="justify">Although the incidents occurred in Karabagh in the immediate aftermath of Armenian presidential elections has calmed down for a while, Karabagh problem continues to be a significant agenda item of Azeri-Armenian bilateral relations and regional politics in the Southern Caucasus.

ßdeclarations made by Azeri and Armenian authorities in its aftermath show that Karabagh problem will be seriously debated in the coming days.

Indeed, there is no direct reference to Karabagh problem in the final declaration of the Bucharest Summit; however, paragraph 43 of this document summarizes NATO’s indirect perception of this issue:

“We are concerned with the persistence of regional conflicts in the South Caucasus and the Republic of Moldova. Our nations support the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. We will continue to support efforts towards a peaceful settlement of these regional conflicts, taking into account these principles.”

From these expressions, it can be inferred that NATO would continue to support peaceful solution of the Karabagh problem. What is more, the expression stipulating that NATO members support territorial integrity of the states in the region supports the previous resolution of United Nations General Assembly (14 March 2008 – Number A/62/L.42) which had recognized the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded total and immediate Armenian withdrawal from the occupied territories. However, three co-chairs (USA, Russia and France) of the Minsk Group, which had established for the solution of the Karabagh problem had voted against this decision, Such an attitude shattered Azeri confidence on this establishment. By the way, Azeri authorities made declarations in favor of a major revision in the structure of the Minsk group. For example, the Azeri Ambassador in Moscow, Polat Bulbuloglu, said in a press conference that they would demand an increase in the efficiency of the other members of the Minsk Group (namely, Italy, Finland, Turkey and Belarus) in the solution of the Karabagh problem. In other words, it can be argues that in the light of recent developments, Azeri authorities had the impression that the co-chairs of the Minsk Group lost their objectivity and this problem can only be surpassed through reorganization of the functional structure of this establishment.

Returning to NATO Summit, although the declarations made by Azeri President ?lham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisyan, who is expected to assume presidency on April 9, seemed to be promising regarding the solution of the Karabagh problem, the wording of these declarations hardly moved beyond the cliché that had been repeated so far. Both leaders expressed that they demanded deepening of the relations between their countries and NATO structures and emphasized their beleif in the peaceful solution of the Karabagh problem. However, they also pursued to blame each other. Sarkisyan argued that Karabagh problem could only be resolved thorugh mutual negotiations in a peaceful manner, but he added that this attitude had not always been shared by Azerbaijan in the negotiations. ?lham Aliyev, on the other hand, emphasized that Karabagh problem could only be resolved after the maintenance of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and brought Armenian occupation of Azeri territories to the forefront. In sum, both leaders demonstrated that resolution of this problem in the short term seemed extremely difficult.

However, it can be said that the opposition both in Armenia and Azerbaijan are more open to mutual negotiations. Although Armenian opposition has largely been suppressed, the declarations of former Armenian President Levon Ter Petrosyan during his presidential election campaign on the resolution of the Karabagh problem were interesting. On the other hand, on the eve of presidential elections, Azeri opposition also seemed to be more moderate regarding mutual negotiations. For example, Serdar Celaloglu, the chairman of Democratic Part of Azerbaijan and this party’s candidate for presidency and Mubariz Gurbanli from New Azerbaijan Party emphasized continuation of negotiations and the need for agreeing on common principles. In sum, it can be said that Karabagh question will be a matter of discussion in the internal policies of both countries as well.

Another significant development after Bucharest Summit is important for demonstrating the paradoxes of Armenian policies towards the Karabagh problem. While Sarkisyan was giving the impression in Bucharest that Armenia was ready for negotiations for the resolution of the Karabagh problem, President Kocharian spoke extremely though on the same matter. He said: “Azerbaijan's behavior at the negotiations, its latest steps, are forcing the Armenian side to take resolute action. What steps these are going to be - the recognition of independence, an agreement in the sphere of defense or any other - is for the newly elected president of Armenia to decide.”

When these expressions are read carefully, it is visible that Kocharian said that Armenia could officialy recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabagh; however, it is also visible that Kocharian tries to escape from the political responsibility of this decision through leaving it for the new president’s agenda. Such a clear stipulation violating Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity conflicts both with the recent resolution of the United Nations General Assembly and the final declaration of the Bucharest Summit. These expressions also shows that although Armenian authorities try to establish abroad the impression that they are ready for negotiations, in domestic politics they continue the policy of not resolving the problem.

Taking together the resolution adopted by United Nations General Assembly and the final declaration of Bucharest Summit, it can be said that Armenia is in a difficult position considering the recent and unfamiliar attitude of international community. However, still, the rejection of UN General Assembly resolution by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group resulted in questioning its proper functioning and objectivity. When Kocharian’s recent declaration has been added to this, it seems unlikely for Armenia to take concrete steps for the solution of the Karabagh problem. The upcoming presidential elections in Azerbaijan might produce similar results as well. Hence the final solution of the Karabagh problem is still far away.