Tweet
ONLY RUSSIA AND UNITED STATES CAN FORCE ARMENIA TO RETURN LANDS
news.az, Azerbaijan
Oct 28 2011
News.Az interviews Yuri Sigov, a political expert on South Caucasus
and post-Soviet countries, author of book "Azerbaijan: Between East
and West.
Which advantages does Azerbaijan gain with election as nonpermanent
member of the UN Security Council?
The work in the UN Security Council as a nonpermanent member is a
prestigious case for overall image of the country in the international
arena. However, we should not exaggerate the importance of this post
since all key world decisions are still taken only by the strong
powers, but all the rest have an opportunity to show themselves and
utter their stance. In terms of permanent contacts with Russia, the
United States, China and leading European countries, for Azerbaijan
this seat will be more than attractive. By its help, Baku will
have changes for a more prompt and insistent raising of its issues
(including of Karabakh) to the attention of whose who could help
settle them. Whether they agree to help or not is a different matter
but while being in the UN Security Council it will be more comfortable
and profitable for Azerbaijan to lobby for its problems.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister said that the country is going to use
the UN Security Council for discussing the Karabakh conflict after
preliminary consultation with the five permanent members of this
structure. Can this initiative be successful?
As is known, discussions of the Karabakh issue have been held for long,
but there is no sense about it. Only key players can influence the
resolution of this issue, however, it is now possible to reach their
understanding sitting with them in the UN Security Council. Baku will
strive not only to raise the issue there but also to attain at least
minimal progress, though it will be difficult to do this. The matter
is that in fact only Russia and the United States can force Armenia
to return lands attained by Azerbaijan. But neither these nor others
will do anything of the kind without special profit. However, if there
is an important voting in the UN Security Council and Azerbaijan's
stance is important, Moscow and Washington could at least put pressure
on Yerevan in Karabakh problem. But I am afraid that we will have to
wait long for this 'voting opportunity' for Baku.
What is needed to be done for the four resolutions of the UN Security
Council adopted 20 years ago on Karabakh to be fulfilled?
The situation seems deadlocked, because two key actors in this
region-Russia and United States are not ready for its settlement. For
a number of reasons EU is merely unable to play any positive role in
process of peace settlement, while Moscow and Washington have definite
leverages mechanisms of pressure and 'persuasion' of Yerevan. The
problem is that neither Russia nor the United States benefited from
the resolution of the conflict in Azerbaijan's favor at this stage.
Armenia is the most reliable partner and ally in the Caucasus for
Russia and today it can offer more strategic and military 'advantages'
to Moscow than Baku. Therefore, Russia will not exchange Armenia for
the return of Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, the United States
have different priorities on the agenda and it won't offer Karabakh
initiatives (however fair they may seem). Therefore, the peace and
unhurried process of talks on Karabakh will continues but I do not
expect any special advancement in this issue at least for the nearest
perspective.
What has caused differences between the opinions of the world powers
in reformation of UN?
In the forum it exists, the United Nations has long become a low
functional post-war anachronism. So much has changed politically and
economically on our planet since 1945 that it is an absurdity to act
the way that nothing has occurred in those years. Naturally, these
are the permanent members of the UN Security Council who do not want
to see any changes in UN, especially its supreme bodies, including
the UN Security Council. They use the right of veto, still decide
about the destiny of the world throughout many years, so why do they
need India, Brazil, SAR or someone else or some reforms. Certainly,
discussions about expansion of the Security Council and reformation of
UN will further be heard but nothing will change in fact because the
'big Security Council five' does not need it.
How can the UN be considered effective in addressing global challenges
when the United States and some other countries prefer to bypass
this organization?
These are not the UN but other international organizations who settle
everything in the world. Those who have power, have the right. Does
the effort to set up their wishes for different UN resolutions,
sessions and consensus, change something in principal? Naturally, in
any cases, 'the resolution games' will hamper adoption of any radical
decisions by leading states (at least as it is now taking place with
Syria). But believe me if there is a strong need to do to Syria,
what they have already done to Libya, no resolutions and UN sessions
'aiming at establishing order in the Middle East' (or in other part
of the world) will stop them.
news.az, Azerbaijan
Oct 28 2011
News.Az interviews Yuri Sigov, a political expert on South Caucasus
and post-Soviet countries, author of book "Azerbaijan: Between East
and West.
Which advantages does Azerbaijan gain with election as nonpermanent
member of the UN Security Council?
The work in the UN Security Council as a nonpermanent member is a
prestigious case for overall image of the country in the international
arena. However, we should not exaggerate the importance of this post
since all key world decisions are still taken only by the strong
powers, but all the rest have an opportunity to show themselves and
utter their stance. In terms of permanent contacts with Russia, the
United States, China and leading European countries, for Azerbaijan
this seat will be more than attractive. By its help, Baku will
have changes for a more prompt and insistent raising of its issues
(including of Karabakh) to the attention of whose who could help
settle them. Whether they agree to help or not is a different matter
but while being in the UN Security Council it will be more comfortable
and profitable for Azerbaijan to lobby for its problems.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister said that the country is going to use
the UN Security Council for discussing the Karabakh conflict after
preliminary consultation with the five permanent members of this
structure. Can this initiative be successful?
As is known, discussions of the Karabakh issue have been held for long,
but there is no sense about it. Only key players can influence the
resolution of this issue, however, it is now possible to reach their
understanding sitting with them in the UN Security Council. Baku will
strive not only to raise the issue there but also to attain at least
minimal progress, though it will be difficult to do this. The matter
is that in fact only Russia and the United States can force Armenia
to return lands attained by Azerbaijan. But neither these nor others
will do anything of the kind without special profit. However, if there
is an important voting in the UN Security Council and Azerbaijan's
stance is important, Moscow and Washington could at least put pressure
on Yerevan in Karabakh problem. But I am afraid that we will have to
wait long for this 'voting opportunity' for Baku.
What is needed to be done for the four resolutions of the UN Security
Council adopted 20 years ago on Karabakh to be fulfilled?
The situation seems deadlocked, because two key actors in this
region-Russia and United States are not ready for its settlement. For
a number of reasons EU is merely unable to play any positive role in
process of peace settlement, while Moscow and Washington have definite
leverages mechanisms of pressure and 'persuasion' of Yerevan. The
problem is that neither Russia nor the United States benefited from
the resolution of the conflict in Azerbaijan's favor at this stage.
Armenia is the most reliable partner and ally in the Caucasus for
Russia and today it can offer more strategic and military 'advantages'
to Moscow than Baku. Therefore, Russia will not exchange Armenia for
the return of Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, the United States
have different priorities on the agenda and it won't offer Karabakh
initiatives (however fair they may seem). Therefore, the peace and
unhurried process of talks on Karabakh will continues but I do not
expect any special advancement in this issue at least for the nearest
perspective.
What has caused differences between the opinions of the world powers
in reformation of UN?
In the forum it exists, the United Nations has long become a low
functional post-war anachronism. So much has changed politically and
economically on our planet since 1945 that it is an absurdity to act
the way that nothing has occurred in those years. Naturally, these
are the permanent members of the UN Security Council who do not want
to see any changes in UN, especially its supreme bodies, including
the UN Security Council. They use the right of veto, still decide
about the destiny of the world throughout many years, so why do they
need India, Brazil, SAR or someone else or some reforms. Certainly,
discussions about expansion of the Security Council and reformation of
UN will further be heard but nothing will change in fact because the
'big Security Council five' does not need it.
How can the UN be considered effective in addressing global challenges
when the United States and some other countries prefer to bypass
this organization?
These are not the UN but other international organizations who settle
everything in the world. Those who have power, have the right. Does
the effort to set up their wishes for different UN resolutions,
sessions and consensus, change something in principal? Naturally, in
any cases, 'the resolution games' will hamper adoption of any radical
decisions by leading states (at least as it is now taking place with
Syria). But believe me if there is a strong need to do to Syria,
what they have already done to Libya, no resolutions and UN sessions
'aiming at establishing order in the Middle East' (or in other part
of the world) will stop them.