two communities - Armenians and Azeris - of Nagorno) the military events on the ground forced us to reopen the terms of the negotiations each time. I conducted numerous missions in the capitals of the main interested countries (not only those of Azerbaijan and Armenia, but also Moscow, Ankara, Tbilisi, Tehran). I was the first Western representative to visit Stepanakert (the capital of Nagorno, ed). All of this served essentially to provide the elements for the various resolutions of the UN Security Council, which aimed to negotiate partial ceasefires. The clash was interrupted in 1994 under the new Swedish presidency, which succeeded mine in the context of the rotation envisaged within the CSCE”.
What did the resolutions you managed to get approved by the UN contain?
«The three UN resolutions (822-853-874) were based on the recommendations I sent on behalf of the Minsk group in three reports to the Presidency of the Security Council. In particular, in addition to the classic requests (cessation of hostilities, respect for human rights, free access for humanitarian aid, invitation not to provide military aid to the parties) an essential point was the request for the withdrawal of the Armenian forces who had occupied areas beyond outside Nagorno Karabakh, with the simultaneous creation of conditions to ensure free movement in the area. These requests were contained in an "Adjusted Timetable" for the implementation of UN resolutions 822 and 853 ("Adjusted" because it was the subject of several modified versions in relation to the different positions between the parties), which was to allow the opening of the Conference of peace in which to face the political issues (including the final status of Nagorno Karabakh). This Road Map - aimed at the three main protagonists: Azerbaijan, Armenia and the people of Nagorno - was formally approved by resolution 874, but, unfortunately, remained a dead letter. The Armenians were not willing to make territorial concessions, also given their military superiority, and this was unacceptable for the Azeris".
Why hasn't anything changed?
“The situation has changed profoundly since then. Azerbaijan has significantly increased its economic and military potential. In 2016, with a military offensive like the one that began in recent days, he reconquered some parts of the districts bordering Nagorno. This new relationship of forces and the simultaneous election in Armenia of a new President (Nikol Paschinian) not belonging (unlike his two predecessors) to the Armenians of Nagorno, had given hope for the opening of a new phase. Unfortunately, after a promising start to dialogue, the situation has worsened again. There can be many reasons, but among them there is certainly the Azeri sense of frustration for the fear that time is starting to play against it, making the situation that has actually arisen on the ground irreversible. Which can also become dangerous in countries where democratic institutional systems are not consolidated".
You have proposed a solution like Alto Adige Sud-Tyrol in Italy: what does that mean?
«I mentioned the example of Alto Adige-South Tyrol because I had spoken about it at the time (not in the official negotiations) both with the Armenian President Ter Petrosian and with the Azerbaijani President Aliev (the father of the current one). I must say that at the time I noticed a certain interest from both of them. Then, however, I ceased my assignment, and, among other things, Ter Petrosian was dismissed in an authoritative manner by the Armenians of Nagorno (precisely because he was a moderate). However, the hypothesis has re-emerged several times, raised in conferences organized by research institutes and by illustrious academics (for example, Professor Toniatti). I myself, in December 2018, was invited to Baku by a strategic studies center (very close to President Aliev) to give a lecture on my experience of 1992-93. On that occasion I re-proposed the South Tyrolean model both during the conference and in the meetings I had during my stay. The enduring topicality of that model arises, in my opinion, from the impossibility of pursuing the two solutions that the two parties still propose today. The independence of Nagorno Karabakh is unrealistic (it is no coincidence that Armenia itself has never recognized it) but, at the same time, even the simple promise of autonomy within the Azerbaijani state is obviously unacceptable for the Armenians of Nagorno. The third way in the South Tyrolean example consists in an autonomy that respects the territorial integrity of the country in question (in our case Azerbaijan) but has an international anchor. That is, guaranteed internationally. It is not the only example that could be cited, but it is the one I know best regarding my region. Obviously the models don't necessarily have to be photocopied, what matters are the principles. And the awareness that then it takes decades to implement the solutions (in the South Tyrolean case from the "second Statute" from 1972 to 1992, the year of the "release receipt" by Austria). But it is one thing to spend the years in a situation of permanent conflict, quite another to live in a situation where the free movement of people and goods is possible and, therefore, cultural and commercial exchanges grow. And a positive economic dynamic opens up for all the parties involved».
What can Italy and Europe do?
«Nothing can happen without a strong international diplomatic initiative. The Minsk group itself, now represented by a troika (Russia, France and the United States) has lost much credibility. Putin, Trump and Macron have called for an immediate truce. Let's hope they are heard. But without a truce that can then set in motion the principles contained in the three UN resolutions mentioned, I think it is very difficult to create the conditions for real and lasting stability".
