Tweet
WEST WOULD NOT SUPPORT ARMENIAN POSITION ON KARABAKH - ANALYST
news.az
April 16 2010
Azerbaijan
Michael Gunter News.Az interviews Professor Michael Gunter, Tennessee
Technological University, USA & The International University, Vienna,
Austria.
President Aliyev accused US, Russia and France in attempts to improve
economic situation in Armenia but not putting pressure on Yerevan
in Karabakh issue to make it liberate occupied lands of Azerbaijan,
what would ensure prosperity of Armenia and the whole region. So
why international community is interested in improving situation in
Armenia more than in the Karabakgh settlement?
Turkey opening its border with Armenia would greatly aid Armenia's
ailing economic situation and also redound favorably for the entire
Caucasus region as well as Turkey. However, surely Armenia would
gain the most economically from any settlement that resulted in open
borders. The international community (read the culturally Christian
West) has an inherent sympathy for Christian Armenia and against the
Turkic Muslim world which was the historic enemy of the West. This
of course is simply a background factor. More immediately, the West
has a built-in favoritism toward the Armenians because of the West's
perception that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians
in World War I.
President Sargsyan said after meeting with prime-minister Erdogan
that Armenia will never accept compromises in "genocide" issue and
Karabagh problem. How real are the improvements between Armenia and
Turkey and Armenia and Azerbaijan in this regard?
Sargsyan has to say these things to prevent his constituency from
getting rid of him. However, this does not mean that Sargsyan will
not continue to negotiate. Otherwise, he never would have signed
the protocols in the first place. Of course, Sargsyan must bargain
for the best possible deal for the Armenians. This is part of the
initial bargaining process leading up to the eventual ratification
of the protocols signed in October 2009.
The Armenian side says that getting independence for Karabakh is the
only way to solve the conflict. Its clear that Azerbaijan will never
recognize it. Can Armenia expect support from international community
if Yerevan first will declare this "independence"?
Despite the inherent Western sympathy for Armenia, this Western
support would not go so far as to support the Armenian position on
Nagorno Karabakh. Independence for Nagorno Karabakh would fly in the
face of the sacred principle of territorial integrity and no Western
state is interested in doing this as it would amount to inviting its
own possible dismemberment in the future.
There is an opinion that the Karabakh problem harms Armenia more than
Azerbaijan and it would be easier to solve the Karabakh conflict
between Azerbaijan and Armenia (which is in economical crisis) if
there were no interruption from Armenia diaspora, which don't accept
any compromises. How would you comment on this point of view?
There can be no doubt that the wealthy and economically satisfied
Armenian diaspora opposes ratification of the protocols as well as
any compromise on Nagorno Karabakh more that Armenia or Azerbaijan
for whom these problems are much more immediate and therefore demand a
compromise solution. Compromise for the Armenian diaspora is much more
difficult because continuing enmity for Turkey and Azerbaijan is the
only bond or glue strong enough to bind the otherwise territorially,
linguistic and religiously diverse diaspora communities together.
A striking example of the inflexibility assumed by the Armenian
diaspora follows. While meeting with Armenian President Sargsyan
during his trip to the United States, Dashnak Central Committee
Chairman Antranig Kasbarian declared that the protocols were a
"dangerous course" that would make "Armenia's predicament go from
bad to worse." He also invoked the memory of former U.S. President
Woodrow Wilson as a "guarantor of Western Armenia" which of course
is eastern Turkey. The United Kingdom might as well cite its medieval
claim to half of France!
How would you estimate role of Russia as a mediator in the conflict
between Azerbaijan and Armenia?
Given its historic ties from Soviet times and even earlier, Russia
certainly has a possible role as a knowledgeable mediator. However,
we also must realize that Russia has always had an historic bias in
favor of the Armenians due to cultural and religious factors.
What are prospective of the soon progress in the Karabakh settlement?
Can it be resolved in 2010?
It is highly unlikely that the Nagorno Karabakh issue will be solved in
2010. What is more likely is that this issue will continue to fester
for the foreseeable future. Only a great deal of time is likely to
gradually lead to some type of understanding.
news.az
April 16 2010
Azerbaijan
Michael Gunter News.Az interviews Professor Michael Gunter, Tennessee
Technological University, USA & The International University, Vienna,
Austria.
President Aliyev accused US, Russia and France in attempts to improve
economic situation in Armenia but not putting pressure on Yerevan
in Karabakh issue to make it liberate occupied lands of Azerbaijan,
what would ensure prosperity of Armenia and the whole region. So
why international community is interested in improving situation in
Armenia more than in the Karabakgh settlement?
Turkey opening its border with Armenia would greatly aid Armenia's
ailing economic situation and also redound favorably for the entire
Caucasus region as well as Turkey. However, surely Armenia would
gain the most economically from any settlement that resulted in open
borders. The international community (read the culturally Christian
West) has an inherent sympathy for Christian Armenia and against the
Turkic Muslim world which was the historic enemy of the West. This
of course is simply a background factor. More immediately, the West
has a built-in favoritism toward the Armenians because of the West's
perception that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians
in World War I.
President Sargsyan said after meeting with prime-minister Erdogan
that Armenia will never accept compromises in "genocide" issue and
Karabagh problem. How real are the improvements between Armenia and
Turkey and Armenia and Azerbaijan in this regard?
Sargsyan has to say these things to prevent his constituency from
getting rid of him. However, this does not mean that Sargsyan will
not continue to negotiate. Otherwise, he never would have signed
the protocols in the first place. Of course, Sargsyan must bargain
for the best possible deal for the Armenians. This is part of the
initial bargaining process leading up to the eventual ratification
of the protocols signed in October 2009.
The Armenian side says that getting independence for Karabakh is the
only way to solve the conflict. Its clear that Azerbaijan will never
recognize it. Can Armenia expect support from international community
if Yerevan first will declare this "independence"?
Despite the inherent Western sympathy for Armenia, this Western
support would not go so far as to support the Armenian position on
Nagorno Karabakh. Independence for Nagorno Karabakh would fly in the
face of the sacred principle of territorial integrity and no Western
state is interested in doing this as it would amount to inviting its
own possible dismemberment in the future.
There is an opinion that the Karabakh problem harms Armenia more than
Azerbaijan and it would be easier to solve the Karabakh conflict
between Azerbaijan and Armenia (which is in economical crisis) if
there were no interruption from Armenia diaspora, which don't accept
any compromises. How would you comment on this point of view?
There can be no doubt that the wealthy and economically satisfied
Armenian diaspora opposes ratification of the protocols as well as
any compromise on Nagorno Karabakh more that Armenia or Azerbaijan
for whom these problems are much more immediate and therefore demand a
compromise solution. Compromise for the Armenian diaspora is much more
difficult because continuing enmity for Turkey and Azerbaijan is the
only bond or glue strong enough to bind the otherwise territorially,
linguistic and religiously diverse diaspora communities together.
A striking example of the inflexibility assumed by the Armenian
diaspora follows. While meeting with Armenian President Sargsyan
during his trip to the United States, Dashnak Central Committee
Chairman Antranig Kasbarian declared that the protocols were a
"dangerous course" that would make "Armenia's predicament go from
bad to worse." He also invoked the memory of former U.S. President
Woodrow Wilson as a "guarantor of Western Armenia" which of course
is eastern Turkey. The United Kingdom might as well cite its medieval
claim to half of France!
How would you estimate role of Russia as a mediator in the conflict
between Azerbaijan and Armenia?
Given its historic ties from Soviet times and even earlier, Russia
certainly has a possible role as a knowledgeable mediator. However,
we also must realize that Russia has always had an historic bias in
favor of the Armenians due to cultural and religious factors.
What are prospective of the soon progress in the Karabakh settlement?
Can it be resolved in 2010?
It is highly unlikely that the Nagorno Karabakh issue will be solved in
2010. What is more likely is that this issue will continue to fester
for the foreseeable future. Only a great deal of time is likely to
gradually lead to some type of understanding.