Tweet
RENEWAL OF ARMED CONFLICT OVER KARABAKH IS NOT IN ANYONE'S INTERESTS
Aliyah Fridman News.Az
news.az
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan
Lyndon Allin News.Az Lyndon Allin, a lawyer based in Washington, DC,
specializing in the post-Soviet region.
What are the main problems in the South Caucasus?
This is a very broad question. I suppose each of the three countries
of the South Caucasus has its own particular problems, which differ
substantially because the countries' economic and security situations
are so different. Each of the secessionist regions also has its own
particular problems. If I had to highlight one problem that unites
the entire region, it would probably be the security risk posed and
instability created by unrecognized states. These conflicts hinder
the economic development of the region; they also sometimes seem to
provide leaders in each of the region's countries with an excuse for
not developing their political systems in a more democratic direction.
There is a view that the Russian-Georgian war showed that no republic
in the Russian neighbourhood could rely completely on US assistance
on security. Do you agree?
I have not heard this opinion personally, probably because it is so
obvious and uncontroversial (and should have been even before the
2008 war) as to not be worth stating. I don't think any responsible
American official would ever have suggested that any former Soviet
republic that is not a member of NATO could "rely completely" on US
assistance in security issues. Some in the US have even called into
question whether we should have made the commitments to the Baltics
entailed by admitting them to NATO, although I think we would honour
those commitments in the unlikely event that the need arose. Anyone
in Georgia (or anywhere else in the CIS) who thought that they could
"rely completely" on US military intervention in case of a direct
conflict with Russia would have to have been misreading messages from
Washington to get this impression.
Can we expect the US to be more active in the Karabakh settlement,
as Hillary Clinton promised during her visit to Baku and Yerevan?
I certainly hope and think so, although any solution will require not
just the involvement of the US (and Russia, and to a lesser extent
the EU) but more than anything will require courage and commitment
on the part of the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaderships to reach a
settlement - they need not to be paralyzed by fear of the domestic
political consequences. The US does realize that a renewal of armed
conflict over Karabakh is not in anyone's interests, including the
interests of the US, and therefore I think the US will continue to
work as it has been doing to help facilitate discussions about a
settlement. But it is important to emphasize that this has to be
resolved by Armenia and Azerbaijan - although Russia and the US
are fortunately cooperating with each other on this issue (and more
broadly), the two larger powers are not going to be able to work this
out without the participation and willingness to compromise of the
countries which are parties to the conflict.
Could a similar scenario to the 2008 Russian-Georgian war take place
in Karabakh?
A scenario where heavy involvement of Russian military forces is
part of the first phase of a renewal of hostilities does not seem
possible under current conditions. For one thing, Russia does not
have peacekeepers or civilians it claims as its citizens in Karabakh,
which means that Russia lacks the justification it pointed to for
its intervention in the case of South Ossetia. Such a scenario seems
especially unlikely considering that Russian President Medvedev
has recently put considerable public effort into a settlement of
the conflict.
If the question refers more generally to an outbreak of hostilities
and large-scale military action, I think a lot of people are working
to prevent this but it is nevertheless possible that some cross-border
incidents or provocations could escalate into a broader conflict. The
concern of some in Washington is that the situation is fairly unstable
along the line of contact, that there is not a sufficiently robust
international monitoring presence there, and that there is a risk
of minor cross-border gunfire (which does not seem to be uncommon)
rapidly escalating into something much more serious.
Do you expect progress in the Karabakh conflict anytime soon?
I don't know what to expect. I would be delighted to see any sort
of progress, but I think the best we can realistically hope for is
incremental progress toward an eventual settlement and a stable and
peaceful situation along the line of contact, with efforts to avoid
incidents like the one last month.
Azerbaijan tries to defend its territorial integrity. Do you think
that the Armenian secessionists have any chance of being declared an
independent state?
The war in Georgia should have provided at least one important lesson
to the Azerbaijani leadership - countries which try to "defend their
territorial integrity" using force (or threats of force) against
entrenched secessionists who have de facto control over the territory
they claim risk seeing that policy backfire and lead to the cementing
of secessionists' territorial positions. If Azerbaijan really wants to
reverse the de facto loss of the territory controlled by the Karabakh
secessionists, it will require a sustained diplomatic effort rather
than a rapid military "solution" which would only create further
problems. As a first step, Azerbaijan should embrace and promote
confidence-building measures and increased civilian contacts between
Azeris and Armenians in general and Karabakhis in particular.
I do not think there will be a final resolution where the
"Nagorno-Karabakh republic" is recognized by anyone as an independent
state. It doesn't seem out of the question that there may be a
resolution under which some of the territory claimed by Azerbaijan
and currently held by Armenia remains under the control of Armenia,
or alternatively is nominally ruled from Baku but has substantial
autonomy, but I think it will take a lot of negotiation to reach any
final settlement that is acceptable to all parties.
From: A. Papazian
Aliyah Fridman News.Az
news.az
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan
Lyndon Allin News.Az Lyndon Allin, a lawyer based in Washington, DC,
specializing in the post-Soviet region.
What are the main problems in the South Caucasus?
This is a very broad question. I suppose each of the three countries
of the South Caucasus has its own particular problems, which differ
substantially because the countries' economic and security situations
are so different. Each of the secessionist regions also has its own
particular problems. If I had to highlight one problem that unites
the entire region, it would probably be the security risk posed and
instability created by unrecognized states. These conflicts hinder
the economic development of the region; they also sometimes seem to
provide leaders in each of the region's countries with an excuse for
not developing their political systems in a more democratic direction.
There is a view that the Russian-Georgian war showed that no republic
in the Russian neighbourhood could rely completely on US assistance
on security. Do you agree?
I have not heard this opinion personally, probably because it is so
obvious and uncontroversial (and should have been even before the
2008 war) as to not be worth stating. I don't think any responsible
American official would ever have suggested that any former Soviet
republic that is not a member of NATO could "rely completely" on US
assistance in security issues. Some in the US have even called into
question whether we should have made the commitments to the Baltics
entailed by admitting them to NATO, although I think we would honour
those commitments in the unlikely event that the need arose. Anyone
in Georgia (or anywhere else in the CIS) who thought that they could
"rely completely" on US military intervention in case of a direct
conflict with Russia would have to have been misreading messages from
Washington to get this impression.
Can we expect the US to be more active in the Karabakh settlement,
as Hillary Clinton promised during her visit to Baku and Yerevan?
I certainly hope and think so, although any solution will require not
just the involvement of the US (and Russia, and to a lesser extent
the EU) but more than anything will require courage and commitment
on the part of the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaderships to reach a
settlement - they need not to be paralyzed by fear of the domestic
political consequences. The US does realize that a renewal of armed
conflict over Karabakh is not in anyone's interests, including the
interests of the US, and therefore I think the US will continue to
work as it has been doing to help facilitate discussions about a
settlement. But it is important to emphasize that this has to be
resolved by Armenia and Azerbaijan - although Russia and the US
are fortunately cooperating with each other on this issue (and more
broadly), the two larger powers are not going to be able to work this
out without the participation and willingness to compromise of the
countries which are parties to the conflict.
Could a similar scenario to the 2008 Russian-Georgian war take place
in Karabakh?
A scenario where heavy involvement of Russian military forces is
part of the first phase of a renewal of hostilities does not seem
possible under current conditions. For one thing, Russia does not
have peacekeepers or civilians it claims as its citizens in Karabakh,
which means that Russia lacks the justification it pointed to for
its intervention in the case of South Ossetia. Such a scenario seems
especially unlikely considering that Russian President Medvedev
has recently put considerable public effort into a settlement of
the conflict.
If the question refers more generally to an outbreak of hostilities
and large-scale military action, I think a lot of people are working
to prevent this but it is nevertheless possible that some cross-border
incidents or provocations could escalate into a broader conflict. The
concern of some in Washington is that the situation is fairly unstable
along the line of contact, that there is not a sufficiently robust
international monitoring presence there, and that there is a risk
of minor cross-border gunfire (which does not seem to be uncommon)
rapidly escalating into something much more serious.
Do you expect progress in the Karabakh conflict anytime soon?
I don't know what to expect. I would be delighted to see any sort
of progress, but I think the best we can realistically hope for is
incremental progress toward an eventual settlement and a stable and
peaceful situation along the line of contact, with efforts to avoid
incidents like the one last month.
Azerbaijan tries to defend its territorial integrity. Do you think
that the Armenian secessionists have any chance of being declared an
independent state?
The war in Georgia should have provided at least one important lesson
to the Azerbaijani leadership - countries which try to "defend their
territorial integrity" using force (or threats of force) against
entrenched secessionists who have de facto control over the territory
they claim risk seeing that policy backfire and lead to the cementing
of secessionists' territorial positions. If Azerbaijan really wants to
reverse the de facto loss of the territory controlled by the Karabakh
secessionists, it will require a sustained diplomatic effort rather
than a rapid military "solution" which would only create further
problems. As a first step, Azerbaijan should embrace and promote
confidence-building measures and increased civilian contacts between
Azeris and Armenians in general and Karabakhis in particular.
I do not think there will be a final resolution where the
"Nagorno-Karabakh republic" is recognized by anyone as an independent
state. It doesn't seem out of the question that there may be a
resolution under which some of the territory claimed by Azerbaijan
and currently held by Armenia remains under the control of Armenia,
or alternatively is nominally ruled from Baku but has substantial
autonomy, but I think it will take a lot of negotiation to reach any
final settlement that is acceptable to all parties.
From: A. Papazian