Tweet
NO-ONE 'INTERESTED IN WAR' IN KARABAKH
news.az
Sept 19 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Russian candidate of political science Olga
Safonova.
Is the current Kremlin policy on the South Caucasus countries justified
in terms of ensuring Russia's future security?
I think the future security of Russia requires more politically,
economically and diplomatically important events. We lost much time
and opportunities because of the forced loss of influence on the
region after the USSR collapse. Other countries, on the contrary,
strengthened their influence on the South Caucasus countries. For
this reason, if Russia wants to return to the region as a respected
and strong player and a participant in all processes ongoing there,
a policy that considers not only momentary gains but also long-term
perspectives is required.
Can Moscow's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia create future problems for Russia, which is facing similar
difficulties with separatism in the North Caucasus?
It seems to be two different stories. Anyway, the two externally
similar conflicts have different causes, preconditions, sources,
and ways of settlement. The internal state difficulties in the North
Caucasus won't lead to the events of 2008 in the short term.
How likely is Russia's recognition of the "independence" of
Nagorno-Karabakh, if Azerbaijan decides to use war to restore its
territorial integrity?
Hypothetically, without ruling out attempts at a conflict settlement
through war, I am sure that it won't come to a forced settlement of
the conflict. Russia will not face the question of recognition.
Neither the conflict parties, nor the mediators and mediating
organizations are interested in resolution by war. For this reason,
all the parties concerned will continue talks as long as possible. It
is difficult to find a solution, which would be favourable to both
Armenia and Azerbaijan.
What implications would a new war over Karabakh have primarily
for Russia?
I have to repeat that I see no real preconditions for wide-scale
military actions in the near future. For Russia, escalation of the
conflict to outright hostilities could threaten economic and political
cooperation and the presence of such action in its neighbourhood would
force the country into the conflict area, which Russia does not want
at all.
Recalling the Russo-Georgian war of August 2008, Dmitriy Medvedev
recently said that "it is better to hold endless talks about the
fate of Nagorno-Karabakh than to fight for five days". Do you share
Medvedev's opinion or do you think that a state should do everything
possible to ensure its territorial integrity?
As we know, the issue of the territorial integrity of a state, is
extremely delicate, especially concering ethnopolitical conflicts
based on territorial disputes. Each party has its truth and it is
very difficult to be a mediator in such a dispute, since it can a at
any moment lead to the question "against whom are we friends", who
will win and what will be gained from the resolution of the issue in
favour of any party. When the founders of geopolitics compared a state
to an organism, they said that like any other life form, states are
born, develop, waste away and die. Their survival is subjected to the
common law of the fight for existence, which is why self-preservation
combines with the struggle for existence in the form of a fight for
space. I see a potential tendency for conflicts in this issue.
The easiest answer to this territorial question would be the
following: the dispute should be solved in a way that benefits the
whole population who are fighting for state independence. Ninety-nine
percent of people need no more than a stable political regime, a
peaceful life, a well-paid job, social guarantees, happy children and
a quiet old age in their country of residence. If it's not artificially
ignited, the ethnic issue is not remembered so often.
But there are no miracles in life. The cruel truth of the current
state of world relations is that while the international community
uses statements pleasing to one's ears, it often takes actions,
that do not promote peace and tranquility, often collectively or
individually, with the support of the vast majority. The exercise
of the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of
inviolability of borders remain hazards on the way to overall peace,
and a good weapon for political and economic blackmail or a policy of
double standards depending on the need to settle a geopolitical issue.
And often states become hostage to, or a bargaining chip in, the game
of stronger political players who do not stop in the fight to redivide
spheres of influence, markets, convenient transportation corridors,
resources or future military interests.
It is already no secret to anyone that the system of global relations
(in both politics and the economy) is in a state of crisis, while not
everything is smooth in the system of global peacekeeping organization
either; everyone knows that multi-polarity also contains potential
risks, that globalization is not merely an opportunity to exchange
instant messages with distant relatives instead of using snail mail,
but a process that can lead to the extinction of national states.
In these complex foreign political conditions in combination with
domestic political problems, some of which have been continuing since
the early 1990s, Russia, as a very important geopolitical player
in the world arena, shows a peace-loving non-aggressive policy in
international relations without seeking to interfere in the internal
affairs of states, when they do not request it and without imposing
their standards of conduct and values on anyone.
For this reason, I would support Dmitriy Medvedev in his opinion that
it is better to hold endless peace talks.
news.az
Sept 19 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Russian candidate of political science Olga
Safonova.
Is the current Kremlin policy on the South Caucasus countries justified
in terms of ensuring Russia's future security?
I think the future security of Russia requires more politically,
economically and diplomatically important events. We lost much time
and opportunities because of the forced loss of influence on the
region after the USSR collapse. Other countries, on the contrary,
strengthened their influence on the South Caucasus countries. For
this reason, if Russia wants to return to the region as a respected
and strong player and a participant in all processes ongoing there,
a policy that considers not only momentary gains but also long-term
perspectives is required.
Can Moscow's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia create future problems for Russia, which is facing similar
difficulties with separatism in the North Caucasus?
It seems to be two different stories. Anyway, the two externally
similar conflicts have different causes, preconditions, sources,
and ways of settlement. The internal state difficulties in the North
Caucasus won't lead to the events of 2008 in the short term.
How likely is Russia's recognition of the "independence" of
Nagorno-Karabakh, if Azerbaijan decides to use war to restore its
territorial integrity?
Hypothetically, without ruling out attempts at a conflict settlement
through war, I am sure that it won't come to a forced settlement of
the conflict. Russia will not face the question of recognition.
Neither the conflict parties, nor the mediators and mediating
organizations are interested in resolution by war. For this reason,
all the parties concerned will continue talks as long as possible. It
is difficult to find a solution, which would be favourable to both
Armenia and Azerbaijan.
What implications would a new war over Karabakh have primarily
for Russia?
I have to repeat that I see no real preconditions for wide-scale
military actions in the near future. For Russia, escalation of the
conflict to outright hostilities could threaten economic and political
cooperation and the presence of such action in its neighbourhood would
force the country into the conflict area, which Russia does not want
at all.
Recalling the Russo-Georgian war of August 2008, Dmitriy Medvedev
recently said that "it is better to hold endless talks about the
fate of Nagorno-Karabakh than to fight for five days". Do you share
Medvedev's opinion or do you think that a state should do everything
possible to ensure its territorial integrity?
As we know, the issue of the territorial integrity of a state, is
extremely delicate, especially concering ethnopolitical conflicts
based on territorial disputes. Each party has its truth and it is
very difficult to be a mediator in such a dispute, since it can a at
any moment lead to the question "against whom are we friends", who
will win and what will be gained from the resolution of the issue in
favour of any party. When the founders of geopolitics compared a state
to an organism, they said that like any other life form, states are
born, develop, waste away and die. Their survival is subjected to the
common law of the fight for existence, which is why self-preservation
combines with the struggle for existence in the form of a fight for
space. I see a potential tendency for conflicts in this issue.
The easiest answer to this territorial question would be the
following: the dispute should be solved in a way that benefits the
whole population who are fighting for state independence. Ninety-nine
percent of people need no more than a stable political regime, a
peaceful life, a well-paid job, social guarantees, happy children and
a quiet old age in their country of residence. If it's not artificially
ignited, the ethnic issue is not remembered so often.
But there are no miracles in life. The cruel truth of the current
state of world relations is that while the international community
uses statements pleasing to one's ears, it often takes actions,
that do not promote peace and tranquility, often collectively or
individually, with the support of the vast majority. The exercise
of the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of
inviolability of borders remain hazards on the way to overall peace,
and a good weapon for political and economic blackmail or a policy of
double standards depending on the need to settle a geopolitical issue.
And often states become hostage to, or a bargaining chip in, the game
of stronger political players who do not stop in the fight to redivide
spheres of influence, markets, convenient transportation corridors,
resources or future military interests.
It is already no secret to anyone that the system of global relations
(in both politics and the economy) is in a state of crisis, while not
everything is smooth in the system of global peacekeeping organization
either; everyone knows that multi-polarity also contains potential
risks, that globalization is not merely an opportunity to exchange
instant messages with distant relatives instead of using snail mail,
but a process that can lead to the extinction of national states.
In these complex foreign political conditions in combination with
domestic political problems, some of which have been continuing since
the early 1990s, Russia, as a very important geopolitical player
in the world arena, shows a peace-loving non-aggressive policy in
international relations without seeking to interfere in the internal
affairs of states, when they do not request it and without imposing
their standards of conduct and values on anyone.
For this reason, I would support Dmitriy Medvedev in his opinion that
it is better to hold endless peace talks.