Tweet
IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO RESUME ARMENIAN-TURKISH PROCESS BY MEANS OF ZURICH PROTOCOLS
By Ashot Safaryan
arminfo
2011-01-25 11:13:00
Interview of political expert Alexander Markarov with ArmInfo News
Agency
Mr. Markarov, the ruling coalition of Armenia has refused to vote
for Heritage Party's Bill "On Recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic". What do you think Armenian diplomacy can refer to in this
case when it persuades its partners to recognize the NKR and doesn't
do that itself?
The recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh is a trump. Armenia should not
hurry to play. Today this step will not contribute to the settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
The basis for the NKR recognition as a subject of international law
is on the one hand de facto establishment and institutionalization
of the given state as an independent subject. On the other hand, one
can refer to the standards of international law, within the frames of
which Nagorno-Karabakh both withdrew itself from the Azerbaijani SSR
and proclaimed its independence. Azerbaijan has no legal, historical
or moral bases to recognize the NKR part of its territory.
What are the conflict settlement prospects in 2011 against this
background?
I think the Karabakh peace process will continue exclusively within the
OSCE Minsk Group format, and other international structures currently
acknowledge the given format as the most constructive one.
However, this does not prevent other organizations, particularly,
NATO from initiating resolutions containing formulations on
Nagorno-Karabakh.
NATO has repeatedly pointed out, including during the Lisbon Summit,
that it does not see its role in the conflict settlement. Moscow's
role as a mediator in the peace process will be growing at the same
time. We see that Russia is more active in the Karabakh conflict
settlement, and this is proved by several meetings of the Armenian
and Azerbaijani presidents that were held through the mediation of the
Russian president. This is like a "side" branch in the peace process.
Within the frames of the trilateral format attempts are being made to
tackle some small issues. In particular, one of them is the agreement
on exchange of POWs and dead bodies reached in Astrakhan in October
2010.
Let's pass to foreign policy - the Armenian-Turkish process. Will
Ankara shortly demonstrate willingness to continue the process of
normalization with Armenia in order to make the US president avoid
the word "genocide" once again?
In case of resumption of the Armenian-Turkish normalization process,
a new document will apparently be needed, as the Protocols signed in
Zurich seem to be out-of-date already. The Zurich Protocols undoubtedly
played their role - they demonstrated Armenia's willingness to start
a dialogue without any preconditions, as well as the fact that in its
foreign policy Turkey turned out to be the hostage of its relations
with Azerbaijan. The Protocols showed Armenia's willingness for talks
and our partners' unwillingness to take political decisions without
looking at their allies.
The US president has recently said in his interview with Turkish
newspaper that the relations with Turkey are more important for
Washington than ever. Is this one more attempt to keep Ankara in the
zone of American influence?
Washington undoubtedly has had its vital interests in the region for a
long time, and Israel and Turkey were a rampart for extension of its
influence. Currently there are disagreements between the indicated
allies of America, and the Turkish foreign policy somewhat lurches
towards the Islamic world. The USA understands that its influence on
a strategic partner may reduce; therefore attempts are being made
to recover the interrelations and the influence on Ankara. Certain
disagreements between the USA and Turkey will continue but they
will not concern the bases of strategic partnership between these
countries. Along with it, one should not forget that Turkey perfectly
realizes that it needs the American support none the worse.
Regarding domestic policy: the recent personnel replacements have
caused a wide public response. Are they capable to improve the activity
of the given ministries?
The necessity to improve the work of certain spheres is doubtless,
indeed. But it is another question whether the appointment of the
new ministers will contribute to improvement or not. In general, if
in this case the system is ineffective, the personnel replacements
cannot change the content of the personnel policy of the authorities.
At the same time the competition between the Armenian authorities and
the opposition has become the reason why the authorities are ready
to make positive changes. And the recent personnel replacements in
the government may be also watched like an evidence of these positive
tendencies. Improvement of the system will weaken the opposition to
a certain extent, as there will be fewer reasons for criticism.
Does this criticism lead to real competition between them, as elections
are in the offing?
The competition between the Armenian authorities and the opposition
leads to readiness of the former to make positive changes. As for the
opposition, it is trying to get crystallized and come forward not as
the force which is functioning on the negative basis, but the force
which is trying to present its positive proposal to the society.
The Armenian National Congress seems to be distancing itself from the
other oppositional forces more and more, particularly, from Heritage
and ARFD, which ANC has never considered opposition. What is the
reason of such "estrangement"?
To all appearances, the Armenian National Congress is currently trying
to monopolize the oppositional niche hopefully to become the only
authority in case of the power change in Armenia. I do not mean that
it will come to power; the point is that any opposition tries to set
itself up as a future power. So, based on this, they remote themselves
from other parties which currently appear in the parliament as an
opposition: these are both ARFD and Heritage. Along with it, I must
say that ANC, as a non-parliamentary opposition, has quite a great
chance to become parliamentary opposition after the regular election.
The remoteness of the Congress is called to show the water-parting
which exists between the parliamentary and non-parliamentary
opposition, as well as to demonstrate the fight between these forces
for electorate.
From: A. Papazian
By Ashot Safaryan
arminfo
2011-01-25 11:13:00
Interview of political expert Alexander Markarov with ArmInfo News
Agency
Mr. Markarov, the ruling coalition of Armenia has refused to vote
for Heritage Party's Bill "On Recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic". What do you think Armenian diplomacy can refer to in this
case when it persuades its partners to recognize the NKR and doesn't
do that itself?
The recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh is a trump. Armenia should not
hurry to play. Today this step will not contribute to the settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
The basis for the NKR recognition as a subject of international law
is on the one hand de facto establishment and institutionalization
of the given state as an independent subject. On the other hand, one
can refer to the standards of international law, within the frames of
which Nagorno-Karabakh both withdrew itself from the Azerbaijani SSR
and proclaimed its independence. Azerbaijan has no legal, historical
or moral bases to recognize the NKR part of its territory.
What are the conflict settlement prospects in 2011 against this
background?
I think the Karabakh peace process will continue exclusively within the
OSCE Minsk Group format, and other international structures currently
acknowledge the given format as the most constructive one.
However, this does not prevent other organizations, particularly,
NATO from initiating resolutions containing formulations on
Nagorno-Karabakh.
NATO has repeatedly pointed out, including during the Lisbon Summit,
that it does not see its role in the conflict settlement. Moscow's
role as a mediator in the peace process will be growing at the same
time. We see that Russia is more active in the Karabakh conflict
settlement, and this is proved by several meetings of the Armenian
and Azerbaijani presidents that were held through the mediation of the
Russian president. This is like a "side" branch in the peace process.
Within the frames of the trilateral format attempts are being made to
tackle some small issues. In particular, one of them is the agreement
on exchange of POWs and dead bodies reached in Astrakhan in October
2010.
Let's pass to foreign policy - the Armenian-Turkish process. Will
Ankara shortly demonstrate willingness to continue the process of
normalization with Armenia in order to make the US president avoid
the word "genocide" once again?
In case of resumption of the Armenian-Turkish normalization process,
a new document will apparently be needed, as the Protocols signed in
Zurich seem to be out-of-date already. The Zurich Protocols undoubtedly
played their role - they demonstrated Armenia's willingness to start
a dialogue without any preconditions, as well as the fact that in its
foreign policy Turkey turned out to be the hostage of its relations
with Azerbaijan. The Protocols showed Armenia's willingness for talks
and our partners' unwillingness to take political decisions without
looking at their allies.
The US president has recently said in his interview with Turkish
newspaper that the relations with Turkey are more important for
Washington than ever. Is this one more attempt to keep Ankara in the
zone of American influence?
Washington undoubtedly has had its vital interests in the region for a
long time, and Israel and Turkey were a rampart for extension of its
influence. Currently there are disagreements between the indicated
allies of America, and the Turkish foreign policy somewhat lurches
towards the Islamic world. The USA understands that its influence on
a strategic partner may reduce; therefore attempts are being made
to recover the interrelations and the influence on Ankara. Certain
disagreements between the USA and Turkey will continue but they
will not concern the bases of strategic partnership between these
countries. Along with it, one should not forget that Turkey perfectly
realizes that it needs the American support none the worse.
Regarding domestic policy: the recent personnel replacements have
caused a wide public response. Are they capable to improve the activity
of the given ministries?
The necessity to improve the work of certain spheres is doubtless,
indeed. But it is another question whether the appointment of the
new ministers will contribute to improvement or not. In general, if
in this case the system is ineffective, the personnel replacements
cannot change the content of the personnel policy of the authorities.
At the same time the competition between the Armenian authorities and
the opposition has become the reason why the authorities are ready
to make positive changes. And the recent personnel replacements in
the government may be also watched like an evidence of these positive
tendencies. Improvement of the system will weaken the opposition to
a certain extent, as there will be fewer reasons for criticism.
Does this criticism lead to real competition between them, as elections
are in the offing?
The competition between the Armenian authorities and the opposition
leads to readiness of the former to make positive changes. As for the
opposition, it is trying to get crystallized and come forward not as
the force which is functioning on the negative basis, but the force
which is trying to present its positive proposal to the society.
The Armenian National Congress seems to be distancing itself from the
other oppositional forces more and more, particularly, from Heritage
and ARFD, which ANC has never considered opposition. What is the
reason of such "estrangement"?
To all appearances, the Armenian National Congress is currently trying
to monopolize the oppositional niche hopefully to become the only
authority in case of the power change in Armenia. I do not mean that
it will come to power; the point is that any opposition tries to set
itself up as a future power. So, based on this, they remote themselves
from other parties which currently appear in the parliament as an
opposition: these are both ARFD and Heritage. Along with it, I must
say that ANC, as a non-parliamentary opposition, has quite a great
chance to become parliamentary opposition after the regular election.
The remoteness of the Congress is called to show the water-parting
which exists between the parliamentary and non-parliamentary
opposition, as well as to demonstrate the fight between these forces
for electorate.
From: A. Papazian