Tweet
ZEYNO BARAN: "EVEN IF ARMENIA RECOGNIZES INDEPENDENCE OF NAGORNO KARABAKH, NONE OF THE COUNTRIES, INCLUDING ITS ALLY RUSSIA, WILL SUPPORT IT"
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/ 44089.html
April 7 2008
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with Zeyno Baran, head of the programs on Eurasian
policy of Hadson Institute (the United States).
-What is a purpose of your current visit to Azerbaijan?
-I want to hold a number of meetings to discuss issues, regarding
energy and some regional problems here.
-You have arrived in Baku from Bucharest, where you took part in the
NATO summit. Possible accession of two post-Soviet republics-Georgia
and Ukraine to NATO was stressed during the event. Is Azerbaijan's
accession to NATO real?
-Indeed, Georgia's and Ukraine's accession to the alliance was
discussed during the summit. It is important that the date of their
accession has already been declared and due decision was made.
Thus, NATO, by admitting Georgia, will enter the Caucasus, and then
the accession will be possible for Azerbaijan.
It should be noted that Ukraine and Georgia were more active in the
striving to access NATO, but I think Azerbaijan will also become the
member of the alliance in the end.
Will NATO membership help Georgia and Azerbaijan to settle conflicts
on this territory?
-I can cite the example of Turkey and Greece. If these countries
were not NATO members in culmination period of the conflict, they
would have experienced greater tenseness in relations. But the NATO
membership stabilized the situation timely.
Therefore, if Georgia becomes member of NATO, its relations with Russia
would be more independent than now as Russia will not be able to put
such pressure on Georgia. For instance, Russia avoids confrontation
with Poland and Lithuania, which have become NATO members.
At the same time, it is not known, whether problems of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia will be settled before or after Georgia's accession
to NATO.
-What do you think of the failure of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing
countries to support the UN resolution, which fixed support to the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan?
-On the whole, the Minsk group did not want the resolution to be
raised. Presidential elections have been held in Armenia not long
before, and a new President was elected. I think Azerbaijan should
have worked moreat this issue before raising it. I think it would be
better for it to avoid raising the issue.
Nevertheless, the United Stattes, Russia and France, which are
mediators of the conflict settlement, were able to express a single
position on the said issue. In the result, they decided to vote
against and explained it by the fact that the support of resolution
would have undermined their influence on Armenia. By saying no they
faced Azerbaijan's resentment. The co-chairs wanted to make amendments
to the resolution but in the end they decided to say no.
In the result each side was discontented.
If the Karabakh problem was so easy, it would have been settled
long before. The further resolution of the Konflict depends both
on Azerbaijan and Armenia. The inauguration of the new president
of Armenia will take place on April 9. If the sides can see the
perspective, they will be able to take further steps.
Official Baku should agree that the co-chairing countries, are not
supporters of Yerevan, only because they voted against resolution.
They recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. I think the
mediators should explain their position to the Azerbaijani people.
The people of Azerbaijan should not think that the co-chairs are
unfair.
I understand the Azerbaijani side when they say: "If the United States
recognize territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, why don't they support
us?". But the Azerbaijani powers should make the position of the OSCE
Minsk group for themselves and explain it to their people.
-The working president of Armenia Kocharyan, inspired by the Kosovo
precedence, spoke of possible soonest recognition of independence
of Nagorno Karabakh by Yerevan. Is this step real and what will be
the results?
-I think the president said it to consolidate positions of his country
before talks with participation of the new President of Armenia. But
the independence of Kosovo was recognized by another reason. Kosovo
was controlled by NATO and was de-facto independent.
In the result this independence was recognized officially, despite
the protests of some countries, including Serbia and Russia.
But if Armenia takes this decision, no one will recognize Nagorno
Karabakh. No one will understand it. In the reality it will be like
recognition of independence of Northern Cyprus only by Turkey.
If Armenia recognizes independence of Nagorno Karabakh, this decision
will be support by no one, including the Minsk group, including Russia,
which is Yerevan's ally on some issues. Therefore, I do not take such
statements of the Armenian leadership seriously.
-What do you think of Armenians' reproaches that the objectivity of
US co-chair of OSCE Minsk group Matthew Bruza in the Karabakh issue
was spoiled after he married Zeyno Baran of Turkish origin?
-(Smiles) Certainly, these statements are groundless. Being
professional diplomats, we execute decisions of our country. The
United States conducts its own policy regarding the said region.
Certainly, the relations of the United States with Turkey and
Azerbaijan differ, but at the same time, there is a need to consolidate
US-Azerbaijani relations. We see Azerbaijan as an important partner
for Europe in the sphere of energy, we see a growing economy, expansion
of not only oil but also non-oil sector and striving for democracy.
The relations between Azerbaijan and the United States are on a
high level. Me and Matthew Bryza do not take anyone's side. Being an
American diplomat, he executes the policy of the United States.
For example, the US Ambassador has not yet been appointed for Armenia,
as the congress has not confirmed a certain candidacy due to its
well-known position on the so called Armenian genocide, corresponding
to the position of the official Washington. Anyway, the new ambassador
should adhere to position of the US Presidential Administration,
which implies non-recognition of the genocide of Armenians.
Personal life should not be confused with state policy.
-Your husband has recently done unexpectedly optimistic statements
regarding prospects of Karabakh conflict settlement. At the same
time, he ofjen rejects saying so in his interview to reporters,
explaining that he was misunderstood in Baku or in Yerevan. He did
the same rejecting his statement made in his interview to Day.Az in
Mardrid by results of the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Armenia
and Azerbaijan held last year. Anyway, how do you assess prospects
of the conflict resolution, being an influential political scientist
and a spouse of the mediator of the conflict?
-The co-chairing observing the internal and external policy of
Azerbaijan and Armenia for already 10 years, can made optimistic
conclusions. I can say that I am not so optimistic, but I am not
participating in the talks. Both Bryza and other co-chairs meet with
Presidents and Foreign Ministers of the two countries and they are
well aware of the talks.
As for Matthew Bryza's approaches to the problem. they are really
optimistic. This is not a mere optimism. This is an optimism, caused
by enthusiasm in search for the problem resolution. Certainly there
are moments on which the parties have not yet achieved a compromise.
But for example Bryza was also optimistic when prospects of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline construction, when many spoke of the
difficult implementation of the project. But he was optimistic, he
saw the problem, analyzed it and looked for the ways of its resolution.
It should be optimistic while settling a problem to bring positions
of those who are dealing with the issue resolution, to a common
denominator. It is difficult to settle the problem if one lacks
optimism. Today, a new stage starts with Sarkissyan. Ceryainly,
Sarkissyan, arises negative association due to his Karabakh past.
Yet, both Azerbaijan and Armenia long for the problem resolution.
This is an old conflict which need fair solution to be approved by
both parties.
I hope the problem will be settled this year. I think the Aliyev
and Sarkissyan did not meet in Bucharest as Sarkissyan has not been
inaugurated yet. As is known, the elections in Armenia were accompanied
with domestic political tenseness and Sarkissyan needs to restore
situation in his country, prove his legitimacy and win the trust of
people. We will see whether the leaders of the two countries will be
able to find a resolution, which would be useful for their countries
and the whole region. Anyway, the countries would not be willing to
return to the past, the period of way.
Anyway, the people of the two countries and primarily, hundreds of
Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs would win if this problem is settled
by the end of the year.
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/ 44089.html
April 7 2008
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with Zeyno Baran, head of the programs on Eurasian
policy of Hadson Institute (the United States).
-What is a purpose of your current visit to Azerbaijan?
-I want to hold a number of meetings to discuss issues, regarding
energy and some regional problems here.
-You have arrived in Baku from Bucharest, where you took part in the
NATO summit. Possible accession of two post-Soviet republics-Georgia
and Ukraine to NATO was stressed during the event. Is Azerbaijan's
accession to NATO real?
-Indeed, Georgia's and Ukraine's accession to the alliance was
discussed during the summit. It is important that the date of their
accession has already been declared and due decision was made.
Thus, NATO, by admitting Georgia, will enter the Caucasus, and then
the accession will be possible for Azerbaijan.
It should be noted that Ukraine and Georgia were more active in the
striving to access NATO, but I think Azerbaijan will also become the
member of the alliance in the end.
Will NATO membership help Georgia and Azerbaijan to settle conflicts
on this territory?
-I can cite the example of Turkey and Greece. If these countries
were not NATO members in culmination period of the conflict, they
would have experienced greater tenseness in relations. But the NATO
membership stabilized the situation timely.
Therefore, if Georgia becomes member of NATO, its relations with Russia
would be more independent than now as Russia will not be able to put
such pressure on Georgia. For instance, Russia avoids confrontation
with Poland and Lithuania, which have become NATO members.
At the same time, it is not known, whether problems of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia will be settled before or after Georgia's accession
to NATO.
-What do you think of the failure of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing
countries to support the UN resolution, which fixed support to the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan?
-On the whole, the Minsk group did not want the resolution to be
raised. Presidential elections have been held in Armenia not long
before, and a new President was elected. I think Azerbaijan should
have worked moreat this issue before raising it. I think it would be
better for it to avoid raising the issue.
Nevertheless, the United Stattes, Russia and France, which are
mediators of the conflict settlement, were able to express a single
position on the said issue. In the result, they decided to vote
against and explained it by the fact that the support of resolution
would have undermined their influence on Armenia. By saying no they
faced Azerbaijan's resentment. The co-chairs wanted to make amendments
to the resolution but in the end they decided to say no.
In the result each side was discontented.
If the Karabakh problem was so easy, it would have been settled
long before. The further resolution of the Konflict depends both
on Azerbaijan and Armenia. The inauguration of the new president
of Armenia will take place on April 9. If the sides can see the
perspective, they will be able to take further steps.
Official Baku should agree that the co-chairing countries, are not
supporters of Yerevan, only because they voted against resolution.
They recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. I think the
mediators should explain their position to the Azerbaijani people.
The people of Azerbaijan should not think that the co-chairs are
unfair.
I understand the Azerbaijani side when they say: "If the United States
recognize territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, why don't they support
us?". But the Azerbaijani powers should make the position of the OSCE
Minsk group for themselves and explain it to their people.
-The working president of Armenia Kocharyan, inspired by the Kosovo
precedence, spoke of possible soonest recognition of independence
of Nagorno Karabakh by Yerevan. Is this step real and what will be
the results?
-I think the president said it to consolidate positions of his country
before talks with participation of the new President of Armenia. But
the independence of Kosovo was recognized by another reason. Kosovo
was controlled by NATO and was de-facto independent.
In the result this independence was recognized officially, despite
the protests of some countries, including Serbia and Russia.
But if Armenia takes this decision, no one will recognize Nagorno
Karabakh. No one will understand it. In the reality it will be like
recognition of independence of Northern Cyprus only by Turkey.
If Armenia recognizes independence of Nagorno Karabakh, this decision
will be support by no one, including the Minsk group, including Russia,
which is Yerevan's ally on some issues. Therefore, I do not take such
statements of the Armenian leadership seriously.
-What do you think of Armenians' reproaches that the objectivity of
US co-chair of OSCE Minsk group Matthew Bruza in the Karabakh issue
was spoiled after he married Zeyno Baran of Turkish origin?
-(Smiles) Certainly, these statements are groundless. Being
professional diplomats, we execute decisions of our country. The
United States conducts its own policy regarding the said region.
Certainly, the relations of the United States with Turkey and
Azerbaijan differ, but at the same time, there is a need to consolidate
US-Azerbaijani relations. We see Azerbaijan as an important partner
for Europe in the sphere of energy, we see a growing economy, expansion
of not only oil but also non-oil sector and striving for democracy.
The relations between Azerbaijan and the United States are on a
high level. Me and Matthew Bryza do not take anyone's side. Being an
American diplomat, he executes the policy of the United States.
For example, the US Ambassador has not yet been appointed for Armenia,
as the congress has not confirmed a certain candidacy due to its
well-known position on the so called Armenian genocide, corresponding
to the position of the official Washington. Anyway, the new ambassador
should adhere to position of the US Presidential Administration,
which implies non-recognition of the genocide of Armenians.
Personal life should not be confused with state policy.
-Your husband has recently done unexpectedly optimistic statements
regarding prospects of Karabakh conflict settlement. At the same
time, he ofjen rejects saying so in his interview to reporters,
explaining that he was misunderstood in Baku or in Yerevan. He did
the same rejecting his statement made in his interview to Day.Az in
Mardrid by results of the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Armenia
and Azerbaijan held last year. Anyway, how do you assess prospects
of the conflict resolution, being an influential political scientist
and a spouse of the mediator of the conflict?
-The co-chairing observing the internal and external policy of
Azerbaijan and Armenia for already 10 years, can made optimistic
conclusions. I can say that I am not so optimistic, but I am not
participating in the talks. Both Bryza and other co-chairs meet with
Presidents and Foreign Ministers of the two countries and they are
well aware of the talks.
As for Matthew Bryza's approaches to the problem. they are really
optimistic. This is not a mere optimism. This is an optimism, caused
by enthusiasm in search for the problem resolution. Certainly there
are moments on which the parties have not yet achieved a compromise.
But for example Bryza was also optimistic when prospects of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline construction, when many spoke of the
difficult implementation of the project. But he was optimistic, he
saw the problem, analyzed it and looked for the ways of its resolution.
It should be optimistic while settling a problem to bring positions
of those who are dealing with the issue resolution, to a common
denominator. It is difficult to settle the problem if one lacks
optimism. Today, a new stage starts with Sarkissyan. Ceryainly,
Sarkissyan, arises negative association due to his Karabakh past.
Yet, both Azerbaijan and Armenia long for the problem resolution.
This is an old conflict which need fair solution to be approved by
both parties.
I hope the problem will be settled this year. I think the Aliyev
and Sarkissyan did not meet in Bucharest as Sarkissyan has not been
inaugurated yet. As is known, the elections in Armenia were accompanied
with domestic political tenseness and Sarkissyan needs to restore
situation in his country, prove his legitimacy and win the trust of
people. We will see whether the leaders of the two countries will be
able to find a resolution, which would be useful for their countries
and the whole region. Anyway, the countries would not be willing to
return to the past, the period of way.
Anyway, the people of the two countries and primarily, hundreds of
Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs would win if this problem is settled
by the end of the year.