Tweet
QUANTITY OF MEETINGS DOES NOT NECESSARILY GIVE QUALITATIVE EFFECT - ANALYST
nes.az
July 1 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Andrey Makarychev, Professor, Institute for East
European studies, Free University of Berlin.
Do you share the opinion of some observers that the negotiations on
Karabakh entered a deadlock after the meeting in Kazan during which
the documents on basic principles of the settlement process have not
been signed?
The trilateral summit on Nagorno-Karabakh held a few days ago in
Kazan', seems to be another confirmation of Russia's desperate lack
of effective means for influencing the conflict resolution in one of
hottest point in CIS, the area which - ironically - Russia considers
to constitute the sphere of its vital interest.
The only sign of change this time was mostly rhetorical: Russian
comments after the summit were a bit more explicit in pointing to
Armenia as a conflict party that prevents the implementation of the
Madrid proposals.
Is there a need to review the format of mediators in process
of settlement, if the current format of co-chairs does not give
necessary results?
The Kazan summit clearly confirmed that quantity of meetings does
not necessarily give qualitative effect. Seen from a more general
perspective, this situation raises the pivotal issues of efficacy of
the international society (as exemplified by either mediators like
Russia or institutions as the Minsk group) in regional conflicts
marked by persisting relations of mutual enmity.
Perhaps, the time is ripe for searching more creative solutions: if
the Minsk group fails to effectively perform its functions, how about
trying other possible institutional arrangements that might give a
stronger voice for countries like Turkey or, perhaps, even China?
Aspirants for "alternative" world leadership abound, but unfortunately
by now neither of them appears to be keen to contributing to conflict
resolutions in Eurasia - a task much more significant than playing
the balancing games against the West.
What do you think about prospects of further active, I would say,
a sole mediation in Karabakh settlement?
As far as Russia is concerned, the question Moscow has to bear in
mind is whether it may stay militarily aloof in an unfortunate yet
not completely unthinkable case of the eruption of armed conflict
over Nagorno Karabakh.
Perhaps, the key argument for Russian neutrality could be the fact
that this territory is not even recognized by Armenia - thus why
Russia has to commit its resources and risk the life of its soldiers
for the sake of protecting the legally non-existing unit?
nes.az
July 1 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Andrey Makarychev, Professor, Institute for East
European studies, Free University of Berlin.
Do you share the opinion of some observers that the negotiations on
Karabakh entered a deadlock after the meeting in Kazan during which
the documents on basic principles of the settlement process have not
been signed?
The trilateral summit on Nagorno-Karabakh held a few days ago in
Kazan', seems to be another confirmation of Russia's desperate lack
of effective means for influencing the conflict resolution in one of
hottest point in CIS, the area which - ironically - Russia considers
to constitute the sphere of its vital interest.
The only sign of change this time was mostly rhetorical: Russian
comments after the summit were a bit more explicit in pointing to
Armenia as a conflict party that prevents the implementation of the
Madrid proposals.
Is there a need to review the format of mediators in process
of settlement, if the current format of co-chairs does not give
necessary results?
The Kazan summit clearly confirmed that quantity of meetings does
not necessarily give qualitative effect. Seen from a more general
perspective, this situation raises the pivotal issues of efficacy of
the international society (as exemplified by either mediators like
Russia or institutions as the Minsk group) in regional conflicts
marked by persisting relations of mutual enmity.
Perhaps, the time is ripe for searching more creative solutions: if
the Minsk group fails to effectively perform its functions, how about
trying other possible institutional arrangements that might give a
stronger voice for countries like Turkey or, perhaps, even China?
Aspirants for "alternative" world leadership abound, but unfortunately
by now neither of them appears to be keen to contributing to conflict
resolutions in Eurasia - a task much more significant than playing
the balancing games against the West.
What do you think about prospects of further active, I would say,
a sole mediation in Karabakh settlement?
As far as Russia is concerned, the question Moscow has to bear in
mind is whether it may stay militarily aloof in an unfortunate yet
not completely unthinkable case of the eruption of armed conflict
over Nagorno Karabakh.
Perhaps, the key argument for Russian neutrality could be the fact
that this territory is not even recognized by Armenia - thus why
Russia has to commit its resources and risk the life of its soldiers
for the sake of protecting the legally non-existing unit?