Tweet
'GROWING TENSION' OVER IRAN PUTS KARABAKH ON BACK BURNER
Akper Hasanov
News.Az
Mon 16 January 2012 07:50 GMT | 7:50 Local Time
News.Az interviews Azerbaijani political scientist Tofig Abbasov.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is to pay a visit to
Azerbaijan. Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selcuk Unal said
that Davutoglu would visit Nakhchivan on 17 January to attend the
trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan, Iran and
Turkey. What do you expect from this meeting?
The three foreign ministers have already met in Nakhchivan. The heads
of state have also met there, so it looks as though Nakhchivan's main
city is a venue for regular consultations. In the current unstable
time, there is no shortage of pressing material for the sides to
discuss.
I do not rule out that the meeting of the foreign ministers will be
followed by a meeting of senior officials. These three countries are
fated to get on well for a number of reasons.
First, the countries really are historically bound by religious and
ethnic characteristics. Second, they do not benefit from the emergence
of other powers in the region since there is serious conflict potential
and the balance will be broken if outsiders appear here.
Take, for example, the Kurdish issue. And, third, the region is rich,
has a high transit reputation, which makes it attractive to predators.
Therefore, there is a deep sense of the need for the three to have
a clear program of action to avoid unforeseen accidents.
But Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran have a single outlook on the future
of the region?
It's a good question. They cannot be unanimous. Frequent consultations
and agreements are needed to avoid potential pitfalls and clashes
of interest.
I am going to narrow this question. Iran is developing relations with
Armenia which occupies 20% of Azerbaijan's land. Is Tehran likely to
change its position drastically in the foreseeable future?
I don't think so. There are no doubts that Tehran and Yerevan will
remain strategic partners for the future. It is the West which mostly
pushes Iran towards rapprochement with Armenia. The two states have
seemingly turned into close partners due to unfavourable circumstances,
though these relations also have a historical basis.
It is not that Iran has a large Armenian diaspora. The Iranian
leadership, even in the times of Shah Abbas, practised the resettlement
of Christian minorities. At that time a big colony of Armenians
was moved to Isfahan to be involved in construction of the new
capital city, fortification of the region and other buildings. But
this was done properly and the Armenians greeted the project with
understanding. The same community is still settled in and around
Isfahan.
Meanwhile, at present the main vectors of geopolitics split the actors
of international law in line with real interests. Yerevan is keeping
close to its southern neighbour, since it is economically dependent
on it. Meanwhile, Tehran, even if it finds a way out of the situation,
will try not to lose the assimilated market of Armenia.
What do you expect from the upcoming meeting of the presidents of
Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in Sochi?
Only technical procedures and a preliminary general discussion of the
future agenda. Russia will certainly not give up its role as the main
mediator but it will not hurry with new initiatives either. This does
not, however, mean that it has no, and will not have, an action plan.
It probably has such a plan and the implementation of this plan will
depend on external factors.
How do you see the situation in our region in 2012? Is a breakthrough
likely in the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh?
I don't think tensions will abate yet. Frankly, it is not even serious
to talk of the Karabakh conflict amid the growing tension with Iran.
It is at the stage of settlement, though there is a possibility
of hostilities. Meanwhile, the Iranian problem is moving toward
strong radicalization. The attention of major actors is fully on the
Persian Gulf.
Certainly, we cannot say that the remaining problems of the region
have been set aside. Careful steps around frozen conflicts will
probably be taken, but relief actions will need a more favourable
international atmosphere, when the co-chairs deign to concentrate on
the Karabakh conflict.
Akper Hasanov
News.Az
Mon 16 January 2012 07:50 GMT | 7:50 Local Time
News.Az interviews Azerbaijani political scientist Tofig Abbasov.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is to pay a visit to
Azerbaijan. Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selcuk Unal said
that Davutoglu would visit Nakhchivan on 17 January to attend the
trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan, Iran and
Turkey. What do you expect from this meeting?
The three foreign ministers have already met in Nakhchivan. The heads
of state have also met there, so it looks as though Nakhchivan's main
city is a venue for regular consultations. In the current unstable
time, there is no shortage of pressing material for the sides to
discuss.
I do not rule out that the meeting of the foreign ministers will be
followed by a meeting of senior officials. These three countries are
fated to get on well for a number of reasons.
First, the countries really are historically bound by religious and
ethnic characteristics. Second, they do not benefit from the emergence
of other powers in the region since there is serious conflict potential
and the balance will be broken if outsiders appear here.
Take, for example, the Kurdish issue. And, third, the region is rich,
has a high transit reputation, which makes it attractive to predators.
Therefore, there is a deep sense of the need for the three to have
a clear program of action to avoid unforeseen accidents.
But Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran have a single outlook on the future
of the region?
It's a good question. They cannot be unanimous. Frequent consultations
and agreements are needed to avoid potential pitfalls and clashes
of interest.
I am going to narrow this question. Iran is developing relations with
Armenia which occupies 20% of Azerbaijan's land. Is Tehran likely to
change its position drastically in the foreseeable future?
I don't think so. There are no doubts that Tehran and Yerevan will
remain strategic partners for the future. It is the West which mostly
pushes Iran towards rapprochement with Armenia. The two states have
seemingly turned into close partners due to unfavourable circumstances,
though these relations also have a historical basis.
It is not that Iran has a large Armenian diaspora. The Iranian
leadership, even in the times of Shah Abbas, practised the resettlement
of Christian minorities. At that time a big colony of Armenians
was moved to Isfahan to be involved in construction of the new
capital city, fortification of the region and other buildings. But
this was done properly and the Armenians greeted the project with
understanding. The same community is still settled in and around
Isfahan.
Meanwhile, at present the main vectors of geopolitics split the actors
of international law in line with real interests. Yerevan is keeping
close to its southern neighbour, since it is economically dependent
on it. Meanwhile, Tehran, even if it finds a way out of the situation,
will try not to lose the assimilated market of Armenia.
What do you expect from the upcoming meeting of the presidents of
Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in Sochi?
Only technical procedures and a preliminary general discussion of the
future agenda. Russia will certainly not give up its role as the main
mediator but it will not hurry with new initiatives either. This does
not, however, mean that it has no, and will not have, an action plan.
It probably has such a plan and the implementation of this plan will
depend on external factors.
How do you see the situation in our region in 2012? Is a breakthrough
likely in the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh?
I don't think tensions will abate yet. Frankly, it is not even serious
to talk of the Karabakh conflict amid the growing tension with Iran.
It is at the stage of settlement, though there is a possibility
of hostilities. Meanwhile, the Iranian problem is moving toward
strong radicalization. The attention of major actors is fully on the
Persian Gulf.
Certainly, we cannot say that the remaining problems of the region
have been set aside. Careful steps around frozen conflicts will
probably be taken, but relief actions will need a more favourable
international atmosphere, when the co-chairs deign to concentrate on
the Karabakh conflict.