Tweet
ARMENIA-KARABAKH DIFFERENCES 'NOT JUST A GAME'
news.az
June 22 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Prof. Gerard Libaridian, director of the Armenian
Studies Program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
How can you explain the special attention towards the Karabakh conflict
shown by the major powers, including the Minsk Group co-chairs (the
US, Russia and France), at the recent G8 summit?
One can find many reasons. First, the Minsk Group co-chairs have
been openly criticized recently by a number of observers for their
unproductive mediation efforts and weak position. I, for one, did
so in April at a conference in the CSIS [Center for Strategic and
International Studies] in Washington DC; I asked a simple question:
What would have been different in the outcome of mediation if,
instead of Russia, the US and France we had Nigeria, the Ivory Coast
and Liberia mediating the Karabakh conflict, or if instead of these
three major powers we had two NGOs mediating? In fact, we may have
had better results. I know others have criticized the co-chairs. It
is possible that such widespread criticism has inspired the co-chairs
to show more concern.
It is also very possible that they are genuinely concerned at the
possibility of a resumption of military hostilities. We know there
are too many militarized conflicts in the world for the major powers
to deal with; they don't need another one.
Another possibility is that the US and France are concerned that
Russia may be developing a hegemonic policy in the South Caucasus
and would like to see some progress while they still have something
to say about the region.
Finally, the major powers may feel that Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan
are vulnerable politically and could have use for international
support and legitimation which they would get if they agreed to
endorse a document that consolidates regional stability.
The Minsk Group co-chairing countries expect progress at the upcoming
summit on Karabakh in Kazan. Do you share their optimism? If not,
why not?
It is possible that they have reasons to be optimistic of which I am
not aware; after all, what I know is what you guys write and they say.
Nonetheless, I see no reason to believe that there will be a major
breakthrough in Kazan. This is not the first time such optimism
has pervaded the atmosphere before summit meetings. I hear the
[Azerbaijani] deputy minister of foreign affairs, Araz Azimov, express
pessimism; I hear the spokesman of the Karabakh president indicate
serious differences with the position of Armenia, assuming Armenia is
ready to go along with a deal, and clearly state that Karabakh is not
bound by any document Armenia signs. I know that many in Azerbaijan
think that the Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh differences are just a game,
and they are wrong.
I do not see the leaders of the three political units involved in
the conflict preparing their peoples for an imminent breakthrough.
President Aliyev has made a couple of tentative statements, just as
Foreign Minister Mammadyarov has done. It is possible they too are
hopeful. We shall see.
In conclusion, I hope I am wrong; I hope sincerely that progress will
be made.
What do you think of Russia's current work as a mediator? Could this
be more successful than the combined work of the three co-chairing
countries?
In general, yes. I have stated before that the tendency now is for
Russia to dictate the terms of an agreement. Which side gets what in
that deal is a very different issue. But as I indicated above, the
West has less and less to say about what happens in the region. Russia
needs stability in the region more than any other country, except
that stability has to be secured on its own terms.
Azerbaijan's spiritual leader, Sheikh Allashukur Pashazade, has
received an invitation to visit Armenia in November to attend a CIS
Inter-Religious Council meeting. Armenian spiritual leader Garegin
II visited Baku last year. What kind of role may such visits and
contacts play in the Karabakh settlement?
These are welcome gestures; they have symbolic value and they help slow
down the dehumanization process that is taking place on each side with
regard to the other. But I am not sure these two religious figures
have enough moral authority and political capital to reverse the sad
process of mutual dehumanization. They certainly are not in positions
to impact the policies of their governments on the Karabakh issue.
>From 1991 to 1997, Gerard Libaridian was adviser to the then president
of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosian, and from 1993 to 1994 was Armenia's
first deputy minister of foreign affairs.
news.az
June 22 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Prof. Gerard Libaridian, director of the Armenian
Studies Program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
How can you explain the special attention towards the Karabakh conflict
shown by the major powers, including the Minsk Group co-chairs (the
US, Russia and France), at the recent G8 summit?
One can find many reasons. First, the Minsk Group co-chairs have
been openly criticized recently by a number of observers for their
unproductive mediation efforts and weak position. I, for one, did
so in April at a conference in the CSIS [Center for Strategic and
International Studies] in Washington DC; I asked a simple question:
What would have been different in the outcome of mediation if,
instead of Russia, the US and France we had Nigeria, the Ivory Coast
and Liberia mediating the Karabakh conflict, or if instead of these
three major powers we had two NGOs mediating? In fact, we may have
had better results. I know others have criticized the co-chairs. It
is possible that such widespread criticism has inspired the co-chairs
to show more concern.
It is also very possible that they are genuinely concerned at the
possibility of a resumption of military hostilities. We know there
are too many militarized conflicts in the world for the major powers
to deal with; they don't need another one.
Another possibility is that the US and France are concerned that
Russia may be developing a hegemonic policy in the South Caucasus
and would like to see some progress while they still have something
to say about the region.
Finally, the major powers may feel that Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan
are vulnerable politically and could have use for international
support and legitimation which they would get if they agreed to
endorse a document that consolidates regional stability.
The Minsk Group co-chairing countries expect progress at the upcoming
summit on Karabakh in Kazan. Do you share their optimism? If not,
why not?
It is possible that they have reasons to be optimistic of which I am
not aware; after all, what I know is what you guys write and they say.
Nonetheless, I see no reason to believe that there will be a major
breakthrough in Kazan. This is not the first time such optimism
has pervaded the atmosphere before summit meetings. I hear the
[Azerbaijani] deputy minister of foreign affairs, Araz Azimov, express
pessimism; I hear the spokesman of the Karabakh president indicate
serious differences with the position of Armenia, assuming Armenia is
ready to go along with a deal, and clearly state that Karabakh is not
bound by any document Armenia signs. I know that many in Azerbaijan
think that the Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh differences are just a game,
and they are wrong.
I do not see the leaders of the three political units involved in
the conflict preparing their peoples for an imminent breakthrough.
President Aliyev has made a couple of tentative statements, just as
Foreign Minister Mammadyarov has done. It is possible they too are
hopeful. We shall see.
In conclusion, I hope I am wrong; I hope sincerely that progress will
be made.
What do you think of Russia's current work as a mediator? Could this
be more successful than the combined work of the three co-chairing
countries?
In general, yes. I have stated before that the tendency now is for
Russia to dictate the terms of an agreement. Which side gets what in
that deal is a very different issue. But as I indicated above, the
West has less and less to say about what happens in the region. Russia
needs stability in the region more than any other country, except
that stability has to be secured on its own terms.
Azerbaijan's spiritual leader, Sheikh Allashukur Pashazade, has
received an invitation to visit Armenia in November to attend a CIS
Inter-Religious Council meeting. Armenian spiritual leader Garegin
II visited Baku last year. What kind of role may such visits and
contacts play in the Karabakh settlement?
These are welcome gestures; they have symbolic value and they help slow
down the dehumanization process that is taking place on each side with
regard to the other. But I am not sure these two religious figures
have enough moral authority and political capital to reverse the sad
process of mutual dehumanization. They certainly are not in positions
to impact the policies of their governments on the Karabakh issue.
>From 1991 to 1997, Gerard Libaridian was adviser to the then president
of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosian, and from 1993 to 1994 was Armenia's
first deputy minister of foreign affairs.