Tweet
MEDIATING COUNTRIES INTERESTED IN STATUS QUO IN KARABAKH CONFLICT - ANALYST
news.az
March 19 2010
Azerbaijan
Rovshan Ibrahimov News.Az interviews Rovshan Ibrahimov, Azerbaijani
political scientist.
The Armenian FM has again stated the impossibility to attain progress
in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict without Nagorno Karabakh's
participation in the negotiations on settlement. What is behind this
striving, considering the fact that Armenia has once joined these
negotiations as a guarantor of "NKR" interests?
Armenia has always insisted on Nagorno Karabakh's being the main party
to this conflict, saying it is just representing Karabakh's interests
because it is not recognized as a direct party to negotiations or the
conflict. And in this case by trying to raise Karabakh to the level of
the conflict party, Armenia attempts to gain its recognition at least
de-facto as the subject of international law. Currently there are the
subjects of international law that has a definite legal status. Among
such states are unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,
recently Kosovo and South Ossetia. That is this is an intermediate
period that presents these formations at least as the subjects of
international law. Considering this it is possible to say that the
negotiations will discuss at least granting independence to Nagorno
Karabakh and then return 7 regions around Nagorno Karabakh as a
compromise to Azerbaijan. That is here not the status of Nagorno
Karabakh within Azerbaijan will be at issue.
Is Karabakh's participation in the current stage of the negotiation
process substantiated?
It is not substantiated. Certainly, it is possible to find a preamble
for this. For example, the negotiations will be held between the
Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of this region. We call it
people's diplomacy. That is, the work will be conducted not on the
level of interstate or intergovernmental contacts but on the level
of communities. Such dialogue is possible. But it will not lead
to any legal or binding implications. On the other hand, under the
international law, there are no grounds to involve Nagorno Karabakh
into the negotiation process, if only Azerbaijan will not agree
to this.
The Armenian side refers to the fact that the ceasefire agreement was
signed with Nagorno Karabakh not Armenia. What can you say about it?
The Bishkek protocol was really trilateral and it was signed by
Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. But it does not mean that
by signing this document Nagorno Karabakh has become the subject of
law and that Azerbaijan has recognized this subject. All of the four
resolutions of the UN Security Council said directly that Armenian
armed forces are the party to the conflict. They do not speak of
any self-defense forces or armed formations of the self-proclaimed
country. They fix Armenia's direct participation in this conflict
and Armenia has been recognized the party to the conflict by
all international organizations. In this case, the document on
reconciliation was signed by Azerbaijan and Armenia while the signature
of Nagorno Karabakh played a role of confirming the situation,
it strengthened the document but had no legal effect. That is if
the document was signed between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, it
would not have the status of the international document and would not
become an international treaty that should be ratified and presented
to the depository of the UN agreements. And in this case the signature
of Nagorno Karabakh was merely the confirming position of the fact
that Armenia's actions are support by the self-proclaimed Nagorno
Karabakh regime.
Azerbaijani side has accepted the updated Madrid principles of the
conflict settlement. Does this statement contain a compromise from
the Azerbaijani side?
Azerbaijan has made it clear to the world community that the Madrid
principles are clear to us and they meet our requirements. Azerbaijan
is constructive on this issue and it offers Armenia to approach the
issue with the same constructiveness. The phased settlement of the
conflict is at issue here and the first stage envisions for liberation
of the Azerbaijani regions around Nagorno Karabakh which were occupied
by Armenia in period of war of 1992-1994. This is a very constructive
approach. At the same time we see the degree of destructiveness of
the Armenian side and the side that supports it in this conflict in
the relation to the possible settlement of the problem. The adoption
of these principles by Azerbaijan is a very serious compromise. In
this case not Karabakh but just the first stage is implied and Armenia
should take this moment positively.
How do you evaluate the behavior of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs,
are they really attaining the fair solution to the Karabakh conflict?
Unfortunately, the positions of the co-chairs are neither clear nor
constructive. If we define the status, positions and interests on
each of the mediating states, in case of Russia it is clear that it
wants the preservation of the status quo, that is the situation of
"neither peace nor war" for the conflict to remain unresolved. In this
case Russia has levers of pressure on both Azerbaijan and Armenia. The
settlement of this conflict in anyone's favor would mean that both
Azerbaijan and Armenia will immediately start the open search of ways
of integration into the Euro-Atlantic space. Naturally, Russia wants
to prevent such an outcome. As for the United States, its natural
interests require preservation of stability in the Caucasus for the
successful implementation of energy and transport projects. In this
case the necessary stability already exists and any additional steps
even for the forced settlement of the conflict are undesirable for
the United States. Thus, the status quo also meets the US interests.
Meanwhile, France represents not only itself but also the whole
European Union. European Union which is trying to continue successful
integration in the European Continent does not want any conflict
situations in the area. Thus, France is also interested in the conflict
not to pass to the hot phase. EU does not care too much about who will
hold Karabakh, they consider that Karabakh should belong to a party
that will be able to hold control of it. We should not forget that
Armenian Diaspora and lobby have strong positions in all mediating
countries which makes these states apply double standards.
Lala B.
news.az
March 19 2010
Azerbaijan
Rovshan Ibrahimov News.Az interviews Rovshan Ibrahimov, Azerbaijani
political scientist.
The Armenian FM has again stated the impossibility to attain progress
in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict without Nagorno Karabakh's
participation in the negotiations on settlement. What is behind this
striving, considering the fact that Armenia has once joined these
negotiations as a guarantor of "NKR" interests?
Armenia has always insisted on Nagorno Karabakh's being the main party
to this conflict, saying it is just representing Karabakh's interests
because it is not recognized as a direct party to negotiations or the
conflict. And in this case by trying to raise Karabakh to the level of
the conflict party, Armenia attempts to gain its recognition at least
de-facto as the subject of international law. Currently there are the
subjects of international law that has a definite legal status. Among
such states are unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,
recently Kosovo and South Ossetia. That is this is an intermediate
period that presents these formations at least as the subjects of
international law. Considering this it is possible to say that the
negotiations will discuss at least granting independence to Nagorno
Karabakh and then return 7 regions around Nagorno Karabakh as a
compromise to Azerbaijan. That is here not the status of Nagorno
Karabakh within Azerbaijan will be at issue.
Is Karabakh's participation in the current stage of the negotiation
process substantiated?
It is not substantiated. Certainly, it is possible to find a preamble
for this. For example, the negotiations will be held between the
Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of this region. We call it
people's diplomacy. That is, the work will be conducted not on the
level of interstate or intergovernmental contacts but on the level
of communities. Such dialogue is possible. But it will not lead
to any legal or binding implications. On the other hand, under the
international law, there are no grounds to involve Nagorno Karabakh
into the negotiation process, if only Azerbaijan will not agree
to this.
The Armenian side refers to the fact that the ceasefire agreement was
signed with Nagorno Karabakh not Armenia. What can you say about it?
The Bishkek protocol was really trilateral and it was signed by
Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. But it does not mean that
by signing this document Nagorno Karabakh has become the subject of
law and that Azerbaijan has recognized this subject. All of the four
resolutions of the UN Security Council said directly that Armenian
armed forces are the party to the conflict. They do not speak of
any self-defense forces or armed formations of the self-proclaimed
country. They fix Armenia's direct participation in this conflict
and Armenia has been recognized the party to the conflict by
all international organizations. In this case, the document on
reconciliation was signed by Azerbaijan and Armenia while the signature
of Nagorno Karabakh played a role of confirming the situation,
it strengthened the document but had no legal effect. That is if
the document was signed between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, it
would not have the status of the international document and would not
become an international treaty that should be ratified and presented
to the depository of the UN agreements. And in this case the signature
of Nagorno Karabakh was merely the confirming position of the fact
that Armenia's actions are support by the self-proclaimed Nagorno
Karabakh regime.
Azerbaijani side has accepted the updated Madrid principles of the
conflict settlement. Does this statement contain a compromise from
the Azerbaijani side?
Azerbaijan has made it clear to the world community that the Madrid
principles are clear to us and they meet our requirements. Azerbaijan
is constructive on this issue and it offers Armenia to approach the
issue with the same constructiveness. The phased settlement of the
conflict is at issue here and the first stage envisions for liberation
of the Azerbaijani regions around Nagorno Karabakh which were occupied
by Armenia in period of war of 1992-1994. This is a very constructive
approach. At the same time we see the degree of destructiveness of
the Armenian side and the side that supports it in this conflict in
the relation to the possible settlement of the problem. The adoption
of these principles by Azerbaijan is a very serious compromise. In
this case not Karabakh but just the first stage is implied and Armenia
should take this moment positively.
How do you evaluate the behavior of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs,
are they really attaining the fair solution to the Karabakh conflict?
Unfortunately, the positions of the co-chairs are neither clear nor
constructive. If we define the status, positions and interests on
each of the mediating states, in case of Russia it is clear that it
wants the preservation of the status quo, that is the situation of
"neither peace nor war" for the conflict to remain unresolved. In this
case Russia has levers of pressure on both Azerbaijan and Armenia. The
settlement of this conflict in anyone's favor would mean that both
Azerbaijan and Armenia will immediately start the open search of ways
of integration into the Euro-Atlantic space. Naturally, Russia wants
to prevent such an outcome. As for the United States, its natural
interests require preservation of stability in the Caucasus for the
successful implementation of energy and transport projects. In this
case the necessary stability already exists and any additional steps
even for the forced settlement of the conflict are undesirable for
the United States. Thus, the status quo also meets the US interests.
Meanwhile, France represents not only itself but also the whole
European Union. European Union which is trying to continue successful
integration in the European Continent does not want any conflict
situations in the area. Thus, France is also interested in the conflict
not to pass to the hot phase. EU does not care too much about who will
hold Karabakh, they consider that Karabakh should belong to a party
that will be able to hold control of it. We should not forget that
Armenian Diaspora and lobby have strong positions in all mediating
countries which makes these states apply double standards.
Lala B.