Tweet
COULD ARMENIA BE DRAWN INTO ISRAEL'S CONFLICT WITH TURKEY?
news.az
Sept 20 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews political scientist Vitaliy Zhuravlev, an expert
at the Institute of the Russian Diaspora.
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said at at a CIS conference in
Dushanbe recently that the people of Karabakh had earned their right
to independence. What prompted this statement? It should be noted
that the Azerbaijani president was not at the conference.
In principle, alongside the development of relations with the
Armenian diaspora, the so-called "independence" of Nagorno-Karabakh
serves as a basis for Armenia's foreign policy which is laid down
in the following formula: Armenia, Karabakh and the Diaspora. So,
I see nothing new in the position of the Armenian president. It is
another matter that they usually try to avoid statements that could
complicate a multilateral meeting, for example, at the CIS summit. In
this case, Serzh Sargsyan seized the opportunity to express his point
of view as Ilham Aliyev was not present in Dushanbe. I don't think
any far-reaching conclusions should be drawn from this with regard
to the CIS or Russia's position on Nagorno-Karabakh.
There has been little movement in talks on the Karabakh conflict for
some time. Is there a sense that the mediators are preparing something
or just that the main negotiators have nothing to offer?
Actually, contacts do take place. The Azerbaijani and Russian
presidents met in Sochi on 9 August. Earlier, a trilateral meeting
on the Karabakh conflict resolution took place in Kazan. Russia and
Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia are known to be developing bilateral
relations in the economy, culture and other areas. However, as
to rapprochement of the positions of Armenia and Azerbaijan on a
resolution of the Karabakh conflict, there is no progress here. The
narrow corridor for compromise by the parties makes itself felt here.
This, of course, complicates the task of the mediators: how to feed
the wolves and keep the sheep safe. There are no creative ideas
either. Therefore, the format of talks is more for show. But the
work will still go on, some suggestions will emerge, meetings will
be held...
How long can the break in the negotiations last? How may it end?
Meetings will apparently be held more or less regularly, at least in
order to keep abreast of developments.
Another issue is that summits should logically end in the signing of
important documents. They should be discussed in advance and developed
at the level of the foreign ministries and experts.
This practice is not enough yet. There may also be force majeure
circumstances, related to aggravation of the conflict or the general
situation in the region. In this case, contacts will be more intense
and meaningful.
Can the internal socio-economic situation in Armenia influence
resolution of the Karabakh conflict? That is, will the Armenian people,
tired of poor living conditions, finally realize that their real
salvation lies in the opening of borders through the establishment
of diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey?
Of course, the people and economy of Armenia would benefit from the
opening of borders, since the economic blockade, particularly in
terms of transport, is detrimental to the socio-economic development
of Armenia. But the principled position of the Armenian leadership
is not to bind ratification of the relevant protocols to the issue
of recognition of the so-called "genocide" of Armenians of 1915 and
especially with determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Although,
in my opinion, the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border is not so
unrealistic a scenario. It all depends on the specific political
situation and the interests of regional actors, such as the US,
Russia, the EU and Turkey itself.
Armenia does not hide its joy at the deterioration in relations between
Turkey and Israel, believing that Israel will now completely turn
away from Turkey on the issue of the "genocide" and on the Karabakh
issue from Azerbaijan. Israel is known to have serious weight in
world politics. Is it possible?
This is an interesting and important issue. It all depends on how
severe this aggravation is and how it will end. If it is only a cooling
of relations, perhaps, Armenia and Israel will find more points for
interaction against this background. But if it is a serious conflict
that could escalate into large-scale military action, what may this
lead to? To Armenia, as an ally, waging war with Turkey, while Israel
may be willing to use nuclear weapons against Turkey and those Arab
states that also intervene in the conflict? And what next?
So, the worsening situation in the Middle East, including between
Turkey and Israel, is actually quite alarming.
Hamid Hamidov (Moscow, Russia) News.Az
news.az
Sept 20 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews political scientist Vitaliy Zhuravlev, an expert
at the Institute of the Russian Diaspora.
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said at at a CIS conference in
Dushanbe recently that the people of Karabakh had earned their right
to independence. What prompted this statement? It should be noted
that the Azerbaijani president was not at the conference.
In principle, alongside the development of relations with the
Armenian diaspora, the so-called "independence" of Nagorno-Karabakh
serves as a basis for Armenia's foreign policy which is laid down
in the following formula: Armenia, Karabakh and the Diaspora. So,
I see nothing new in the position of the Armenian president. It is
another matter that they usually try to avoid statements that could
complicate a multilateral meeting, for example, at the CIS summit. In
this case, Serzh Sargsyan seized the opportunity to express his point
of view as Ilham Aliyev was not present in Dushanbe. I don't think
any far-reaching conclusions should be drawn from this with regard
to the CIS or Russia's position on Nagorno-Karabakh.
There has been little movement in talks on the Karabakh conflict for
some time. Is there a sense that the mediators are preparing something
or just that the main negotiators have nothing to offer?
Actually, contacts do take place. The Azerbaijani and Russian
presidents met in Sochi on 9 August. Earlier, a trilateral meeting
on the Karabakh conflict resolution took place in Kazan. Russia and
Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia are known to be developing bilateral
relations in the economy, culture and other areas. However, as
to rapprochement of the positions of Armenia and Azerbaijan on a
resolution of the Karabakh conflict, there is no progress here. The
narrow corridor for compromise by the parties makes itself felt here.
This, of course, complicates the task of the mediators: how to feed
the wolves and keep the sheep safe. There are no creative ideas
either. Therefore, the format of talks is more for show. But the
work will still go on, some suggestions will emerge, meetings will
be held...
How long can the break in the negotiations last? How may it end?
Meetings will apparently be held more or less regularly, at least in
order to keep abreast of developments.
Another issue is that summits should logically end in the signing of
important documents. They should be discussed in advance and developed
at the level of the foreign ministries and experts.
This practice is not enough yet. There may also be force majeure
circumstances, related to aggravation of the conflict or the general
situation in the region. In this case, contacts will be more intense
and meaningful.
Can the internal socio-economic situation in Armenia influence
resolution of the Karabakh conflict? That is, will the Armenian people,
tired of poor living conditions, finally realize that their real
salvation lies in the opening of borders through the establishment
of diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey?
Of course, the people and economy of Armenia would benefit from the
opening of borders, since the economic blockade, particularly in
terms of transport, is detrimental to the socio-economic development
of Armenia. But the principled position of the Armenian leadership
is not to bind ratification of the relevant protocols to the issue
of recognition of the so-called "genocide" of Armenians of 1915 and
especially with determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Although,
in my opinion, the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border is not so
unrealistic a scenario. It all depends on the specific political
situation and the interests of regional actors, such as the US,
Russia, the EU and Turkey itself.
Armenia does not hide its joy at the deterioration in relations between
Turkey and Israel, believing that Israel will now completely turn
away from Turkey on the issue of the "genocide" and on the Karabakh
issue from Azerbaijan. Israel is known to have serious weight in
world politics. Is it possible?
This is an interesting and important issue. It all depends on how
severe this aggravation is and how it will end. If it is only a cooling
of relations, perhaps, Armenia and Israel will find more points for
interaction against this background. But if it is a serious conflict
that could escalate into large-scale military action, what may this
lead to? To Armenia, as an ally, waging war with Turkey, while Israel
may be willing to use nuclear weapons against Turkey and those Arab
states that also intervene in the conflict? And what next?
So, the worsening situation in the Middle East, including between
Turkey and Israel, is actually quite alarming.
Hamid Hamidov (Moscow, Russia) News.Az