Tweet
ALEXEY VLASOV: UNSETTLED KARABAKH CONFLICT SHOWS THE USELESSNESS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
news.az
Nov 6 2009
Azerbaijan
Alexey Vlasov Interview News.Az with Alexey Vlasov, director of the
Russian Center on Post-Soviet Area Studies.
Baku and Yerevan are accusing each other of the unwillingness to make
compromises. Is the situation in the conflict area dangerous as the
negotiation process is delayed?
The situation is really very complex and it is difficult to make any
unambiguous predictions over prospects of its further development. If
the settlement process is lingered, it will inevitably lead to the
further growth of the threats of conflicts in the region. But even
if the issue of the return of five regions of Azerbaijan is settled
soon, this step will create a visibility of deep advancement in the
resolution of the conflict only for a short period.
UN seems a more amorphous and passive structure
Alexey Vlasov Azerbaijan tries to keep the Karabakh problem the
center of UN's constant attention, thus causing Yerevan's concerns
about Baku's attempts to withdraw the negotiation process from the
OSCE format. How can the United Nations contribute to the resolution
of this conflict?
I think it is time for political negotiations to be enriched with a
wider format of public dialogue between Yerevan and Baku. A systematic
involvement of not only EU and OSCE but also the United States is
more possible in this context. As for the practical influence on the
situation, OSCE has more instruments than the United Nations. Another
question is that these instruments should be used correctly and the
systematic differences between the main participants of international
organizations should be removed.
What is the problem of non-execution of the four well-known resolutions
of the UN Security Council on Karabakh, to your mind?
In this sense, the UN seems a more amorphous and passive structure.
However, this is an ideal area for political declarations that
is maximally used by Azerbaijan's leadership. But as Kazakhstan
will chair the OSCE next year, I suppose Astana in the face of its
President Nursultan Nazasbayev will have to use the potential of the
organization more effectively, which is proven by his recent statement
over Nagorno Karabakh.
Baku is criticizing the position of the mediating countries in the
Karabakh settlement "agree and we will support the solution". Does such
conflicts settlement have prospects without elements of forcing the
parties to execute the established norms, principles and resolutions
of international organizations?
In fact, Azerbaijan's claims are absolutely clear as it is tired of
numerous resolutions, negotiations and discussions that prove to be
ineffective. But we should take into account that the mediators also
have no single views. And, probably, the formula that you listed above
is a result of the clear understanding of impossibility to attain the
desired end on basis of consensus. It is unclear how to act further.
Therefore, they first followed the logics of a frozen conflict and
after the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, the mediators seemed to
transfer the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement to the sphere of
lobby agreements. But then you can ask - what is the importance of
the international organizations that must engage in the resolution
of such conflicts? Here, we make a conclusion that the architecture
of international security and institutions, that ensure it, fail to
catch up with the changing state of affairs and the situation around
Nagorno Karabakh is just worsening it.
news.az
Nov 6 2009
Azerbaijan
Alexey Vlasov Interview News.Az with Alexey Vlasov, director of the
Russian Center on Post-Soviet Area Studies.
Baku and Yerevan are accusing each other of the unwillingness to make
compromises. Is the situation in the conflict area dangerous as the
negotiation process is delayed?
The situation is really very complex and it is difficult to make any
unambiguous predictions over prospects of its further development. If
the settlement process is lingered, it will inevitably lead to the
further growth of the threats of conflicts in the region. But even
if the issue of the return of five regions of Azerbaijan is settled
soon, this step will create a visibility of deep advancement in the
resolution of the conflict only for a short period.
UN seems a more amorphous and passive structure
Alexey Vlasov Azerbaijan tries to keep the Karabakh problem the
center of UN's constant attention, thus causing Yerevan's concerns
about Baku's attempts to withdraw the negotiation process from the
OSCE format. How can the United Nations contribute to the resolution
of this conflict?
I think it is time for political negotiations to be enriched with a
wider format of public dialogue between Yerevan and Baku. A systematic
involvement of not only EU and OSCE but also the United States is
more possible in this context. As for the practical influence on the
situation, OSCE has more instruments than the United Nations. Another
question is that these instruments should be used correctly and the
systematic differences between the main participants of international
organizations should be removed.
What is the problem of non-execution of the four well-known resolutions
of the UN Security Council on Karabakh, to your mind?
In this sense, the UN seems a more amorphous and passive structure.
However, this is an ideal area for political declarations that
is maximally used by Azerbaijan's leadership. But as Kazakhstan
will chair the OSCE next year, I suppose Astana in the face of its
President Nursultan Nazasbayev will have to use the potential of the
organization more effectively, which is proven by his recent statement
over Nagorno Karabakh.
Baku is criticizing the position of the mediating countries in the
Karabakh settlement "agree and we will support the solution". Does such
conflicts settlement have prospects without elements of forcing the
parties to execute the established norms, principles and resolutions
of international organizations?
In fact, Azerbaijan's claims are absolutely clear as it is tired of
numerous resolutions, negotiations and discussions that prove to be
ineffective. But we should take into account that the mediators also
have no single views. And, probably, the formula that you listed above
is a result of the clear understanding of impossibility to attain the
desired end on basis of consensus. It is unclear how to act further.
Therefore, they first followed the logics of a frozen conflict and
after the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, the mediators seemed to
transfer the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement to the sphere of
lobby agreements. But then you can ask - what is the importance of
the international organizations that must engage in the resolution
of such conflicts? Here, we make a conclusion that the architecture
of international security and institutions, that ensure it, fail to
catch up with the changing state of affairs and the situation around
Nagorno Karabakh is just worsening it.