Tweet
NAGORNO-KARABAKH DESERVES MORE ATTENTION FROM US & EU
RIA Novosti
27/10/2010
RIA Novosti interview with Alexei Vlasov
The presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
The presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan will meet on October
27 to discuss the unresolved conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave
inside Azerbaijan with an ethnic Armenian majority. Russia has long
acted as the principal mediator in the dispute. When will the deadlock
be broken? What role is played by outside parties, mainly the United
States the EU? What are their interests in the conflict? Alexei Vlasov,
editor-in-chief of Vestnik Kavkaza, a news and analysis website devoted
to the Caucasus, shares his views with RIA Novosti's Samir Shakhbaz.
There is a lot of pessimism about the prospects for a settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Are you also pessimistic?
There is certainly cause for pessimism. But the fact that the
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan will be meeting for the third
time in one year, with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev mediating,
suggests that a compromise is possible. Even if it is not reached at
the two upcoming meetings -- the one in Astrakhan or at the December
OSCE summit in Astana -- these events will probably lay the foundation
for agreements reached in 2011. The Karabakh issue has to be resolved
sooner or later.
Have the sides made any other tangible progress, apart from these
meetings between the three presidents?
The most positive change is that Armenia and Azerbaijan have clearly
articulated their positions. This is a very important step; they have
created an agenda, which allows mediators to start working on the
two main problems. On the one hand, Azerbaijan is opposed to signing
any documents stipulating that they will not use military force
against Nagorno-Karabakh; Armenia, in turn, is reluctant to set any
timeframe, even a very tentative one, for the liberation of at least
those areas classified as adjacent territories, which were never part
of Nagorno-Karabakh. I believe these two issues will be the focus of
negotiations for the next six months, as both Armenia and Azerbaijan
agree that the breakaway region's status should be determined through
a referendum in accordance with the Madrid Principles, and that it
should not be delayed.
But do you think the Astana summit will produce any constructive
decisions? If it doesn't, what steps should be taken?
Regarding the summit, let me be clear that I do not expect any
concrete decisions will be made or any documents will be signed. The
best they can do is adopt a general declaration stating that they
are willing to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the conflict. The
South Caucasus mission of Kazakhstan's Secretary of State and
Foreign Minister Kanat Saudabayev was not very successful. So what
alternative do we have if the conflict is not resolved soon? Another
war? No one wants war. Regardless of the statements they make to the
media, neither Moscow, Brussels, Azerbaijan or Armenia want to fight,
although Azerbaijan's military budget has reached 3 billion $, while
Armenia's stands at 400 million$. They are engaged in a small-scale
arms race, which, considering the region's strategic location close to
the Caspian Sea, should raise concerns not only in Russia and Europe,
but also in the United States, which has commercial interests in the
region. Admittedly, no one wants to fight, but no one wants to pressure
Azerbaijan and Armenia either. The mediators want to maintain balance
and avoid acting being seen as partial to one side. What options are
there? I believe Russia has struck the right note. Russia is providing
consistent support for the negotiations and trying to come up with
different ways to resolve the dispute. For example, it has proposed
public diplomacy and the gradual return of refugees - in other words,
anything that could move the process past this deadlock.
I don't see any other options. The recent protocols signed by Armenia
and Turkey has shown that Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov can exert
pressure, but ultimately the public will have the final say. And the
public does not see any possibility for an open, honest and transparent
reconciliation at this point, but let's hope it will some day.
When we talk about the international community playing a more active
role in the process, we are really talking about the United States
and the EU. Do you think the fact that the U.S. and the EU have been
dragging their feet creates space for Turkey and Iran to play greater
roles in the region?
Absolutely. The United States has taken a timeout. Its motives have
to do more with the Iranian problem rather than the Karabakh conflict.
America's current priority is to have a clear understanding with its
potential partners in case decisions are made about Iran, possibly
even to use of military force. That is why the Nagorno-Karabakh issue
has been pushed to the background. Clinton has not made any specific
proposals, just general declarations. You are certainly right about
Iran's growing role in Armenia, which Iran views as an important
partner. Turkey is beginning to play a similar role in Azerbaijan.
However, I don't think negotiations will be successful without
Russian participation. Moscow has been the core of the negotiating
process since the Maydorf Declaration was signed. Turkey and Iran can
play as large or small a role as they want in the process. Although
Turkey shares Russia's position, neither Turkey nor Iran is able to
independently propose a roadmap for resolving the Karabakh conflict
without Russia's involvement.
So it is fair to say that no settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh will be
possible until the United States resolves its problems with Iran?
This is only one of the factors affecting the prospects for a
settlement. There are many others. The United States would be
perfectly satisfied to remain in a stalemate at this point, like the
"no war, no peace" formula Trotsky proposed to Germany in 1918. But if
President Obama is defeated in the next presidential elections, which
is possible, a new Republican administration will have to deal with a
host of hot spots in the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. In
other words, Iran is not the only important factor here and domestic
issues in the U.S., for example, also play a role here, as they affect
the country's foreign policy. Brussels, unlike Washington, wants to
help make progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, because
Europe has felt for a long time now that it needs to demonstrate
that the EU's policies, political tools and principles for conflict
resolution can be successfully applied in post-Soviet republics. It
has not had much success in Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
That is why they are determined to make a concerted effort in
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
From: A. Papazian
RIA Novosti
27/10/2010
RIA Novosti interview with Alexei Vlasov
The presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
The presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan will meet on October
27 to discuss the unresolved conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave
inside Azerbaijan with an ethnic Armenian majority. Russia has long
acted as the principal mediator in the dispute. When will the deadlock
be broken? What role is played by outside parties, mainly the United
States the EU? What are their interests in the conflict? Alexei Vlasov,
editor-in-chief of Vestnik Kavkaza, a news and analysis website devoted
to the Caucasus, shares his views with RIA Novosti's Samir Shakhbaz.
There is a lot of pessimism about the prospects for a settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Are you also pessimistic?
There is certainly cause for pessimism. But the fact that the
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan will be meeting for the third
time in one year, with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev mediating,
suggests that a compromise is possible. Even if it is not reached at
the two upcoming meetings -- the one in Astrakhan or at the December
OSCE summit in Astana -- these events will probably lay the foundation
for agreements reached in 2011. The Karabakh issue has to be resolved
sooner or later.
Have the sides made any other tangible progress, apart from these
meetings between the three presidents?
The most positive change is that Armenia and Azerbaijan have clearly
articulated their positions. This is a very important step; they have
created an agenda, which allows mediators to start working on the
two main problems. On the one hand, Azerbaijan is opposed to signing
any documents stipulating that they will not use military force
against Nagorno-Karabakh; Armenia, in turn, is reluctant to set any
timeframe, even a very tentative one, for the liberation of at least
those areas classified as adjacent territories, which were never part
of Nagorno-Karabakh. I believe these two issues will be the focus of
negotiations for the next six months, as both Armenia and Azerbaijan
agree that the breakaway region's status should be determined through
a referendum in accordance with the Madrid Principles, and that it
should not be delayed.
But do you think the Astana summit will produce any constructive
decisions? If it doesn't, what steps should be taken?
Regarding the summit, let me be clear that I do not expect any
concrete decisions will be made or any documents will be signed. The
best they can do is adopt a general declaration stating that they
are willing to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the conflict. The
South Caucasus mission of Kazakhstan's Secretary of State and
Foreign Minister Kanat Saudabayev was not very successful. So what
alternative do we have if the conflict is not resolved soon? Another
war? No one wants war. Regardless of the statements they make to the
media, neither Moscow, Brussels, Azerbaijan or Armenia want to fight,
although Azerbaijan's military budget has reached 3 billion $, while
Armenia's stands at 400 million$. They are engaged in a small-scale
arms race, which, considering the region's strategic location close to
the Caspian Sea, should raise concerns not only in Russia and Europe,
but also in the United States, which has commercial interests in the
region. Admittedly, no one wants to fight, but no one wants to pressure
Azerbaijan and Armenia either. The mediators want to maintain balance
and avoid acting being seen as partial to one side. What options are
there? I believe Russia has struck the right note. Russia is providing
consistent support for the negotiations and trying to come up with
different ways to resolve the dispute. For example, it has proposed
public diplomacy and the gradual return of refugees - in other words,
anything that could move the process past this deadlock.
I don't see any other options. The recent protocols signed by Armenia
and Turkey has shown that Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov can exert
pressure, but ultimately the public will have the final say. And the
public does not see any possibility for an open, honest and transparent
reconciliation at this point, but let's hope it will some day.
When we talk about the international community playing a more active
role in the process, we are really talking about the United States
and the EU. Do you think the fact that the U.S. and the EU have been
dragging their feet creates space for Turkey and Iran to play greater
roles in the region?
Absolutely. The United States has taken a timeout. Its motives have
to do more with the Iranian problem rather than the Karabakh conflict.
America's current priority is to have a clear understanding with its
potential partners in case decisions are made about Iran, possibly
even to use of military force. That is why the Nagorno-Karabakh issue
has been pushed to the background. Clinton has not made any specific
proposals, just general declarations. You are certainly right about
Iran's growing role in Armenia, which Iran views as an important
partner. Turkey is beginning to play a similar role in Azerbaijan.
However, I don't think negotiations will be successful without
Russian participation. Moscow has been the core of the negotiating
process since the Maydorf Declaration was signed. Turkey and Iran can
play as large or small a role as they want in the process. Although
Turkey shares Russia's position, neither Turkey nor Iran is able to
independently propose a roadmap for resolving the Karabakh conflict
without Russia's involvement.
So it is fair to say that no settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh will be
possible until the United States resolves its problems with Iran?
This is only one of the factors affecting the prospects for a
settlement. There are many others. The United States would be
perfectly satisfied to remain in a stalemate at this point, like the
"no war, no peace" formula Trotsky proposed to Germany in 1918. But if
President Obama is defeated in the next presidential elections, which
is possible, a new Republican administration will have to deal with a
host of hot spots in the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. In
other words, Iran is not the only important factor here and domestic
issues in the U.S., for example, also play a role here, as they affect
the country's foreign policy. Brussels, unlike Washington, wants to
help make progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, because
Europe has felt for a long time now that it needs to demonstrate
that the EU's policies, political tools and principles for conflict
resolution can be successfully applied in post-Soviet republics. It
has not had much success in Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
That is why they are determined to make a concerted effort in
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
From: A. Papazian