Tweet
THINGS WILL BE WORSE FOR ARMENIA HEREAFTER
news.az
July 13 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Rasim Musabayov, political expert.
The process of international recognition of a new state - Southern
Sudan began later last week. Should Azerbaijan also follow this
example or it should refrain as in this case we are talking about
the right of peoples to self-determination?
>From what should we refrain? This decision was adopted with the
consent of the central government, unfortunately, after a long war
that killed nearly 2 million people. In general, the decision has
been made, and I do not think that Azerbaijan should distance itself
from this in some form.
How do you comment on excitement among Armenian experts who see
realization of population's right to self-determination in Southern
Sudan as further proof of the same "rights" of the Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh?
We are talking about 8-9 million people in Sudan. In Kosovo, it was
about 2 million people. This is a nation. And in general, there
is place for these states on the political map of the world. But
autonomy was created for 100,000 Armenians as national minorities so
that they can feel comfortable unlike 150,000 Armenians in Javakhatia
who have no autonomy or 300,000 Azerbaijanis in Georgia, who also do
not have autonomy, or 200,000 Azerbaijanis who lived in Armenia had
an no autonomous status.
However, Armenians of Karabakh were granted autonomy. And if in matters
of autonomy we will erase the line between those forms that are given
to national minorities, there will be no national minorities left on
the map of the world.
They all should either be expelled or made independent. This is
absurd. And it is illogical, absurd world view of Armenians, which
sooner or later will lead to national disaster.
By the way, once the Armenian government, commenting on this position
you voiced consonant with the position of Baku, mockingly reminded of
the expression concerning the relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey
- "One nation - two states", and already more seriously stated that
existence of two Armenian states is possible just as Arabs have many
state today.
Yes, they exist. It there were 2 million Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh,
perhaps, this issue would have some sense. But when 100,000 people
with autonomy considers this an unacceptable form and insists on
independence, tearing apart from the state, what are then "ethnic
minority" and their rights within other states? Therefore, "size does
matter" in this case.
Contrary to forecasts of pessimists, Russian President Medvedev has
not renounced personal active mediation in Karabakh process despite
failure of the Kazan summit. This is evidenced by Russian Foreign
Minister Lavrov's visit to Baku and Yerevan last week during which he
presented Medvedev's latest proposals on Karabakh to the parties. Do
you believe in the success of this mediation?
Apparently, the Kazan meeting really failed. In general, one can
actually say that the five-year negotiating round ends in complete
failure. Taking into account that Russia was a soloist in this
negotiation round for the last two years, it will also be considered
as a failure of Russian mediation.
I believe that to negate this view, the Russian diplomatic service
and the Russian president are making the last attempt to get at least
some result, to sign something that could be evaluated as progress
in resolving the conflict.
How are they going to do it? I do not exclude that it would totally
meet both Russian and Armenian interests to maintain the status quo
by imposing an obligation not to use force on Azerbaijan in one form
or another. But I think they realize that it is almost impossible to
impose this on Azerbaijan on the backdrop ongoing occupation.
Therefore, most likely, they want factor out a controversial issue
associated with the status of Nagorno-Karabakh (I mean, in what form
an interim status can be determined or referendum will be held or
not) and sign a document, which will reflect Armenians' commitment
to withdraw its troops from the territory of Azerbaijan in the future
along with Azerbaijan's undertaking to resolve the issue peacefully.
There are risks for Azerbaijan. They lie in the fact that Armenia will
some time in future (that is, on unspecified date) withdraw its forces
from the Azerbaijani territory while Baku's commitment not to use
force will actually go into effect as soon as we take this commitment.
Unlike his predecessor and current rival in 2012 elections Vladimir
Putin, Medvedev is more active in Karabakh conflict resolution. May
Russia's efforts in this regard reduce once Putin wins elections
next year?
I believe even if Medvedev remains in power and negotiating process
fails to reach any result in its current format, the situation will
mean a point because, in fact, the problem is that the parties have
different approaches.
It is impossible to combine them. It means there is a need to put
pressure on someone. It is impossible to put pressure on Azerbaijan.
Neither Americans, nor French and Russians can do it. On the contrary,
they have great deal of requests to Azerbaijan. But they do not want
to put pressure on Armenians.
It is clear that Medvedev is in some sense interested to go to new
elections with some serious foreign policy success. He needs this. I
think not only personal interest is involved here. Russia's true
interest is to maintain status quo which is impossible. The fact that
any negative scenario will affect Russia's interests badly makes them
move towards resolution of the conflict.
After all, Putin also took some steps to move the negotiating process
forward. If not Medvedev, then Putin will do this. Things will not
be worse for Azerbaijan. It will worse for Armenia hereafter.
F.H.
news.az
July 13 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Rasim Musabayov, political expert.
The process of international recognition of a new state - Southern
Sudan began later last week. Should Azerbaijan also follow this
example or it should refrain as in this case we are talking about
the right of peoples to self-determination?
>From what should we refrain? This decision was adopted with the
consent of the central government, unfortunately, after a long war
that killed nearly 2 million people. In general, the decision has
been made, and I do not think that Azerbaijan should distance itself
from this in some form.
How do you comment on excitement among Armenian experts who see
realization of population's right to self-determination in Southern
Sudan as further proof of the same "rights" of the Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh?
We are talking about 8-9 million people in Sudan. In Kosovo, it was
about 2 million people. This is a nation. And in general, there
is place for these states on the political map of the world. But
autonomy was created for 100,000 Armenians as national minorities so
that they can feel comfortable unlike 150,000 Armenians in Javakhatia
who have no autonomy or 300,000 Azerbaijanis in Georgia, who also do
not have autonomy, or 200,000 Azerbaijanis who lived in Armenia had
an no autonomous status.
However, Armenians of Karabakh were granted autonomy. And if in matters
of autonomy we will erase the line between those forms that are given
to national minorities, there will be no national minorities left on
the map of the world.
They all should either be expelled or made independent. This is
absurd. And it is illogical, absurd world view of Armenians, which
sooner or later will lead to national disaster.
By the way, once the Armenian government, commenting on this position
you voiced consonant with the position of Baku, mockingly reminded of
the expression concerning the relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey
- "One nation - two states", and already more seriously stated that
existence of two Armenian states is possible just as Arabs have many
state today.
Yes, they exist. It there were 2 million Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh,
perhaps, this issue would have some sense. But when 100,000 people
with autonomy considers this an unacceptable form and insists on
independence, tearing apart from the state, what are then "ethnic
minority" and their rights within other states? Therefore, "size does
matter" in this case.
Contrary to forecasts of pessimists, Russian President Medvedev has
not renounced personal active mediation in Karabakh process despite
failure of the Kazan summit. This is evidenced by Russian Foreign
Minister Lavrov's visit to Baku and Yerevan last week during which he
presented Medvedev's latest proposals on Karabakh to the parties. Do
you believe in the success of this mediation?
Apparently, the Kazan meeting really failed. In general, one can
actually say that the five-year negotiating round ends in complete
failure. Taking into account that Russia was a soloist in this
negotiation round for the last two years, it will also be considered
as a failure of Russian mediation.
I believe that to negate this view, the Russian diplomatic service
and the Russian president are making the last attempt to get at least
some result, to sign something that could be evaluated as progress
in resolving the conflict.
How are they going to do it? I do not exclude that it would totally
meet both Russian and Armenian interests to maintain the status quo
by imposing an obligation not to use force on Azerbaijan in one form
or another. But I think they realize that it is almost impossible to
impose this on Azerbaijan on the backdrop ongoing occupation.
Therefore, most likely, they want factor out a controversial issue
associated with the status of Nagorno-Karabakh (I mean, in what form
an interim status can be determined or referendum will be held or
not) and sign a document, which will reflect Armenians' commitment
to withdraw its troops from the territory of Azerbaijan in the future
along with Azerbaijan's undertaking to resolve the issue peacefully.
There are risks for Azerbaijan. They lie in the fact that Armenia will
some time in future (that is, on unspecified date) withdraw its forces
from the Azerbaijani territory while Baku's commitment not to use
force will actually go into effect as soon as we take this commitment.
Unlike his predecessor and current rival in 2012 elections Vladimir
Putin, Medvedev is more active in Karabakh conflict resolution. May
Russia's efforts in this regard reduce once Putin wins elections
next year?
I believe even if Medvedev remains in power and negotiating process
fails to reach any result in its current format, the situation will
mean a point because, in fact, the problem is that the parties have
different approaches.
It is impossible to combine them. It means there is a need to put
pressure on someone. It is impossible to put pressure on Azerbaijan.
Neither Americans, nor French and Russians can do it. On the contrary,
they have great deal of requests to Azerbaijan. But they do not want
to put pressure on Armenians.
It is clear that Medvedev is in some sense interested to go to new
elections with some serious foreign policy success. He needs this. I
think not only personal interest is involved here. Russia's true
interest is to maintain status quo which is impossible. The fact that
any negative scenario will affect Russia's interests badly makes them
move towards resolution of the conflict.
After all, Putin also took some steps to move the negotiating process
forward. If not Medvedev, then Putin will do this. Things will not
be worse for Azerbaijan. It will worse for Armenia hereafter.
F.H.