Tweet
SVANTE CORNELL: "THE NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT HAS BEEN PUT ON THE INTERNATIONAL BACKBURNER" - INTERVIEW
Milaz.info
Nov 25 2011
Azerbaijan
"The current situation can lead to the breaking up of a new war in
the region"
"Serious senior figures as the presidential envoy in the US should
be appointed as the mediators"
APA's interview with Svante E. Cornell, Research Director of the
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, and
a co-founder of the Institue for Security and Development Policy,
Stockholm
- After the Kazan meeting of two presidents, the negotiation process
around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict went to the deadlock. How long do
you believe that the stagnation process around the conflict resolution
will continue?
- Well, I think that in the future there is nothing that shows that
there is going to be a significant change in the negotiations or
significant progress. I never believed that Kazan meeting is going
anywhere. What happens now is that the conflict has been put on the
international backburner and there is no serious engagement of the
part of the mediators or anyone else.
- Concerning the mediators, can you say that the position of the
international mediators in the face of the Minsk group is being biased?
- I think that the co-chairs are from the different perspectives. The
Russian co-chair has very clear and direct interest in the conflict,
which is not necessarily to the one or another country but to maintain
both in the state of weakness, maintain Russian predominance in the
Caucasus, and as Azerbaijan is a strong country, there are leaning
towards Armenia. In the principle I think it is a very pragmatic
policy. If you look at the French and the US policy I don't think
that there is a bias as such. In fact, in Azerbaijan people are
complaining the lack of the objectivity, in Armenia people are saying
that all these countries are supporting the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan, therefore they are biased. I think France and the US you
will find the influence of the certain lobby but in the US it is the
congressional issue.
- Considering the Russian role in this conflict can we estimate it from
the perspective of the military cooperation between Moscow and Yerevan?
- Of course, the military base and the mutual agreement. At the same
time they are selling arms to Azerbaijan as well. I usually say that
they are selling arms to Armenia on the cheap prices and to Azerbaijan
on the expensive prices.
- During the latest meeting to the region, the co-chairs proposed
new options to the both sides. Do you think that it may contribute
to rule out this deadlock in the process?
- No, because the co-chairs acting in isolation don't have political
capital. What is necessary something to be achieved and the deadlock
to be broken that there is to be high level serious international
engagement. The co-chairs are middle level diplomats, they are not
senior people in any capacity. I am sure that they are very skilled
diplomats, but still are mid-career level diplomats. They are not
the type of people, the US for example are sending to the Middle
East, to the North Korea, or to Afghanistan. I will keep saying no
until there is an appointment of the serious senior figures as the
presidential envoy in the US. The moment that there is a person with
a serious experience in the conflict resolution, which is important
than experience in the region, and who has improved statue to make
a policy and not only to improve the discussion, then there will be
a serious possibility to break through.
- This year Azerbaijan got the membership in the Security Council
in the UN, how do you see the contribution of it to the solution of
the conflict?
- I don't think it contributes at all to the conflict, directly.
Indirectly it amends the development that has been taking place for
many years that Azerbaijan is increasing in the region and in the world
and will be able to raise the issue in the Security Council. But in
terms of the actual policy, it may be used in the way to be productive
but I still think it will not make change, and the most serious
problem is the lack of the Western strategy towards the South Caucasus.
- Speaking from the European perspective, why do you think that
European Union pretends to be silent in the Karabakh process?
- I think for several reasons, one is that France would like to
maintain its supremacy as a European country in Minsk group alongside
with Russia and the US. The another is the internal problems of the EU:
if you look at the entire policy, the whole existence of the EU is in
the question for financial and economic reasons and this is not a good
time to make a sort of engagement in its eastern neighborhood. It is
not an amazing thing but at least they have done it. But in the couple
of years or the nearest future, we should not expect very much unless
there is a bog crisis in the region that force the international
community to act. I think in that respect, the third reason, there
is what you can call the Karabakh fatigue, and number two is that
time goes by and the status quo is more accepted. The conflict is not
the frozen and that is the problem. And I think what happened in the
past two years that the US have sent the signal to Azerbaijan that
this is not the priority and please accept that this is not going
to be priority. And Azerbaijan has a choice either to accept it to
do something about it, and that meant that you need to escalate the
conflict, and that what Baku did.
- And do you think that the current situation can lead to the breaking
up of a new war in the region?
- Yes, of course. It is always much easier and cheaper to prevent
a war, than intervene one to start it. And that should have done in
Georgia. The EU had to spend enormous political capital and financial
resources for Georgian economy in three billion dollar. If it had
invested the half before the war, they probable would be able the
escalation of the war. The international community should do is one
thing, and what they will do is another.
Milaz.info
Nov 25 2011
Azerbaijan
"The current situation can lead to the breaking up of a new war in
the region"
"Serious senior figures as the presidential envoy in the US should
be appointed as the mediators"
APA's interview with Svante E. Cornell, Research Director of the
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, and
a co-founder of the Institue for Security and Development Policy,
Stockholm
- After the Kazan meeting of two presidents, the negotiation process
around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict went to the deadlock. How long do
you believe that the stagnation process around the conflict resolution
will continue?
- Well, I think that in the future there is nothing that shows that
there is going to be a significant change in the negotiations or
significant progress. I never believed that Kazan meeting is going
anywhere. What happens now is that the conflict has been put on the
international backburner and there is no serious engagement of the
part of the mediators or anyone else.
- Concerning the mediators, can you say that the position of the
international mediators in the face of the Minsk group is being biased?
- I think that the co-chairs are from the different perspectives. The
Russian co-chair has very clear and direct interest in the conflict,
which is not necessarily to the one or another country but to maintain
both in the state of weakness, maintain Russian predominance in the
Caucasus, and as Azerbaijan is a strong country, there are leaning
towards Armenia. In the principle I think it is a very pragmatic
policy. If you look at the French and the US policy I don't think
that there is a bias as such. In fact, in Azerbaijan people are
complaining the lack of the objectivity, in Armenia people are saying
that all these countries are supporting the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan, therefore they are biased. I think France and the US you
will find the influence of the certain lobby but in the US it is the
congressional issue.
- Considering the Russian role in this conflict can we estimate it from
the perspective of the military cooperation between Moscow and Yerevan?
- Of course, the military base and the mutual agreement. At the same
time they are selling arms to Azerbaijan as well. I usually say that
they are selling arms to Armenia on the cheap prices and to Azerbaijan
on the expensive prices.
- During the latest meeting to the region, the co-chairs proposed
new options to the both sides. Do you think that it may contribute
to rule out this deadlock in the process?
- No, because the co-chairs acting in isolation don't have political
capital. What is necessary something to be achieved and the deadlock
to be broken that there is to be high level serious international
engagement. The co-chairs are middle level diplomats, they are not
senior people in any capacity. I am sure that they are very skilled
diplomats, but still are mid-career level diplomats. They are not
the type of people, the US for example are sending to the Middle
East, to the North Korea, or to Afghanistan. I will keep saying no
until there is an appointment of the serious senior figures as the
presidential envoy in the US. The moment that there is a person with
a serious experience in the conflict resolution, which is important
than experience in the region, and who has improved statue to make
a policy and not only to improve the discussion, then there will be
a serious possibility to break through.
- This year Azerbaijan got the membership in the Security Council
in the UN, how do you see the contribution of it to the solution of
the conflict?
- I don't think it contributes at all to the conflict, directly.
Indirectly it amends the development that has been taking place for
many years that Azerbaijan is increasing in the region and in the world
and will be able to raise the issue in the Security Council. But in
terms of the actual policy, it may be used in the way to be productive
but I still think it will not make change, and the most serious
problem is the lack of the Western strategy towards the South Caucasus.
- Speaking from the European perspective, why do you think that
European Union pretends to be silent in the Karabakh process?
- I think for several reasons, one is that France would like to
maintain its supremacy as a European country in Minsk group alongside
with Russia and the US. The another is the internal problems of the EU:
if you look at the entire policy, the whole existence of the EU is in
the question for financial and economic reasons and this is not a good
time to make a sort of engagement in its eastern neighborhood. It is
not an amazing thing but at least they have done it. But in the couple
of years or the nearest future, we should not expect very much unless
there is a bog crisis in the region that force the international
community to act. I think in that respect, the third reason, there
is what you can call the Karabakh fatigue, and number two is that
time goes by and the status quo is more accepted. The conflict is not
the frozen and that is the problem. And I think what happened in the
past two years that the US have sent the signal to Azerbaijan that
this is not the priority and please accept that this is not going
to be priority. And Azerbaijan has a choice either to accept it to
do something about it, and that meant that you need to escalate the
conflict, and that what Baku did.
- And do you think that the current situation can lead to the breaking
up of a new war in the region?
- Yes, of course. It is always much easier and cheaper to prevent
a war, than intervene one to start it. And that should have done in
Georgia. The EU had to spend enormous political capital and financial
resources for Georgian economy in three billion dollar. If it had
invested the half before the war, they probable would be able the
escalation of the war. The international community should do is one
thing, and what they will do is another.