Tweet
Karabakh conflict: ways of settlement
Vladimir Kazimirov
YERKIR
>>From 1992 to 1996 Mr Kazimirov was the head of the Russian
mediation mission; Russian president's representative for Nagorno
Karabakh issue; and the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Vladimir Kazimirov's analyses regarding the Karabakh conflict are
available on his personal web site at: www.vn.kazimirov.ru
Dear readers,
Between February 22 and 28, 2005, you had an opportunity to address
your questions on the Yerkir's website to VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV. From
1992 to 1996 Mr Kazimirov was the head of the Russian mediation
mission; Russian president's representative for Nagorno Karabakh
issue; and the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Below are some of the asnwers in English. The full version of the
interview is available in Armenian and Russian.
Thank you for your active participation: Spartak Seyranian,
editor-in-chief of "Yerkir" Weekly.
Lori Holomquist - Dear Mr. Kazimirov, where does Russia stand on the
issue of the Armenian Genocide? It is the latest fashion in academic
and political circles to talk about "the judgment of historians".
There is a clear tendency to move the issue of genocide from
political to purely historical context, thus eliminating all
possibilities of finding a political solution to the Armenian
genocide. How do you evaluate those efforts? What would be Russia's
role in this case? Is Russia willing to change attitude and raise its
voice? Because no Russian can claim, that he or she is not aware of
the essence of the problem? How do you explain the silence of Russian
deputies or representatives in different international instances
whenever the Armenian Genocide issue is raised? Thank you.
V. K.- This issue is not directly connected with the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict, thought the indirect impact is undeniable. As
for Russia, its parliament has voiced its opinion long ago. That
black date will mark its 90th anniversary soon, and they do not
forget about it here. Unfortunately, the issue is more discussed in
some countries than it is in Turkey.
Lori Holomquist - Dear Mr. Kazirov, The Caucasus has been an
important strategic region for Russia. Bearing in mind the latest
political events in mind, and the American plans to draw a new map of
the region both in the Middle East and in Asia, it is hard to find
any concrete Russian counter plans. Should we translate this as
concession, has Russia given up its interest in the area? I am
talking especially about the Caucasus. Is there any chance that
Russia will herself come up with a new map of the region? If that is
the case, what could happen to Nakhichevan? Or Georgia, and Armenia?
What would the future Azerbaijan look like? Thank you in advance for
your answers.
V. K.- I think it is the peoples of the region who should suggest a
new map and not Washington or Moscow. However, it should be done
based on good will and consensus. It should not be done roughly and
unskillfully. Let me repeat myself: one of Russia's priorities is the
ensuring of the security in the region.
Sevak - Mr. Kazimirov, Is there any final solution for Karabakh
problem? And what do you think about the liberated territories of
Karabakh should they (Armenians) return it to Azerbaijan when both
countries rich in final agreement?
V. K. - Of course there is one, there has be one. The expression "the
liberated territories of Karabakh" is somewhat vague; it is not clear
what is meant by it. My opinion is that the Azerbaijani territories
outside Karabakh should be freed stage by stage under certain
conditions (before the final settlement of the status for Karabakh,
demilitarization and so on.) I think that special conditions will be
needed in the case of the Lachin and Kelbajar regions. But before
that, the sides should absolutely and clearly commit that that all
disputes should be resolved exclusively by peaceful means (under
weighty international guarantees), and the outline of Nagorno
Karabakh should be corrected. The former borders of the Nagorno
Karabakh Autonomous Region are too artificial and hence unpractical
for the first decades of reconciliation. This is, however, my
personal view of settling the Karabakh conflict.
Mikhail Aramazdanian - What if, and lets say "if" that Artsakh army
pulls out of Karabakh and all the Armenians leave Artsakh since some
Azeri officials want this. And if so, wouldn't that area become a
financial burden for Azerbaijan, since this is a large piece of land
we are talking about, wouldn't it take Azerbaijan years maybe never
to build Artsakh back to where it has been in the past or what it is
today if everyone left. I mean if they don't have money to Support
the Refugees in Azerbaijan, how could they even hope to rebuild land
and build houses for the Azeri peoples to move back or repopulate? Or
is this not what Azerbaijan wants? But my main question is, if
Azerbaijan does get Artsakh back, will it be able to support this
area of Land or will it be the same as what is happening in Georgia
with Javakhk?
V.K. - I can't assume knowing everything, I am not used to it. I
think this question should be directed to the Azeris.
Zaven Sarkissian, Toronto, Canada - If peaceful coexistence is the
desired outcome of this conflict, why then the present status quo has
not been accepted by the international community, which has
experienced over ten years of "peaceful" coexistence regardless what
each side ideally wished to achieve? Do you think Karabakh will
always(for the foreseeable future)remain "the unresolved problem",
such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will erupt once in a
while, coincidentally every time the Superpowers disagree with one
another and/or with one of the sides involved. What is your solution?
V. K. - The eleven years of ceasefire could hardly be called a period
of peaceful coexistence. The main issue, the fate of Nagorno Karabakh
has not been decided; the cancer of the occupied Azerbaijani
territories has not been eliminated; the sides are just training
their muscles, and some are continuously threatening to ignore "any
price." There is no cooperation whatsoever; no clear negotiations are
even under way. The lack of military activities does not mean
"peaceful coexistence." Such status quo is deficient for all the
sides; it requires changes but clever ones, without using force,
which should not be allowed. I have published my suggestions long ago
on my web site.
Gevork (Canada) - Mr. Kazimirov, following regularly the hostile
declarations of Azerbaijani leaders and Azerbaijani media as well as
the uncompromising stance of that country, I have the strong
impression that the main problem for the resolution of the NKR
conflict is mostly related to national pride and a great sense of
frustration, due to military failure, in the Azerbaijani society.
Perhaps, if Azerbaijan is healed from this feeling, things would
considerably improve in the negotiation process! (and perhaps you
might consider me naive!). Therefore, what measures does the Minsk
group take (or what could be done) to explain or demonstrate to the
Azeris that Armenia does not consider itself as a "victor" (in the
classical sense), that the populations of Armenia and NKR have also
immensely suffered (maybe more!) from the conflict, that this is not
about "winners" or "losers", and that correcting a historic mistake
that happened more than 80 years ago is not intended to humiliate the
Azeri nation. In other words, letting them clearly understand that
revenge will only lead to a vicious circle that will paralyze the
region for decades and even centuries. Your thoughts on all of the
above please!
V. K. - The emotional factors, indeed, play some role. In that
respect, Armenians should not boast about their victory. Especially
that all the sides have suffered and continue to suffer from the
conflict. I would like to believe that both nations are looking ahead
to a leader who would have enough courage to openly advocate for a
historic reconciliation of Armenians and Azeris.
See the full version of the interview in Armenian and Russian.
Vladimir Kazimirov
YERKIR
>>From 1992 to 1996 Mr Kazimirov was the head of the Russian
mediation mission; Russian president's representative for Nagorno
Karabakh issue; and the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Vladimir Kazimirov's analyses regarding the Karabakh conflict are
available on his personal web site at: www.vn.kazimirov.ru
Dear readers,
Between February 22 and 28, 2005, you had an opportunity to address
your questions on the Yerkir's website to VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV. From
1992 to 1996 Mr Kazimirov was the head of the Russian mediation
mission; Russian president's representative for Nagorno Karabakh
issue; and the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Below are some of the asnwers in English. The full version of the
interview is available in Armenian and Russian.
Thank you for your active participation: Spartak Seyranian,
editor-in-chief of "Yerkir" Weekly.
Lori Holomquist - Dear Mr. Kazimirov, where does Russia stand on the
issue of the Armenian Genocide? It is the latest fashion in academic
and political circles to talk about "the judgment of historians".
There is a clear tendency to move the issue of genocide from
political to purely historical context, thus eliminating all
possibilities of finding a political solution to the Armenian
genocide. How do you evaluate those efforts? What would be Russia's
role in this case? Is Russia willing to change attitude and raise its
voice? Because no Russian can claim, that he or she is not aware of
the essence of the problem? How do you explain the silence of Russian
deputies or representatives in different international instances
whenever the Armenian Genocide issue is raised? Thank you.
V. K.- This issue is not directly connected with the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict, thought the indirect impact is undeniable. As
for Russia, its parliament has voiced its opinion long ago. That
black date will mark its 90th anniversary soon, and they do not
forget about it here. Unfortunately, the issue is more discussed in
some countries than it is in Turkey.
Lori Holomquist - Dear Mr. Kazirov, The Caucasus has been an
important strategic region for Russia. Bearing in mind the latest
political events in mind, and the American plans to draw a new map of
the region both in the Middle East and in Asia, it is hard to find
any concrete Russian counter plans. Should we translate this as
concession, has Russia given up its interest in the area? I am
talking especially about the Caucasus. Is there any chance that
Russia will herself come up with a new map of the region? If that is
the case, what could happen to Nakhichevan? Or Georgia, and Armenia?
What would the future Azerbaijan look like? Thank you in advance for
your answers.
V. K.- I think it is the peoples of the region who should suggest a
new map and not Washington or Moscow. However, it should be done
based on good will and consensus. It should not be done roughly and
unskillfully. Let me repeat myself: one of Russia's priorities is the
ensuring of the security in the region.
Sevak - Mr. Kazimirov, Is there any final solution for Karabakh
problem? And what do you think about the liberated territories of
Karabakh should they (Armenians) return it to Azerbaijan when both
countries rich in final agreement?
V. K. - Of course there is one, there has be one. The expression "the
liberated territories of Karabakh" is somewhat vague; it is not clear
what is meant by it. My opinion is that the Azerbaijani territories
outside Karabakh should be freed stage by stage under certain
conditions (before the final settlement of the status for Karabakh,
demilitarization and so on.) I think that special conditions will be
needed in the case of the Lachin and Kelbajar regions. But before
that, the sides should absolutely and clearly commit that that all
disputes should be resolved exclusively by peaceful means (under
weighty international guarantees), and the outline of Nagorno
Karabakh should be corrected. The former borders of the Nagorno
Karabakh Autonomous Region are too artificial and hence unpractical
for the first decades of reconciliation. This is, however, my
personal view of settling the Karabakh conflict.
Mikhail Aramazdanian - What if, and lets say "if" that Artsakh army
pulls out of Karabakh and all the Armenians leave Artsakh since some
Azeri officials want this. And if so, wouldn't that area become a
financial burden for Azerbaijan, since this is a large piece of land
we are talking about, wouldn't it take Azerbaijan years maybe never
to build Artsakh back to where it has been in the past or what it is
today if everyone left. I mean if they don't have money to Support
the Refugees in Azerbaijan, how could they even hope to rebuild land
and build houses for the Azeri peoples to move back or repopulate? Or
is this not what Azerbaijan wants? But my main question is, if
Azerbaijan does get Artsakh back, will it be able to support this
area of Land or will it be the same as what is happening in Georgia
with Javakhk?
V.K. - I can't assume knowing everything, I am not used to it. I
think this question should be directed to the Azeris.
Zaven Sarkissian, Toronto, Canada - If peaceful coexistence is the
desired outcome of this conflict, why then the present status quo has
not been accepted by the international community, which has
experienced over ten years of "peaceful" coexistence regardless what
each side ideally wished to achieve? Do you think Karabakh will
always(for the foreseeable future)remain "the unresolved problem",
such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will erupt once in a
while, coincidentally every time the Superpowers disagree with one
another and/or with one of the sides involved. What is your solution?
V. K. - The eleven years of ceasefire could hardly be called a period
of peaceful coexistence. The main issue, the fate of Nagorno Karabakh
has not been decided; the cancer of the occupied Azerbaijani
territories has not been eliminated; the sides are just training
their muscles, and some are continuously threatening to ignore "any
price." There is no cooperation whatsoever; no clear negotiations are
even under way. The lack of military activities does not mean
"peaceful coexistence." Such status quo is deficient for all the
sides; it requires changes but clever ones, without using force,
which should not be allowed. I have published my suggestions long ago
on my web site.
Gevork (Canada) - Mr. Kazimirov, following regularly the hostile
declarations of Azerbaijani leaders and Azerbaijani media as well as
the uncompromising stance of that country, I have the strong
impression that the main problem for the resolution of the NKR
conflict is mostly related to national pride and a great sense of
frustration, due to military failure, in the Azerbaijani society.
Perhaps, if Azerbaijan is healed from this feeling, things would
considerably improve in the negotiation process! (and perhaps you
might consider me naive!). Therefore, what measures does the Minsk
group take (or what could be done) to explain or demonstrate to the
Azeris that Armenia does not consider itself as a "victor" (in the
classical sense), that the populations of Armenia and NKR have also
immensely suffered (maybe more!) from the conflict, that this is not
about "winners" or "losers", and that correcting a historic mistake
that happened more than 80 years ago is not intended to humiliate the
Azeri nation. In other words, letting them clearly understand that
revenge will only lead to a vicious circle that will paralyze the
region for decades and even centuries. Your thoughts on all of the
above please!
V. K. - The emotional factors, indeed, play some role. In that
respect, Armenians should not boast about their victory. Especially
that all the sides have suffered and continue to suffer from the
conflict. I would like to believe that both nations are looking ahead
to a leader who would have enough courage to openly advocate for a
historic reconciliation of Armenians and Azeris.
See the full version of the interview in Armenian and Russian.