Tweet
NEIL MELVIN: AZERBAIJAN'S UNILATERAL INITIATIVE ON KARABAKH IN UN MAY POTENTIALLY DESTABILIZE THE SITUATION MORE
by Oksana Musaelyan
ARMINFO
Friday, November 18, 14:47
Interview of Neil Melvin, Director of Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute with ArmInfo news agency
At the session of UN General Assembly in October of the current year
Azerbaijan was elected UN non-permanent member for 2012-2013. May it
negatively affect the Karabakh peaceful process?
We are in a fragile situation around Karabakh at the moment. The
Russian led efforts, in coordination with the Minsk Group, have failed
to achieve a breakthrough and there is no clear alternative process
to take forward the peace agenda. This has led to some expressions
of concern by the international community regarding the risk of a
return to serious violence. Azerbaijan's position on the UN Security
Council has added a new dimension to this situation.
What new dimension do you mean?
At this point, a unilateral Azerbaijan initiative in the UN on Karabakh
is unlikely to lead to a breakthrough and might conceivably further
destabilize the situation. At the same time, the greater engagement
of a disinterested third party, such as the UN, might bring some new
dynamics to the stalled peace discussions. The Russian Federation
was uneasy about this development, as it is generally opposed to
engaging the UN in the conflicts in the post-Soviet space as Russia
risks losing its ability to shape these conflicts to its own interests.
In this context, how effective is an intermediary role of the Minsk
Group?
The Minsk process has been in operation now for many years. The
elements of a solution to the Karabakh situation have been largely
clarified through this process but there has been a failure to
achieve the necessary political agreement and trust to implement
the agreement. Part of the issue is that the Minsk process is itself
hostage to a wider set of factors, this concerns the Karabakh problem
but also the complex relationship between many of the countries
involved in the Minisk process and the South Caucasus (notably the
Russian Federation), and between countries in the Minsk group (the
tensions between Russia, the EU and the United States over Eurasia
and European security). The Minsk process has not been successful in
finding a way through this thicket of problems.
Achieving a breakthrough in the Karabakh peace process may be difficult
without the engagement of an 'honest' broker in the form of a country
or institution outside the region and with little direct interest in
the problems of the South Caucasus.
The authorities of Israel have recently come forward with a statement
in which they did not rule out the possibility of make preventive
strikes upon Iran in order not to let the latter get nuclear weapon .
Is it really possible and what is the destiny of the region in
that case?
A military attack on Iran would be an enormous gamble with enormous and
unpredictable regional implications. Whether a success or a failure,
the regional implications would be enormous and unpredictable -
in the Gulf, in the Middle East (through Hamas, Hizbolah) and in
Afghanistan. Given this, and the fact that we are in a presidential
election process in the United States I think it unlikely that
President Obama would support a US attack on Iran. Israel, on the other
hand, appears to be making concrete plans - at least according to press
leaks, in which case the US might be drawn into the wider conflict
that is likely to erupt following a strike. The South Caucasus is
not part of the strategic equation of the attack but conflicts have a
tendency to involve widespread destabilization, often in unpredictable
ways. Given the complex ethnic and religious intermixing between
Iran and the South Caucasus, there would, of course, be a concern
that regional instability might spread to these regions.
by Oksana Musaelyan
ARMINFO
Friday, November 18, 14:47
Interview of Neil Melvin, Director of Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute with ArmInfo news agency
At the session of UN General Assembly in October of the current year
Azerbaijan was elected UN non-permanent member for 2012-2013. May it
negatively affect the Karabakh peaceful process?
We are in a fragile situation around Karabakh at the moment. The
Russian led efforts, in coordination with the Minsk Group, have failed
to achieve a breakthrough and there is no clear alternative process
to take forward the peace agenda. This has led to some expressions
of concern by the international community regarding the risk of a
return to serious violence. Azerbaijan's position on the UN Security
Council has added a new dimension to this situation.
What new dimension do you mean?
At this point, a unilateral Azerbaijan initiative in the UN on Karabakh
is unlikely to lead to a breakthrough and might conceivably further
destabilize the situation. At the same time, the greater engagement
of a disinterested third party, such as the UN, might bring some new
dynamics to the stalled peace discussions. The Russian Federation
was uneasy about this development, as it is generally opposed to
engaging the UN in the conflicts in the post-Soviet space as Russia
risks losing its ability to shape these conflicts to its own interests.
In this context, how effective is an intermediary role of the Minsk
Group?
The Minsk process has been in operation now for many years. The
elements of a solution to the Karabakh situation have been largely
clarified through this process but there has been a failure to
achieve the necessary political agreement and trust to implement
the agreement. Part of the issue is that the Minsk process is itself
hostage to a wider set of factors, this concerns the Karabakh problem
but also the complex relationship between many of the countries
involved in the Minisk process and the South Caucasus (notably the
Russian Federation), and between countries in the Minsk group (the
tensions between Russia, the EU and the United States over Eurasia
and European security). The Minsk process has not been successful in
finding a way through this thicket of problems.
Achieving a breakthrough in the Karabakh peace process may be difficult
without the engagement of an 'honest' broker in the form of a country
or institution outside the region and with little direct interest in
the problems of the South Caucasus.
The authorities of Israel have recently come forward with a statement
in which they did not rule out the possibility of make preventive
strikes upon Iran in order not to let the latter get nuclear weapon .
Is it really possible and what is the destiny of the region in
that case?
A military attack on Iran would be an enormous gamble with enormous and
unpredictable regional implications. Whether a success or a failure,
the regional implications would be enormous and unpredictable -
in the Gulf, in the Middle East (through Hamas, Hizbolah) and in
Afghanistan. Given this, and the fact that we are in a presidential
election process in the United States I think it unlikely that
President Obama would support a US attack on Iran. Israel, on the other
hand, appears to be making concrete plans - at least according to press
leaks, in which case the US might be drawn into the wider conflict
that is likely to erupt following a strike. The South Caucasus is
not part of the strategic equation of the attack but conflicts have a
tendency to involve widespread destabilization, often in unpredictable
ways. Given the complex ethnic and religious intermixing between
Iran and the South Caucasus, there would, of course, be a concern
that regional instability might spread to these regions.