Tweet
news.az, Azerbaijan
May 8 2010
Karabakh solution needs 'more pressure to change status quo'
Sat 08 May 2010 | 09:54 GMT Text size:
Thomas de Waal News.Az interviews Thomas de Waal, author of the book
Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War.
This month sees the 16th anniversary of the ceasefire between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. Do you think the sides will manage to make any
progress in resolution of the Karabakh conflict? Will the
international community recognize Karabakh as an independent entity?
The major achievement in the last 16 years is that there has been no
major resumption of hostilities. No war is always better than war. But
obviously it is a major disappointment that the sides cannot agree on
a peace agreement. Essentially what we have seen over this period is a
'non-aggression pact'. The essential difference remains the same one
that began the conflict in February 1988, the issue of the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh itself. I don't see that the two sides are any closer
to agreement on this than they were in 1988. And while that difference
remains, for me the principal danger is not a big outbreak of fighting
(which is possible but fortunately I think very unlikely), but an
escalation of the situation on the line of contact in which young
soldiers from both sides will die.
Azerbaijan says that sooner or later it will restore its control over
Karabakh and the other occupied Azerbaijani lands. What conditions
would lead the Armenians to make such concessions?
I have to be blunt on this issue - I cannot foresee circumstances
under which Azerbaijan restores full sovereignty over
Nagorno-Karabakh. Everything that has happened in the last 22 years
has gradually removed that sovereignty. Karabakh has become gradually
Armenianized. At the same time, I do not foresee Nagorno-Karabakh
gaining full independence. That is why I think the formula of 'interim
international status' as set out under the Madrid Principles is a very
good one. If the two sides can agree to that, then Azerbaijan will
receive back the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh and the Karabakh
Armenians will keep what they have at the moment. I cannot see a
better result than this. But this agreement will also involve changes
in the situation on the ground and a much greater international
commitment to make it work.
What do you think is needed for a breakthrough in the resolution of
the Karabakh conflict?
To my mind, for the conflict to be solved peacefully there needs to be
more pressure to change the status quo. That pressure could come from
below, if societies were more open and democratic. But the
semi-authoritarian leaders on both sides prefer to preserve a
nationalist atmosphere in which patriotic slogans about Karabakh have
precedence over debate about what is the best solution for everyone -
even as the same leaders in private discuss a document which envisages
major concessions to the other side. Or that pressure could come from
outside if the international community were more interested in the
conflict. Many people in the region think that world leaders are
manipulating the Karabakh conflict and could solve it if they wanted
to. I have the opposite view - they do not show sufficient interest in
the issue and it is too low down their agenda.
Thomas de Waal is a senior associate on the Russia and Eurasia Program
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Lala B.
News.Az
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
May 8 2010
Karabakh solution needs 'more pressure to change status quo'
Sat 08 May 2010 | 09:54 GMT Text size:
Thomas de Waal News.Az interviews Thomas de Waal, author of the book
Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War.
This month sees the 16th anniversary of the ceasefire between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. Do you think the sides will manage to make any
progress in resolution of the Karabakh conflict? Will the
international community recognize Karabakh as an independent entity?
The major achievement in the last 16 years is that there has been no
major resumption of hostilities. No war is always better than war. But
obviously it is a major disappointment that the sides cannot agree on
a peace agreement. Essentially what we have seen over this period is a
'non-aggression pact'. The essential difference remains the same one
that began the conflict in February 1988, the issue of the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh itself. I don't see that the two sides are any closer
to agreement on this than they were in 1988. And while that difference
remains, for me the principal danger is not a big outbreak of fighting
(which is possible but fortunately I think very unlikely), but an
escalation of the situation on the line of contact in which young
soldiers from both sides will die.
Azerbaijan says that sooner or later it will restore its control over
Karabakh and the other occupied Azerbaijani lands. What conditions
would lead the Armenians to make such concessions?
I have to be blunt on this issue - I cannot foresee circumstances
under which Azerbaijan restores full sovereignty over
Nagorno-Karabakh. Everything that has happened in the last 22 years
has gradually removed that sovereignty. Karabakh has become gradually
Armenianized. At the same time, I do not foresee Nagorno-Karabakh
gaining full independence. That is why I think the formula of 'interim
international status' as set out under the Madrid Principles is a very
good one. If the two sides can agree to that, then Azerbaijan will
receive back the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh and the Karabakh
Armenians will keep what they have at the moment. I cannot see a
better result than this. But this agreement will also involve changes
in the situation on the ground and a much greater international
commitment to make it work.
What do you think is needed for a breakthrough in the resolution of
the Karabakh conflict?
To my mind, for the conflict to be solved peacefully there needs to be
more pressure to change the status quo. That pressure could come from
below, if societies were more open and democratic. But the
semi-authoritarian leaders on both sides prefer to preserve a
nationalist atmosphere in which patriotic slogans about Karabakh have
precedence over debate about what is the best solution for everyone -
even as the same leaders in private discuss a document which envisages
major concessions to the other side. Or that pressure could come from
outside if the international community were more interested in the
conflict. Many people in the region think that world leaders are
manipulating the Karabakh conflict and could solve it if they wanted
to. I have the opposite view - they do not show sufficient interest in
the issue and it is too low down their agenda.
Thomas de Waal is a senior associate on the Russia and Eurasia Program
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Lala B.
News.Az
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress