Tweet
RUSSIA WILL ONLY BENEFIT FROM KARABAKH CONFLICT RESOLUTION
news.az
July 1 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Sahib Aliyev, member of Milli Majlis, the parliament
of Azerbaijan, and political expert.
How do you asses the outcome of the recent Kazan meeting between
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan mediated by Russian leader Dmitriy Medvedev?
I did not feel optimistic about any significant results on the Karabakh
conflict settlement in a Kazan meeting. Negative psychological moment
around the participants of the meeting in Kazan played a role in
absence of any tangible results in negotiations. One such reason was
Russian State Duma's ratification of the agreement with Armenia which
extended stay of Russian military base in Armenia for a longer period
and that surplus weapons and munitions from the base were donated to
the Armenian side.
Of course, all this showed that Armenia would take a constructive
position in the negotiations. Thus, Armenia once again benefited from
the policy of maintaining a balance between the conflicting parties
used by the Karabakh conflict mediators, including Russia itself. In
other words, officially, mediators and Russia show the same approach
both to the aggressor and to the side which is subject to aggression.
Russian media, quoting a diplomatic source close to the talks, reported
that the Russian president is so disappointed with the outcome of the
Kazan summit that he was ready to terminate his mediation mission. In
this case, what might be the "destiny" of the negotiating process on
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement?
As you know, the states acting as international mediators in the
Karabakh conflict settlement, at one time or another, took the
initiative and acted as moderator in solving this problem. Russia has
acted as a moderator for the last three years. Judging by the Russian
proverb that "a holy place is never empty," we can assume that if
Moscow departs from the active mediation in the Karabakh settlement,
it can be replaced by another moderator from the OSCE Minsk Group
member countries.
On the other hand, the Azerbaijani side, which is all the more
impatient about continuation of the status quo in the Karabakh
conflict, might not accept this. However, Russia has the most
significant potential to solve the Karabakh conflict among the
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.
In the meantime, Russia also will be a party that will benefit from
the solution of the Karabakh conflict to a greater extent. Only a
superficial analysis might show that preservation of the Karabakh
conflict in a frozen state meets Russia's interests in the short term.
But this state of affairs for the Russian side can continue until the
first case of force majeure. I mean resumption of hostilities between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Therefore, the option of a phased settlement
of the Karabakh conflict meets interests of not only Azerbaijan but
also Russia.
Russia will retain its influence in the South Caucasus region once
Armenia withdraws forces from areas around Nagorno-Karabakh. Besides,
Russia can get some dividends in exchange for providing such services.
We should not forget that Azerbaijan has already given Russia certain
signals about some dividends. Shortly before the meeting in Kazan
Azerbaijan joined the Non-Aligned Movement making it clear for the
Russian side that Baku will not consider NATO membership even in the
long term.
Moreover, Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev shortly before the
meeting in Kazan said that Baku does not see a need to build an
additional pipeline to transport its energy resources. However, as it
is evident from statements by members of the Russian ruling elite, this
country has no common approach towards the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. In other words, Russia's political leadership initiates the
meeting between Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, makes efforts to
achieve progress in the negotiations, however, the military leadership
of Russia makes statements in favor of the Armenian side.
Western countries openly support Georgia, and in some cases engage
in confrontation with Russia because of Georgia. However, the same
West agrees to and trusts Russia's mediation in the Karabakh conflict
settlement. What is the reason for such a dual approach of Western
countries in relation to Azerbaijan and its problems?
In this context, one should emphasize the results this kind of support
provided by the West had for Georgia. I mean the war in the Caucasus
in 2008. West's support for Georgia ended up in a complete loss of
control over the country's two regions. Also, Azerbaijan holds talks
rather with countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group than with
Armenia in Karabakh issue.
In other words, Azerbaijan's diplomatic resources are directed not
only against Armenia, but also to neutralize, and in some cases to
attract OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries to its side. After all, it
is clear that the co-chair countries, without diplomatic efforts from
the Azerbaijani side, will have no interest in solving the Karabakh
conflict. Since all three co-chairs of OSCE Minsk Group are interested
in preserving the status quo in the Karabakh conflict settlement.
In this respect, I want to emphasize the increased efforts by co-chairs
lately. Looking at the current situation in the world, one can see
absence of significant events that could change the international
situation on the Karabakh issue. The fact that Azerbaijan becomes
stronger makes international mediators step up efforts.
What impact the futile Kazan meeting can have on the Karabakh conflict
settlement and the region as a whole?
Of course, the threat of war will remain on the agenda as long as the
lands of Azerbaijan are under occupation especially if Baku constantly
says that the threat of war resumption will continue.
However, the statements by the Azerbaijani President make it clear
that there are still hopes for peaceful resolution of the conflict.
So, we can say the potential for negotiations still exists.
news.az
July 1 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Sahib Aliyev, member of Milli Majlis, the parliament
of Azerbaijan, and political expert.
How do you asses the outcome of the recent Kazan meeting between
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan mediated by Russian leader Dmitriy Medvedev?
I did not feel optimistic about any significant results on the Karabakh
conflict settlement in a Kazan meeting. Negative psychological moment
around the participants of the meeting in Kazan played a role in
absence of any tangible results in negotiations. One such reason was
Russian State Duma's ratification of the agreement with Armenia which
extended stay of Russian military base in Armenia for a longer period
and that surplus weapons and munitions from the base were donated to
the Armenian side.
Of course, all this showed that Armenia would take a constructive
position in the negotiations. Thus, Armenia once again benefited from
the policy of maintaining a balance between the conflicting parties
used by the Karabakh conflict mediators, including Russia itself. In
other words, officially, mediators and Russia show the same approach
both to the aggressor and to the side which is subject to aggression.
Russian media, quoting a diplomatic source close to the talks, reported
that the Russian president is so disappointed with the outcome of the
Kazan summit that he was ready to terminate his mediation mission. In
this case, what might be the "destiny" of the negotiating process on
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement?
As you know, the states acting as international mediators in the
Karabakh conflict settlement, at one time or another, took the
initiative and acted as moderator in solving this problem. Russia has
acted as a moderator for the last three years. Judging by the Russian
proverb that "a holy place is never empty," we can assume that if
Moscow departs from the active mediation in the Karabakh settlement,
it can be replaced by another moderator from the OSCE Minsk Group
member countries.
On the other hand, the Azerbaijani side, which is all the more
impatient about continuation of the status quo in the Karabakh
conflict, might not accept this. However, Russia has the most
significant potential to solve the Karabakh conflict among the
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.
In the meantime, Russia also will be a party that will benefit from
the solution of the Karabakh conflict to a greater extent. Only a
superficial analysis might show that preservation of the Karabakh
conflict in a frozen state meets Russia's interests in the short term.
But this state of affairs for the Russian side can continue until the
first case of force majeure. I mean resumption of hostilities between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Therefore, the option of a phased settlement
of the Karabakh conflict meets interests of not only Azerbaijan but
also Russia.
Russia will retain its influence in the South Caucasus region once
Armenia withdraws forces from areas around Nagorno-Karabakh. Besides,
Russia can get some dividends in exchange for providing such services.
We should not forget that Azerbaijan has already given Russia certain
signals about some dividends. Shortly before the meeting in Kazan
Azerbaijan joined the Non-Aligned Movement making it clear for the
Russian side that Baku will not consider NATO membership even in the
long term.
Moreover, Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev shortly before the
meeting in Kazan said that Baku does not see a need to build an
additional pipeline to transport its energy resources. However, as it
is evident from statements by members of the Russian ruling elite, this
country has no common approach towards the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. In other words, Russia's political leadership initiates the
meeting between Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, makes efforts to
achieve progress in the negotiations, however, the military leadership
of Russia makes statements in favor of the Armenian side.
Western countries openly support Georgia, and in some cases engage
in confrontation with Russia because of Georgia. However, the same
West agrees to and trusts Russia's mediation in the Karabakh conflict
settlement. What is the reason for such a dual approach of Western
countries in relation to Azerbaijan and its problems?
In this context, one should emphasize the results this kind of support
provided by the West had for Georgia. I mean the war in the Caucasus
in 2008. West's support for Georgia ended up in a complete loss of
control over the country's two regions. Also, Azerbaijan holds talks
rather with countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group than with
Armenia in Karabakh issue.
In other words, Azerbaijan's diplomatic resources are directed not
only against Armenia, but also to neutralize, and in some cases to
attract OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries to its side. After all, it
is clear that the co-chair countries, without diplomatic efforts from
the Azerbaijani side, will have no interest in solving the Karabakh
conflict. Since all three co-chairs of OSCE Minsk Group are interested
in preserving the status quo in the Karabakh conflict settlement.
In this respect, I want to emphasize the increased efforts by co-chairs
lately. Looking at the current situation in the world, one can see
absence of significant events that could change the international
situation on the Karabakh issue. The fact that Azerbaijan becomes
stronger makes international mediators step up efforts.
What impact the futile Kazan meeting can have on the Karabakh conflict
settlement and the region as a whole?
Of course, the threat of war will remain on the agenda as long as the
lands of Azerbaijan are under occupation especially if Baku constantly
says that the threat of war resumption will continue.
However, the statements by the Azerbaijani President make it clear
that there are still hopes for peaceful resolution of the conflict.
So, we can say the potential for negotiations still exists.