Tweet
CASPIAN ISSUES WERE DEBATED IN AKTAU BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: EXPERT
Today.Az
http://www.today.az/news/politics /55582.html
Sept 14 2009
Azerbaijan
Director of Russia-based Center for Post-Soviet Studies Aleksei Vlasov
spoke in an interview with Day.Az.
Day.Az: Why Iran was not invited to the Aktau meeting. Was it because
Caspian Sea status was not discussed at the meeting?
Aleksei Vlasov: I think despite one reason included in public
statements, in fact there are probably some hidden factors, which are
designated primarily in the quartet format. There is no doubt that
officials said that the Caspian issue was not discussed and so the
absence of Iran had nothing to do with the desire of the quartet to
address the serious issue of the Caspian Sea without participation
of Tehran.
But I think that after all, the Caspian Sea issues were debated in
Aktau behind closed doors and purpose of these closed discussions
was that the troika (Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan) would persuade
Turkmenistan to create a new configuration of the negotiations on
the Caspian issue. I think this was the task for the heads of state.
Q: There is suggestion that the Aktau summit was a kind of preparation
for the upcoming negotiations on the status of the Caspian Sea. Given
the dissatisfaction by Iran, what one can expect from the upcoming
meeting of presidents of the Caspian littoral states?
Q: First, I think prior to the summit every effort will be made to
show Tehran that in fact there were no questions regarding the status
of the Caspian Sea that can be solved without Iran. There is a need to
sweeten this meeting by information so as not to engage with Iran in
excess confrontation. Steps in this direction are already being made
at official level. I think a strong information impetus will be given
to rapprochement. But more important is a proposal to address these
issues within the overall approach and whether it will be format of
the Caspian economic cooperation organization or some other model.
For now, two main points are important for Moscow, one - enter other
Caspian littoral states in mode of one-sided dialogue within an
organization and second point - to prevent interference by outside
forces with the solution of the Caspian issues. And in fact, and in
another case, Iran can be persuaded that such a dialogue format is
more acceptable.
Q: The option of building Nabucco pipeline through Armenia is not
considered currently. In Armenia there is an opinion that the cost
of the project can not be "Armenian genocide" and the independence
of Nagorno-Karabakh. May Armenia change this position taking into
account the importance of Nabucco?
A: Both initiators of the Nabucco project and Russia and Armenia are
in a very difficult situation for various reasons at a moment when
the fate of this project would be decided. The issue of Armenia it
exists in the context of the Nabucco project, more precisely, in a
particular route of the project. But here the position of Armenia in
Yerevan and attitude to participate in this project is not the main
thing. That is why for now Yerevan is limited to fairly vague and
not very specific terms.
Armenia's involvement with Nabucco project will be skeptically
perceived in Moscow. On the other hand, there are certain economic
preferences that Armenia would like to receive. Hence the desire to
wait until the situation around the Nabucco will unfold further. Again,
I stress that the Armenian issue in the Nabucco exists. But it is
not crucial or decisive for the fate of this project.
Today.Az
http://www.today.az/news/politics /55582.html
Sept 14 2009
Azerbaijan
Director of Russia-based Center for Post-Soviet Studies Aleksei Vlasov
spoke in an interview with Day.Az.
Day.Az: Why Iran was not invited to the Aktau meeting. Was it because
Caspian Sea status was not discussed at the meeting?
Aleksei Vlasov: I think despite one reason included in public
statements, in fact there are probably some hidden factors, which are
designated primarily in the quartet format. There is no doubt that
officials said that the Caspian issue was not discussed and so the
absence of Iran had nothing to do with the desire of the quartet to
address the serious issue of the Caspian Sea without participation
of Tehran.
But I think that after all, the Caspian Sea issues were debated in
Aktau behind closed doors and purpose of these closed discussions
was that the troika (Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan) would persuade
Turkmenistan to create a new configuration of the negotiations on
the Caspian issue. I think this was the task for the heads of state.
Q: There is suggestion that the Aktau summit was a kind of preparation
for the upcoming negotiations on the status of the Caspian Sea. Given
the dissatisfaction by Iran, what one can expect from the upcoming
meeting of presidents of the Caspian littoral states?
Q: First, I think prior to the summit every effort will be made to
show Tehran that in fact there were no questions regarding the status
of the Caspian Sea that can be solved without Iran. There is a need to
sweeten this meeting by information so as not to engage with Iran in
excess confrontation. Steps in this direction are already being made
at official level. I think a strong information impetus will be given
to rapprochement. But more important is a proposal to address these
issues within the overall approach and whether it will be format of
the Caspian economic cooperation organization or some other model.
For now, two main points are important for Moscow, one - enter other
Caspian littoral states in mode of one-sided dialogue within an
organization and second point - to prevent interference by outside
forces with the solution of the Caspian issues. And in fact, and in
another case, Iran can be persuaded that such a dialogue format is
more acceptable.
Q: The option of building Nabucco pipeline through Armenia is not
considered currently. In Armenia there is an opinion that the cost
of the project can not be "Armenian genocide" and the independence
of Nagorno-Karabakh. May Armenia change this position taking into
account the importance of Nabucco?
A: Both initiators of the Nabucco project and Russia and Armenia are
in a very difficult situation for various reasons at a moment when
the fate of this project would be decided. The issue of Armenia it
exists in the context of the Nabucco project, more precisely, in a
particular route of the project. But here the position of Armenia in
Yerevan and attitude to participate in this project is not the main
thing. That is why for now Yerevan is limited to fairly vague and
not very specific terms.
Armenia's involvement with Nabucco project will be skeptically
perceived in Moscow. On the other hand, there are certain economic
preferences that Armenia would like to receive. Hence the desire to
wait until the situation around the Nabucco will unfold further. Again,
I stress that the Armenian issue in the Nabucco exists. But it is
not crucial or decisive for the fate of this project.