Tweet
AMERICAN-AZERBAIJANI COUNCIL CHAIRMAN: I DOUBT U.S. PRESIDENT WILL UTTER THE WORD "GENOCIDE"
Today
http://www.today.az/ne ws/politics/59911.html
Jan 21 2010
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with the American-Azerbaijani Council Chairman,
US Azeris Network Co-Director Jeyhun Mollazade.
Do you expect progress in resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2010?
It all depends on Armenia's readiness to make certain compromises
which it refused to do for the past years. This is very serious
problem. A second problem is related to interests of regional and
major powers. At this level, it is unclear whether interests of
countries in the region will coincide (in this case, Russia, Turkey,
the EU and the United States and to some extent, Iran).
In this case, if those interests coincide, and moreover, if the
Armenian leadership receives some signals from all parties that
have influence on the settlement of this conflict that there is no
alternative solution to the conflict, the year 2010 might see some
progress.
What do you mean by the word "progress" - a convergence of views of
the parties or a complete solution to the conflict?
Of course, I mean not a complete resolution to this conflict, but some
advances which can stabilize the situation and prevent confrontation
and hostilities from resuming. Some progress is possible in this
regard. We cannot talk about full conflict resolution yet, because
the conflict, as I said, is tied at various levels - Armenians'
unwillingness to compromise, setting new conditions and little
outside influence on Armenia. Russia could provide such an influence
on Armenia, but it is unclear whether it is interested in this or not.
In addition, development of U.S.-Russian and Turkish-Russian relations
play a certain role in this respect. Much will depend on what issues
these countries will build strategic partnership between, or, on
the contrary, many issues will remain unresolved. In other words,
possible progress in resolving the Karabakh conflict in 2010 will
depend on a degree of cooperation between countries that have an
interest in this region.
Last year, Azerbaijan presented a protest note to the U.S. to protest
U.S. Congress aid to the Nagorno-Karabakh separatists. However, no
official response to the note has been provided yet. Is there any
political background in this regard? What are your views on such a
state of affairs?
There has always been a political background, because we are talking
about activities of politically active Armenian lobby in the U.S.,
especially in states such as Massachusetts, California, New Jersey and
Michigan. For many years, congressmen from these states have carried
out various kinds of anti-Azerbaijani resolutions and decisions,
including in the legislative field. One of them is aid to Armenians
of Nagorno-Karabakh.
In this case, this is a matter of domestic American politics, related
to elections, donations to the election fund by certain congressmen,
in which, as we all know, the Armenian diaspora has always succeeded.
This is the main reason. I believe this does not reflect U.S.
interests in the region. Moreover, it contradicts American interests to
some extent. But, as Tip O'Neal, well-known chairman of the Congress
under the Ronald Reagan administration once said "All politics
is local."
So, in this case, assistance to the Karabakh Armenians is based on
this famous saying. That is, the local election campaign dictates
these actions, in which Azerbaijan calls for justice and complying
with norms of international law, since the United States recognizes
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, including Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nevertheless, such actions do not affect promoting mutual trust
between Azerbaijan and the United States despite the United States has
assumed the mission of an impartial mediator in this conflict. Such
negative cases occur not upon the will of the American government and
American interests, but are pure demonstration of the above phrase
"All politics is local."
Many observers, evaluating prospects of Armenian-Azerbaijani and
Armenian-Turkish reconciliation, say the move the U.S. president will
make this April to answer the Armenian voters, whom he had promised to
recognize the so-called "Armenian genocide" before the presidential
elections, will be of a landmark nature. In your opinion, what Obama
will do this year?
Each year, it is suggested that probability of recognition is high.
After Obama was elected president, Armenians stated that he, as a
new president, should keep his promise. But on 24 April last year,
he chose an original way, using the word, which the Armenians in their
own language call "genocide", while not uttering the word "genocide"
in English.
Will he this time resort to the same method to satisfy Armenians? I
doubt that he will utter the word "genocide", given the present
state of relations between the U.S. and Turkey, Ankara's role in the
international arena, as well as several other factors. So, I think
that Obama is unlikely to say the word "genocide" in English. He may
repeat it in Armenian as he already did it last year.
Today
http://www.today.az/ne ws/politics/59911.html
Jan 21 2010
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with the American-Azerbaijani Council Chairman,
US Azeris Network Co-Director Jeyhun Mollazade.
Do you expect progress in resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2010?
It all depends on Armenia's readiness to make certain compromises
which it refused to do for the past years. This is very serious
problem. A second problem is related to interests of regional and
major powers. At this level, it is unclear whether interests of
countries in the region will coincide (in this case, Russia, Turkey,
the EU and the United States and to some extent, Iran).
In this case, if those interests coincide, and moreover, if the
Armenian leadership receives some signals from all parties that
have influence on the settlement of this conflict that there is no
alternative solution to the conflict, the year 2010 might see some
progress.
What do you mean by the word "progress" - a convergence of views of
the parties or a complete solution to the conflict?
Of course, I mean not a complete resolution to this conflict, but some
advances which can stabilize the situation and prevent confrontation
and hostilities from resuming. Some progress is possible in this
regard. We cannot talk about full conflict resolution yet, because
the conflict, as I said, is tied at various levels - Armenians'
unwillingness to compromise, setting new conditions and little
outside influence on Armenia. Russia could provide such an influence
on Armenia, but it is unclear whether it is interested in this or not.
In addition, development of U.S.-Russian and Turkish-Russian relations
play a certain role in this respect. Much will depend on what issues
these countries will build strategic partnership between, or, on
the contrary, many issues will remain unresolved. In other words,
possible progress in resolving the Karabakh conflict in 2010 will
depend on a degree of cooperation between countries that have an
interest in this region.
Last year, Azerbaijan presented a protest note to the U.S. to protest
U.S. Congress aid to the Nagorno-Karabakh separatists. However, no
official response to the note has been provided yet. Is there any
political background in this regard? What are your views on such a
state of affairs?
There has always been a political background, because we are talking
about activities of politically active Armenian lobby in the U.S.,
especially in states such as Massachusetts, California, New Jersey and
Michigan. For many years, congressmen from these states have carried
out various kinds of anti-Azerbaijani resolutions and decisions,
including in the legislative field. One of them is aid to Armenians
of Nagorno-Karabakh.
In this case, this is a matter of domestic American politics, related
to elections, donations to the election fund by certain congressmen,
in which, as we all know, the Armenian diaspora has always succeeded.
This is the main reason. I believe this does not reflect U.S.
interests in the region. Moreover, it contradicts American interests to
some extent. But, as Tip O'Neal, well-known chairman of the Congress
under the Ronald Reagan administration once said "All politics
is local."
So, in this case, assistance to the Karabakh Armenians is based on
this famous saying. That is, the local election campaign dictates
these actions, in which Azerbaijan calls for justice and complying
with norms of international law, since the United States recognizes
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, including Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nevertheless, such actions do not affect promoting mutual trust
between Azerbaijan and the United States despite the United States has
assumed the mission of an impartial mediator in this conflict. Such
negative cases occur not upon the will of the American government and
American interests, but are pure demonstration of the above phrase
"All politics is local."
Many observers, evaluating prospects of Armenian-Azerbaijani and
Armenian-Turkish reconciliation, say the move the U.S. president will
make this April to answer the Armenian voters, whom he had promised to
recognize the so-called "Armenian genocide" before the presidential
elections, will be of a landmark nature. In your opinion, what Obama
will do this year?
Each year, it is suggested that probability of recognition is high.
After Obama was elected president, Armenians stated that he, as a
new president, should keep his promise. But on 24 April last year,
he chose an original way, using the word, which the Armenians in their
own language call "genocide", while not uttering the word "genocide"
in English.
Will he this time resort to the same method to satisfy Armenians? I
doubt that he will utter the word "genocide", given the present
state of relations between the U.S. and Turkey, Ankara's role in the
international arena, as well as several other factors. So, I think
that Obama is unlikely to say the word "genocide" in English. He may
repeat it in Armenian as he already did it last year.