Tweet
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Jan 6 2012
Stepan Grigoryan: `The Karabakh conflict cannot be resolved without trust'
The head of the analysis Center of Globalization and Regional
Development, Stepan Grigoryan, sums up the results of 2011 in the
sphere of internal and foreign policy and appraises the negotiation
process on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for VK.
- What was the most important event of the internal political
life in 2011?
- The most important event for me was the release all people
who are connected with politics from jails and the new demonstration
on Freedom Square. These two events are important for future of
democracy in Armenia, as the opposition should have an opportunity to
hold demonstrations, and people the opportunity to participate in
protest meetings freely. Moreover, the release of political prisoners
turns another page of the country's history, which means that the
internal political situation in Armenia became liberal and relatively
free.
- What can you say about political 2011 in general?
- In 2011 we saw positive progress, while at the same time
this year can be characterized as a period of ambiguity. Everybody,
including the authorities, understands that fighting corruption is
relevant for the country's future. The authorities undertook a series
of steps, I mean new appointments and initiation of criminal cases
against some officials, however, these steps were neither systematic
nor sufficient.
- What was the most important foreign political event?
- I think a complex of issues was important for Armenia. This
is connected with intensification of ties with NATO and the EU. In
2011 Armenia signed almost all the documents of the EU Eastern
Partnership program. In 2011 it was decided to extend our contingent
in Afghanistan.
- What are the year's results in the sphere of the Karabakh problem?
- 2009-2010 were marked by an active negotiation process,
which caused certain hopes that in 2011 there should be a serious
breakthrough. Unfortunately, after the Kazan summit a pause appeared,
due to an effort to speed up the conflict's settlement artificially by
the president of Russia. I think this is the reason why the
negotiation process is frozen today. The negotiation process should be
restored within the Minsk Group, which is the best format for talks.
Anyway, 2011 was a year when the negotiations continued, and that is
positive.
- So you think the process slowed down after Kazan?
- Yes, as you know after Kazan there were no actual meetings.
At the moment a new summit is being prepared. The second reason for
the talks' failure in Kazan is the position of Azerbaijan, when the
Azerbaijani delegation proposed new suggestions. I think Armenia's
reaction was reasonable: we arrived to discuss a particular document,
while Azerbaijan tried to change the negotiation process. Okay, let's
start from the very beginning.
- You said the Russian president aimed to artificial speed up
the conflict's settlement. However, it is well-known that Russia is
not interested in a speedy settlement of the conflict, as it enables
it to maintain influence over Armenia and Azerbaijan. What then can
explain Medvedev's position?
- I think Medvedev's initiative was situational and connected
with the presidential elections. At that time it wasn't decided yet
who will compete for the presidential post - Putin or Medvedev. He
thought that, in case of success in the Karabakh process, he would
gain the support of the international community and Russian citizens.
- What are your forecasts for the terms and means of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict's settlement?
- The pace of the conflict's settlement depends on two
factors. First of all, it is mutual trust. Today, relations between
the two sides are very tense, including at the inter-social level. In
this context a speedy settlement is not possible. I couldn't imagine
the conflict being settled without trust measures.
Secondly, foreign players are very important. At the moment, the main
foreign players, Russia, the USA and the EU, are not striving for a
speedy settlement of the conflict. I don't feel these three forces
have come to consensus on the issue between each other. On the other
hand, it is positive that they agree there shouldn't be a military
settlement of the conflict.
Interview by Susanna Petrosyan, Yerevan, Exclusively to VK
Jan 6 2012
Stepan Grigoryan: `The Karabakh conflict cannot be resolved without trust'
The head of the analysis Center of Globalization and Regional
Development, Stepan Grigoryan, sums up the results of 2011 in the
sphere of internal and foreign policy and appraises the negotiation
process on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for VK.
- What was the most important event of the internal political
life in 2011?
- The most important event for me was the release all people
who are connected with politics from jails and the new demonstration
on Freedom Square. These two events are important for future of
democracy in Armenia, as the opposition should have an opportunity to
hold demonstrations, and people the opportunity to participate in
protest meetings freely. Moreover, the release of political prisoners
turns another page of the country's history, which means that the
internal political situation in Armenia became liberal and relatively
free.
- What can you say about political 2011 in general?
- In 2011 we saw positive progress, while at the same time
this year can be characterized as a period of ambiguity. Everybody,
including the authorities, understands that fighting corruption is
relevant for the country's future. The authorities undertook a series
of steps, I mean new appointments and initiation of criminal cases
against some officials, however, these steps were neither systematic
nor sufficient.
- What was the most important foreign political event?
- I think a complex of issues was important for Armenia. This
is connected with intensification of ties with NATO and the EU. In
2011 Armenia signed almost all the documents of the EU Eastern
Partnership program. In 2011 it was decided to extend our contingent
in Afghanistan.
- What are the year's results in the sphere of the Karabakh problem?
- 2009-2010 were marked by an active negotiation process,
which caused certain hopes that in 2011 there should be a serious
breakthrough. Unfortunately, after the Kazan summit a pause appeared,
due to an effort to speed up the conflict's settlement artificially by
the president of Russia. I think this is the reason why the
negotiation process is frozen today. The negotiation process should be
restored within the Minsk Group, which is the best format for talks.
Anyway, 2011 was a year when the negotiations continued, and that is
positive.
- So you think the process slowed down after Kazan?
- Yes, as you know after Kazan there were no actual meetings.
At the moment a new summit is being prepared. The second reason for
the talks' failure in Kazan is the position of Azerbaijan, when the
Azerbaijani delegation proposed new suggestions. I think Armenia's
reaction was reasonable: we arrived to discuss a particular document,
while Azerbaijan tried to change the negotiation process. Okay, let's
start from the very beginning.
- You said the Russian president aimed to artificial speed up
the conflict's settlement. However, it is well-known that Russia is
not interested in a speedy settlement of the conflict, as it enables
it to maintain influence over Armenia and Azerbaijan. What then can
explain Medvedev's position?
- I think Medvedev's initiative was situational and connected
with the presidential elections. At that time it wasn't decided yet
who will compete for the presidential post - Putin or Medvedev. He
thought that, in case of success in the Karabakh process, he would
gain the support of the international community and Russian citizens.
- What are your forecasts for the terms and means of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict's settlement?
- The pace of the conflict's settlement depends on two
factors. First of all, it is mutual trust. Today, relations between
the two sides are very tense, including at the inter-social level. In
this context a speedy settlement is not possible. I couldn't imagine
the conflict being settled without trust measures.
Secondly, foreign players are very important. At the moment, the main
foreign players, Russia, the USA and the EU, are not striving for a
speedy settlement of the conflict. I don't feel these three forces
have come to consensus on the issue between each other. On the other
hand, it is positive that they agree there shouldn't be a military
settlement of the conflict.
Interview by Susanna Petrosyan, Yerevan, Exclusively to VK