Tweet
VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV, Â"MUTUAL CONCESSION PREVENTS ANY REVANCHIST MOODSÂ"
Ruzan Ishkhanian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=640:-vladimir-kazimirov-lmutual-concession-prevents-any-revanchist-moodsr&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Wednesday, 18 April 2012 05:41
Recently, our Republic has been visited by famous Russian diplomat,
Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov who, during the period of 1992-1996,
participated in the negotiations on the peaceful settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, first, as head of the Russian mediation mission,
the Russian President's Special Representative and later - as the
first Russian Co-Chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Currently, he is the Chairman of the RF Foreign Ministry's Council
of Veterans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The diplomat met with NKR President Bako Sahakian and Parliament
Speaker Ashot Ghulian.
Following is our interview with him.
- Mr. Kazimirov, first thank you for the opportunity to make this
interview. I'd like you to be frank while answering our questions,
though it isn't so easy for a diplomat. As our conversation is
taking place on the eve of the 18th anniversary of the cease-fire
establishment in the Azerbaijani-Karabakh war, so I'd ask you, first,
to note the main preconditions for signing the cease-fire agreement.
Were they really the UN resolutions?
- Surely, not. I represented Russia and, naturally, had to introduce
Russia's position. In the establishment of the cease-fire, the
psychological factor was important, which should be considered in
the context of the early post-Soviet realities. Surely, there was
also a political factor - did the Karabakh-Azeri conflict really
help Russiato strengthen its position in the South Caucasus? On the
contrary, in the conditions of Russia's weakening, the Western powers,
the most powerful of them being theUSA, tried to get involved in the
region. For their part, other Western powers tried to dictate to this
region and their prompter were, surely, the United States.Therefore,
the suspension of military operations was based on our interests,
it was necessary to somehow stop the mass bloodshed.
- We know your opinion on the establishment of the ceasefire,
according to which, the warring parties were equally interested in
it, because they were tired and were unable to continue the war. But,
this opinion is not accepted here, because the Karabakh party agreed
to cease the military operations, just meeting the mediators' desire.
- I didn't take seriously the hypothesis of occupying Baku, which
was noted during a meeting here.
- But the fact is, Mr. Kazimirov, that our army was moving forward
successfully.
- I agree, it cannot be said that the parties were equally interested
in the issue of the cease-fire. But, it cannot be either said that
one of the warring parties wanted to stop the war and the other
party, on the contrary, wanted to continue it. The situation was
changing. There came Suret Huseynov's offensive operations phase,
which was not in favor of Armenians; that's why President of Armenia
Levon Ter-Petrosian did not accept the proposal to stop the military
activities for 30 days, which had been offered to the parties earlier.
The then President of Azerbaijan A. Elchibey accepted the proposal,
but Chairman of the NKR State Defense Committee Robert Kocharian and
RA President Levon Ter-Petrosian simply didn't answer. At the last
stage of the war, the situation was quite different - Armenians went
deep enough in the south. If the offensive operations of Armenians in
this direction would have finished successfully, then they could have
reached from the Arax to the Kura River and crossed the north-western
part ofAzerbaijan. And while Azeris initially delayed the termination
of the hostilities, ignoring all the resolutions of the UN Security
Council, as well as all the peace proposals, their behavior was
different at the last stage. To justify this, I'd like to recall an
episode. I sent the texts of the Bishkek Protocol first to Yerevan
and Stepanakert; RA Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan introduced two
changes, proposing to remove two sentences in different parts in the
text. Today, I cannot clearly say what kind of changes were made,
but in normal conditions it would have meant long debates - Azerbaijan
would have firmly opposed them, making its own proposals. But in this
case, they accepted these two changes without any discussion, which
is a rare phenomenon in the relations between the conflicting parties
and mediators. So, on May 9, the document was signed by Azerbaijani
Defense Minister Mamedov, on May 10 - by RA Defense Minister Serge
Sargsyan, and on May 11 - by Samvel Babayan in Karabakh. I want to
emphasize that the Azerbaijanis took the changes quite easily.
- Our leaders of that time testify that Azerbaijani President Heydar
Aliyev called Stepanakert to say that Baku was interested in the
cease-fire. We did not ask Baku to stop the hostilities.
- I cannot comment on which I don't know well. I cannot do this,
because I have no exact information.
- And what can you say about the current stage of the negotiation
process?
- I would not like to talk about it, because I've been retired for
12 years and I must say that I am not informed of all the current
processes. I should also mention that during the recent visits of RF
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Armenia and Baku, many issues related
to that period were discussed, in particular, those of cessation of the
hostilities and creation of the Minsk Group. Lavrov's position is that
the main content of the UN Security Council resolution, that is the
cease-fire, is carried out. As for the territories, Lavrov said, and I
am also of this opinion, that they should be a subject to negotiations.
- They are historical Armenian lands and are fixed in the NKR Basic
Law. Sorry, Mr. Kazimirov, but I must say that after World War II
the South Kuril Islands, which had been historically owned by Japan,
passed to the Soviet Union, as the USSR had acquired them as a result
of the war. Does Russia intend to return them to the owner?
- Yes, it is a consequence of World War II.
- In our case, it refers to the historical Armenian lands liberated
as a result of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh war.
- I can't accept such a position. I think that the fate of
Nagorno-Karabakh should be determined on the basis of people's free
will. As for the territories around Karabakh, I think they should
be returned toAzerbaijan for the establishment of normal relations
between the parties. Russia, in the literal sense of the word, has
no interest in suppressing Armenians or Azerbaijanis. We want to have
friendly relations both with Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
- Why should Armenians be in the role of lands' loser? You are well
aware of the fate of Western Armenia, the historical land, which
Turkey gained not as a result of a war. It was given to it just as
a gift by Russian Bolsheviks. You know this story well.
- We need to create modern values â~@~Kâ~@~Kand not to bring
laws and values from the distant past, as today's life is much
more difficult. The humanity should be able to manage these
valuesâ~@~Kâ~@~K. I understand it in this way and the common sense
makes me judge so.
- But, the world history testifies that conflicts settlement is based
on the realities created as a result of a war.
- The conflict may generate new conflicts. I think Armenians don't
want a new conflict. I would say that mutual concession prevails
over a victory, because it excludes any extremes and prevents any
revanchist moods.
- If we lived in the neighborhood with any European state, it would
be easier to come to an agreement. You are aware of all the massacres
committed by Azeris in the Armenian towns of Azerbaijan.
- Well, do you want another war?
- I want my people to live a peaceful and safe life, so that the
crimes committed against it are never repeated
- And I repeat that mutual concession is more reliable. I do not mean
unilateral concessions.
- I would like to draw your attention to another issue. It is known
that Azerbaijan managed to become a non-permanent member of the UN
Security Council thanks to the active support of Russia. Russia was
the first to vote Â"forÂ"; it was followed by the Latin-American, as
well as the Islamic Conference states, which are in close cooperation
with the Russian Federation. How would you comment on this?
- Yes, Russia voted Â"forÂ". Russia behaves as it needs. And Russia
needs good relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is impossible
to impose a political course on Moscow; it is always guided by its own
interests. By the way, I express my own opinion on all the issues;
also, I should note that Russia could not vote against any former
Soviet Republic, which wants to become a non-permanent member of the
UN Security Council. But, I would refrain from any comments on Georgia.
- Finally, I'd ask you to note your visit's goal.
- I frequently give lectures at the RA MFA Diplomatic School. The
listeners are interested in my vision of the Karabakh settlement. And
besides, they may invite me for the fact that I am sufficiently aware
of the conflict's history, nuances, and so on. I should say that
there are so many distortions, falsifications, and wrong comments on
this conflict. Each time, on the eve of the cease-fire anniversary, I
make statements in newspapers and explain that no cease-fire agreement
was signed in Bishkek; the parliament leaders of all the conflicting
parties met there to support the cease-fire initiative. An appeal
for cease-fire was directed to the warring parties.
Ruzan Ishkhanian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=640:-vladimir-kazimirov-lmutual-concession-prevents-any-revanchist-moodsr&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Wednesday, 18 April 2012 05:41
Recently, our Republic has been visited by famous Russian diplomat,
Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov who, during the period of 1992-1996,
participated in the negotiations on the peaceful settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, first, as head of the Russian mediation mission,
the Russian President's Special Representative and later - as the
first Russian Co-Chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Currently, he is the Chairman of the RF Foreign Ministry's Council
of Veterans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The diplomat met with NKR President Bako Sahakian and Parliament
Speaker Ashot Ghulian.
Following is our interview with him.
- Mr. Kazimirov, first thank you for the opportunity to make this
interview. I'd like you to be frank while answering our questions,
though it isn't so easy for a diplomat. As our conversation is
taking place on the eve of the 18th anniversary of the cease-fire
establishment in the Azerbaijani-Karabakh war, so I'd ask you, first,
to note the main preconditions for signing the cease-fire agreement.
Were they really the UN resolutions?
- Surely, not. I represented Russia and, naturally, had to introduce
Russia's position. In the establishment of the cease-fire, the
psychological factor was important, which should be considered in
the context of the early post-Soviet realities. Surely, there was
also a political factor - did the Karabakh-Azeri conflict really
help Russiato strengthen its position in the South Caucasus? On the
contrary, in the conditions of Russia's weakening, the Western powers,
the most powerful of them being theUSA, tried to get involved in the
region. For their part, other Western powers tried to dictate to this
region and their prompter were, surely, the United States.Therefore,
the suspension of military operations was based on our interests,
it was necessary to somehow stop the mass bloodshed.
- We know your opinion on the establishment of the ceasefire,
according to which, the warring parties were equally interested in
it, because they were tired and were unable to continue the war. But,
this opinion is not accepted here, because the Karabakh party agreed
to cease the military operations, just meeting the mediators' desire.
- I didn't take seriously the hypothesis of occupying Baku, which
was noted during a meeting here.
- But the fact is, Mr. Kazimirov, that our army was moving forward
successfully.
- I agree, it cannot be said that the parties were equally interested
in the issue of the cease-fire. But, it cannot be either said that
one of the warring parties wanted to stop the war and the other
party, on the contrary, wanted to continue it. The situation was
changing. There came Suret Huseynov's offensive operations phase,
which was not in favor of Armenians; that's why President of Armenia
Levon Ter-Petrosian did not accept the proposal to stop the military
activities for 30 days, which had been offered to the parties earlier.
The then President of Azerbaijan A. Elchibey accepted the proposal,
but Chairman of the NKR State Defense Committee Robert Kocharian and
RA President Levon Ter-Petrosian simply didn't answer. At the last
stage of the war, the situation was quite different - Armenians went
deep enough in the south. If the offensive operations of Armenians in
this direction would have finished successfully, then they could have
reached from the Arax to the Kura River and crossed the north-western
part ofAzerbaijan. And while Azeris initially delayed the termination
of the hostilities, ignoring all the resolutions of the UN Security
Council, as well as all the peace proposals, their behavior was
different at the last stage. To justify this, I'd like to recall an
episode. I sent the texts of the Bishkek Protocol first to Yerevan
and Stepanakert; RA Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan introduced two
changes, proposing to remove two sentences in different parts in the
text. Today, I cannot clearly say what kind of changes were made,
but in normal conditions it would have meant long debates - Azerbaijan
would have firmly opposed them, making its own proposals. But in this
case, they accepted these two changes without any discussion, which
is a rare phenomenon in the relations between the conflicting parties
and mediators. So, on May 9, the document was signed by Azerbaijani
Defense Minister Mamedov, on May 10 - by RA Defense Minister Serge
Sargsyan, and on May 11 - by Samvel Babayan in Karabakh. I want to
emphasize that the Azerbaijanis took the changes quite easily.
- Our leaders of that time testify that Azerbaijani President Heydar
Aliyev called Stepanakert to say that Baku was interested in the
cease-fire. We did not ask Baku to stop the hostilities.
- I cannot comment on which I don't know well. I cannot do this,
because I have no exact information.
- And what can you say about the current stage of the negotiation
process?
- I would not like to talk about it, because I've been retired for
12 years and I must say that I am not informed of all the current
processes. I should also mention that during the recent visits of RF
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Armenia and Baku, many issues related
to that period were discussed, in particular, those of cessation of the
hostilities and creation of the Minsk Group. Lavrov's position is that
the main content of the UN Security Council resolution, that is the
cease-fire, is carried out. As for the territories, Lavrov said, and I
am also of this opinion, that they should be a subject to negotiations.
- They are historical Armenian lands and are fixed in the NKR Basic
Law. Sorry, Mr. Kazimirov, but I must say that after World War II
the South Kuril Islands, which had been historically owned by Japan,
passed to the Soviet Union, as the USSR had acquired them as a result
of the war. Does Russia intend to return them to the owner?
- Yes, it is a consequence of World War II.
- In our case, it refers to the historical Armenian lands liberated
as a result of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh war.
- I can't accept such a position. I think that the fate of
Nagorno-Karabakh should be determined on the basis of people's free
will. As for the territories around Karabakh, I think they should
be returned toAzerbaijan for the establishment of normal relations
between the parties. Russia, in the literal sense of the word, has
no interest in suppressing Armenians or Azerbaijanis. We want to have
friendly relations both with Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
- Why should Armenians be in the role of lands' loser? You are well
aware of the fate of Western Armenia, the historical land, which
Turkey gained not as a result of a war. It was given to it just as
a gift by Russian Bolsheviks. You know this story well.
- We need to create modern values â~@~Kâ~@~Kand not to bring
laws and values from the distant past, as today's life is much
more difficult. The humanity should be able to manage these
valuesâ~@~Kâ~@~K. I understand it in this way and the common sense
makes me judge so.
- But, the world history testifies that conflicts settlement is based
on the realities created as a result of a war.
- The conflict may generate new conflicts. I think Armenians don't
want a new conflict. I would say that mutual concession prevails
over a victory, because it excludes any extremes and prevents any
revanchist moods.
- If we lived in the neighborhood with any European state, it would
be easier to come to an agreement. You are aware of all the massacres
committed by Azeris in the Armenian towns of Azerbaijan.
- Well, do you want another war?
- I want my people to live a peaceful and safe life, so that the
crimes committed against it are never repeated
- And I repeat that mutual concession is more reliable. I do not mean
unilateral concessions.
- I would like to draw your attention to another issue. It is known
that Azerbaijan managed to become a non-permanent member of the UN
Security Council thanks to the active support of Russia. Russia was
the first to vote Â"forÂ"; it was followed by the Latin-American, as
well as the Islamic Conference states, which are in close cooperation
with the Russian Federation. How would you comment on this?
- Yes, Russia voted Â"forÂ". Russia behaves as it needs. And Russia
needs good relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is impossible
to impose a political course on Moscow; it is always guided by its own
interests. By the way, I express my own opinion on all the issues;
also, I should note that Russia could not vote against any former
Soviet Republic, which wants to become a non-permanent member of the
UN Security Council. But, I would refrain from any comments on Georgia.
- Finally, I'd ask you to note your visit's goal.
- I frequently give lectures at the RA MFA Diplomatic School. The
listeners are interested in my vision of the Karabakh settlement. And
besides, they may invite me for the fact that I am sufficiently aware
of the conflict's history, nuances, and so on. I should say that
there are so many distortions, falsifications, and wrong comments on
this conflict. Each time, on the eve of the cease-fire anniversary, I
make statements in newspapers and explain that no cease-fire agreement
was signed in Bishkek; the parliament leaders of all the conflicting
parties met there to support the cease-fire initiative. An appeal
for cease-fire was directed to the warring parties.