Tweet
AFTER ENCOURAGEMENT OF CHERNOGORIA
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
June 13 2006
Interview of a political scientist, professor Alexander Minassyan
Mr. Minassyan, some home politicians predict drastic amplification of
pressure on Armenia and Azerbaijan by the OSCE MG cochair-countries
within the next three months in Karabakh issue. They motivate their
opinion by the fact that the OSCE MG Cochairman Stephen Mann had
predicted a break-through achievement in the negotiation process for
the Karabakh conflict settlement just for summer, 2006. What is your
vision of the existing situation?
I cannot say how much strong is the pressure. Those, who put pressure
and those who undergo pressure, can shed a light on it. However,
I should say that both the Russian, French and American Co-chairmen
permanently emphasize in their official statements that they do not
want to press down on the parties and they have to reach settlement
by themselves. By parties one should imply three parties, as it
has already been determined by the OSCE Minsk Group. The third
party is NKR. But how many years the meetings of the Presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan, which cannot be called negotiations, have
been taking place. These are meetings which prepare a wide format of
negotiations. Many political scientists and many in Karabakh perceive
the last negotiations just so. The NKR authorities had made it clear
more than once that no issue will be resolved without taking their
opinion into consideration and that they are a full-value negotiation
party.
As for the pressure, availability of balance of global geopolitical
forces on a region scale should be noted. Suffice it to say that the
cease-fire regime is maintained since 1994 without interference of
outer forces and without presence of peace-making forces. It means
that the region is in the area of forces balance and undertaking of
drastic steps is favorable to no of any great powers. It is quite
another matter that it has been ten years already we observe how each
of the great powers, I mean the USA, Europe, Russia, try to enter the
region, strengthening their positions by invisible successive steps,
prima facie, in order to change the balance of forces in the region.
The official meeting of the Presidents of USA and Azerbaijan, held at
the end of April, was in the center of attention of the regional Mass
Media. The meeting was followed by the letter of George Bush to Ilham
Aliyev. Do you consider this letter as an evidence of realization of
the White House's plans with respect to Iran?
The open letters do not coincide with the reality in times and purpose
agitation aims in times, though I cannot apply it all particularly to
this letter. It's not the first time the Co-chairmen state that some
months are left till the Karabakh conflict settlement, however, nothing
of the kind happens. Such a tendency gets explanation through the prism
of the political line of the USA, European Union and Russia, aimed at
the strengthening of own positions in the South-Caucasian region. As
for Azerbaijan, one should not forget that the republic itself is
an explosive formation, where there are numerous contradictions
between the Shiites and non-Shiites, Azerbaijan Turks and non-Turks:
Lezghins, Tats, Talyshes, Avars, which can become vitally important
for Azerbaijan if Baku undertakes a gamble.
How much important is the Iranian factor in Azerbaijan? I mean a
political and religious influence of Iran.
The recent years, Turkey is working more actively in Azerbaijan than
Iran. It is quite clear since collision of interests takes place
today between Azerbaijan and Iran, there are contradictions in
definite programs, in the oil one, in particular. Mosques not for
Shiites are built in the present Azerbaijan with special aplomb,
it is permanently advocated that Azerbaijanians are Turks, though
Azerbaijanians do not represent themselves, even today, as a society
with a homogeneous origin. I think, the anti-Armenian hysteria in
Azerbaijan is partly explained by a strive to join all these ethnic
groups into a united nation under pretence of unification necessity
in the face of the common enemy.
If Turkey has an influence in the so-called South Azerbaijan, and in
your opinion, if the Turkish special services can be connected with
escalation of the situation in Eastern Iran?
Undoubtedly, they are. But I think, Iran is not the country, with
respect to whom adventurous steps can be undertaken. Although,
the case with Yugoslavia and Iraq indicates that there are forces
in the USA, ready to make such crazy attempts. Having not digested
Yugoslavia, the United States launched a war against Iraq, having not
digested Iraq, they started to undertake steps against Iran. However,
it cannot last endlessly. Especially as voices are heard in Europe,
which call up to a common sense in order to sober up Washington. Of
course, peace is favourable for the whole region and economies of
all countries of the region are need of peace.
Contradictory opinions are heard with regard to the geopolitical
situation in the South Caucasus. Some people say the great investments
in Azerbaijan and the problem of Baku-Tbilisi-Jeikhan oil line safety
will force the West to hinder from attempts of destabilization in
the region. Others assure that the USA will try to use the security
area around Nagorno Karabakh as a base in possible operations against
Iran, emphasizing that in view of the Law adopted by Azerbaijan's
Milli Mejlis on prohibition of foreign military bases disposal in
the country's territory, allocation of peace-makers is the only
possibility for the American military men to take stands on the border
with Iran.
There are many players in the region, therefore, it can be affirmed
that political forecasts concerning the regional development are
an ungrateful thing. The matter is that each side has its scenario,
and not one but tens of possible scenarios and it is difficult to say
which scenario will be used by either. In my opinion, sober analysis
of events for the recent two years indicates that Azerbaijan does
not want to have peacemaking forces in its country, Baku understands
the danger of such a step. It proceeds from the vital interests of
Azerbaijan, since it is obvious that blood was inevitably shed where
the so-called peacemaking forces were allocated. The fact that official
Baku shows caution and even adopted a Law on prohibition of foreign
military bases disposal, allows to hope that one will be sober enough
in Azerbaijan not to make drastic steps, in the issue of peace-makers
allocation, in particular. Although, I have to repeat that it is not
easy to make forecasts regarding such an intricate region.
One question more, which had bored to death but which did not loose
its urgency, nevertheless. A precedent, created by separation of
Chernogoria from Serbia and, in future, gaining of independence
by Kosovo autonomy. What can the Armenian party undertake in this
direction?
Undoubtedly, efforts are required from us to give a correct comment
to the events in the former Yugoslavia for the welfare of Nagorno
Karabakh. Certainly, the President of Russia and other high-ranking
persons stated that the approach to the Kosovo problem should
become universal for the conflicts in the post-Soviet territory
for recognition of unrecognized states. We have to activate our
efforts and I treat with comprehension those means of agitation and
those state officials who emphasize the significance of Chernogoria
precedent. However, I should note that encouragement of Chernogoria was
a political decision. I think it's incorrectly to make a political
precedent a corner stone. We should permanently emphasize legal
aspects of the Karabakh problem and to represent these events as
legal precedent. However, I should note that gain of sovereignty by
countries based on a political decision cannot be considered as a
precedent. A precedent is, first of all, a category of law and not
politics. Therefore, we have to emphasize, first of all, the legal
aspect of the problem to represent the precedent in a worthy manner.
Yet, it is evident, the Great Powers say the conflict has its
specific character, attaching the conflict resolution to political
aspects. There is a great number of such precedents and it is necessary
to represent them as a regularity. If we give an example of Eritrea,
Eastern Timor, etc., one cannot say there are precedents, but we
must say all this is considered a regularity in the modern field of
international relations, in which Karabakh should be also included. We
have to be guided by this formula. But, at the same time, we must
represent the legal bases up to the mark. Undoubtedly, Karabakh
has more powerful bases for international recognition, it is a more
legitimate state than in all the above-mentioned cases.
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
June 13 2006
Interview of a political scientist, professor Alexander Minassyan
Mr. Minassyan, some home politicians predict drastic amplification of
pressure on Armenia and Azerbaijan by the OSCE MG cochair-countries
within the next three months in Karabakh issue. They motivate their
opinion by the fact that the OSCE MG Cochairman Stephen Mann had
predicted a break-through achievement in the negotiation process for
the Karabakh conflict settlement just for summer, 2006. What is your
vision of the existing situation?
I cannot say how much strong is the pressure. Those, who put pressure
and those who undergo pressure, can shed a light on it. However,
I should say that both the Russian, French and American Co-chairmen
permanently emphasize in their official statements that they do not
want to press down on the parties and they have to reach settlement
by themselves. By parties one should imply three parties, as it
has already been determined by the OSCE Minsk Group. The third
party is NKR. But how many years the meetings of the Presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan, which cannot be called negotiations, have
been taking place. These are meetings which prepare a wide format of
negotiations. Many political scientists and many in Karabakh perceive
the last negotiations just so. The NKR authorities had made it clear
more than once that no issue will be resolved without taking their
opinion into consideration and that they are a full-value negotiation
party.
As for the pressure, availability of balance of global geopolitical
forces on a region scale should be noted. Suffice it to say that the
cease-fire regime is maintained since 1994 without interference of
outer forces and without presence of peace-making forces. It means
that the region is in the area of forces balance and undertaking of
drastic steps is favorable to no of any great powers. It is quite
another matter that it has been ten years already we observe how each
of the great powers, I mean the USA, Europe, Russia, try to enter the
region, strengthening their positions by invisible successive steps,
prima facie, in order to change the balance of forces in the region.
The official meeting of the Presidents of USA and Azerbaijan, held at
the end of April, was in the center of attention of the regional Mass
Media. The meeting was followed by the letter of George Bush to Ilham
Aliyev. Do you consider this letter as an evidence of realization of
the White House's plans with respect to Iran?
The open letters do not coincide with the reality in times and purpose
agitation aims in times, though I cannot apply it all particularly to
this letter. It's not the first time the Co-chairmen state that some
months are left till the Karabakh conflict settlement, however, nothing
of the kind happens. Such a tendency gets explanation through the prism
of the political line of the USA, European Union and Russia, aimed at
the strengthening of own positions in the South-Caucasian region. As
for Azerbaijan, one should not forget that the republic itself is
an explosive formation, where there are numerous contradictions
between the Shiites and non-Shiites, Azerbaijan Turks and non-Turks:
Lezghins, Tats, Talyshes, Avars, which can become vitally important
for Azerbaijan if Baku undertakes a gamble.
How much important is the Iranian factor in Azerbaijan? I mean a
political and religious influence of Iran.
The recent years, Turkey is working more actively in Azerbaijan than
Iran. It is quite clear since collision of interests takes place
today between Azerbaijan and Iran, there are contradictions in
definite programs, in the oil one, in particular. Mosques not for
Shiites are built in the present Azerbaijan with special aplomb,
it is permanently advocated that Azerbaijanians are Turks, though
Azerbaijanians do not represent themselves, even today, as a society
with a homogeneous origin. I think, the anti-Armenian hysteria in
Azerbaijan is partly explained by a strive to join all these ethnic
groups into a united nation under pretence of unification necessity
in the face of the common enemy.
If Turkey has an influence in the so-called South Azerbaijan, and in
your opinion, if the Turkish special services can be connected with
escalation of the situation in Eastern Iran?
Undoubtedly, they are. But I think, Iran is not the country, with
respect to whom adventurous steps can be undertaken. Although,
the case with Yugoslavia and Iraq indicates that there are forces
in the USA, ready to make such crazy attempts. Having not digested
Yugoslavia, the United States launched a war against Iraq, having not
digested Iraq, they started to undertake steps against Iran. However,
it cannot last endlessly. Especially as voices are heard in Europe,
which call up to a common sense in order to sober up Washington. Of
course, peace is favourable for the whole region and economies of
all countries of the region are need of peace.
Contradictory opinions are heard with regard to the geopolitical
situation in the South Caucasus. Some people say the great investments
in Azerbaijan and the problem of Baku-Tbilisi-Jeikhan oil line safety
will force the West to hinder from attempts of destabilization in
the region. Others assure that the USA will try to use the security
area around Nagorno Karabakh as a base in possible operations against
Iran, emphasizing that in view of the Law adopted by Azerbaijan's
Milli Mejlis on prohibition of foreign military bases disposal in
the country's territory, allocation of peace-makers is the only
possibility for the American military men to take stands on the border
with Iran.
There are many players in the region, therefore, it can be affirmed
that political forecasts concerning the regional development are
an ungrateful thing. The matter is that each side has its scenario,
and not one but tens of possible scenarios and it is difficult to say
which scenario will be used by either. In my opinion, sober analysis
of events for the recent two years indicates that Azerbaijan does
not want to have peacemaking forces in its country, Baku understands
the danger of such a step. It proceeds from the vital interests of
Azerbaijan, since it is obvious that blood was inevitably shed where
the so-called peacemaking forces were allocated. The fact that official
Baku shows caution and even adopted a Law on prohibition of foreign
military bases disposal, allows to hope that one will be sober enough
in Azerbaijan not to make drastic steps, in the issue of peace-makers
allocation, in particular. Although, I have to repeat that it is not
easy to make forecasts regarding such an intricate region.
One question more, which had bored to death but which did not loose
its urgency, nevertheless. A precedent, created by separation of
Chernogoria from Serbia and, in future, gaining of independence
by Kosovo autonomy. What can the Armenian party undertake in this
direction?
Undoubtedly, efforts are required from us to give a correct comment
to the events in the former Yugoslavia for the welfare of Nagorno
Karabakh. Certainly, the President of Russia and other high-ranking
persons stated that the approach to the Kosovo problem should
become universal for the conflicts in the post-Soviet territory
for recognition of unrecognized states. We have to activate our
efforts and I treat with comprehension those means of agitation and
those state officials who emphasize the significance of Chernogoria
precedent. However, I should note that encouragement of Chernogoria was
a political decision. I think it's incorrectly to make a political
precedent a corner stone. We should permanently emphasize legal
aspects of the Karabakh problem and to represent these events as
legal precedent. However, I should note that gain of sovereignty by
countries based on a political decision cannot be considered as a
precedent. A precedent is, first of all, a category of law and not
politics. Therefore, we have to emphasize, first of all, the legal
aspect of the problem to represent the precedent in a worthy manner.
Yet, it is evident, the Great Powers say the conflict has its
specific character, attaching the conflict resolution to political
aspects. There is a great number of such precedents and it is necessary
to represent them as a regularity. If we give an example of Eritrea,
Eastern Timor, etc., one cannot say there are precedents, but we
must say all this is considered a regularity in the modern field of
international relations, in which Karabakh should be also included. We
have to be guided by this formula. But, at the same time, we must
represent the legal bases up to the mark. Undoubtedly, Karabakh
has more powerful bases for international recognition, it is a more
legitimate state than in all the above-mentioned cases.