Tweet
news.az, Azerbaijan
July 16 2010
Azerbaijan not to join NATO soon, analyst
Fri 16 July 2010 | 06:43 GMT Text size:
Alexandros Petersen News.Az interviews Alexandros Petersen, senior
fellow at the Eurasia Centre at US think-tank the Atlantic Council.
Do you view Azerbaijan as a NATO member in the nearest perspective?
In the short-term, Azerbaijan will not be a NATO member for two
reasons: the Alliance is wary of extending full membership to the
South Caucasus countries due to concerns over conflicts in the region
and Russia's reaction, and two, because it is not explicit Azerbaijani
policy to become a full NATO member. It would be a great
accomplishment for NATO and Azerbaijan if Azerbaijan eventually became
a member, but this will be down the road. In the meantime, Azerbaijan
should continue its NATO-related military and governance reforms.
The tensions on the front line of the Azerbaijani and Armenian armed
forces have grown. Does it show that the parties have exhausted the
negotiation potential and are currently prepared for war?
This is a particularly tense period, but we must not forget that the
Line of Contact is always simmering. There are frequent violent
incidents, because there are very few monitors and absolutely no
peacekeepers of any kind. This has been the situation for a decade and
a half, so I don't think we can say that the potential for
negotiations has been exhausted. That said, we cannot become
complacent. Negotiations must make more progress towards conflict
resolution, or one of these violent incidents could explode into
large-scale conflict.
How do you assess US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent Baku
visit in terms of possible progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
resolution?
Secretary Clinton's visit was important in that it highlighted the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the US and in the West more broadly. It
hopefully signals the beginning of more intense US engagement in
conflict resolution. We are in a difficult spot in terms of the
negotiations, so a diplomatic push from the US would be very welcome.
That said, it is Baku and Yerevan that have to work out conflict
resolution, with the support of the three Minsk Group co-chairs.
Is there a difference in the approaches between US and Russia on the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution?
The difference in approaches could not be more stark. The US as a
foreign policy actor takes its role very seriously and tries to be as
impartial as possible, despite unhelpful interference from the US
Congress. Russia has hosted a number of high-level meetings as a
co-chair, but simultaneously arms and supports Armenian
diplomatically. Moscow's role in the resolution process has so far
hindered progress, but the better bilateral relationship between the
US and Russia may well lead to a more productive attitude from the
Russian leadership.
W.W.
News.Az
From: A. Papazian
July 16 2010
Azerbaijan not to join NATO soon, analyst
Fri 16 July 2010 | 06:43 GMT Text size:
Alexandros Petersen News.Az interviews Alexandros Petersen, senior
fellow at the Eurasia Centre at US think-tank the Atlantic Council.
Do you view Azerbaijan as a NATO member in the nearest perspective?
In the short-term, Azerbaijan will not be a NATO member for two
reasons: the Alliance is wary of extending full membership to the
South Caucasus countries due to concerns over conflicts in the region
and Russia's reaction, and two, because it is not explicit Azerbaijani
policy to become a full NATO member. It would be a great
accomplishment for NATO and Azerbaijan if Azerbaijan eventually became
a member, but this will be down the road. In the meantime, Azerbaijan
should continue its NATO-related military and governance reforms.
The tensions on the front line of the Azerbaijani and Armenian armed
forces have grown. Does it show that the parties have exhausted the
negotiation potential and are currently prepared for war?
This is a particularly tense period, but we must not forget that the
Line of Contact is always simmering. There are frequent violent
incidents, because there are very few monitors and absolutely no
peacekeepers of any kind. This has been the situation for a decade and
a half, so I don't think we can say that the potential for
negotiations has been exhausted. That said, we cannot become
complacent. Negotiations must make more progress towards conflict
resolution, or one of these violent incidents could explode into
large-scale conflict.
How do you assess US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent Baku
visit in terms of possible progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
resolution?
Secretary Clinton's visit was important in that it highlighted the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the US and in the West more broadly. It
hopefully signals the beginning of more intense US engagement in
conflict resolution. We are in a difficult spot in terms of the
negotiations, so a diplomatic push from the US would be very welcome.
That said, it is Baku and Yerevan that have to work out conflict
resolution, with the support of the three Minsk Group co-chairs.
Is there a difference in the approaches between US and Russia on the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution?
The difference in approaches could not be more stark. The US as a
foreign policy actor takes its role very seriously and tries to be as
impartial as possible, despite unhelpful interference from the US
Congress. Russia has hosted a number of high-level meetings as a
co-chair, but simultaneously arms and supports Armenian
diplomatically. Moscow's role in the resolution process has so far
hindered progress, but the better bilateral relationship between the
US and Russia may well lead to a more productive attitude from the
Russian leadership.
W.W.
News.Az
From: A. Papazian