Tweet
ALEXANDER ISKANDARYAN: "THE KARABAKH PROBLEM DETERMINES THE PARAMETERS OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT"
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 24 2013
24 September 2013 - 2:58pm
Interview by Vestnik Kavkaza
Vestnik Kavkaza interviewed two well-known political scientists
from Azerbaijan and Armenia, Professor of Western University,
Fikret Sadykhov, and the head of the Institute of the Caucasus,
Alexander Iskandaryan, on the problems of the Karabakh settlement -
what current positions of the sides are today, whether Azerbaijan
and Armenia are ready for dialogue. Today we publish the interview
with Alexander Iskandaryan.
- Whose problem is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict today, only Armenia
and Azerbaijan or the region and the world in general?
- Of course the Nagorno-Karabakh problem influences the region and
determines many parameters of regional development. It influences
relations between Armenia and Turkey, Iran and regional countries -
Armenia, Azerbaijan; it also influences Georgia and so on.
The problem is not only between Armenia and Azerbaijan, even though
they depend on this most of all.
- Is participation of international moderators necessary or does it
only delay settlement of the conflict?
- International mediators cannot resolve the conflict without the
desire of the sides in the conflict. Of significant importance are the
positions of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh. But internalization
of the process, when not only an Armenian and an Azerbaijani are in
a room, but also a Frenchman, a Russian, and an American, enables
continuation of the process. International experience shows that
conflicts which have no such international channel between the sides
are settled worse.
- Are Armenia and Azerbaijan ready today for a diplomatic settlement
of the conflict? And who should make the first step?
- They are not ready at all. It depends on what we call a
settlement. Of course, if tomorrow Azerbaijan is proposed to deport
the whole of Karabakh and Azerbaijanis will settle the lands, Baku
will agree to this. Or if Armenia is proposed recognition of the
independence of Karabakh by Azerbaijan, Yerevan will agree. But this
is not serious! A real settlement means concessions from both sides.
It means losses. Azerbaijan is not ready for the losses which should
be in Azerbaijan. Armenia is not ready for the losses which should
be in Armenia. So, resolution is impossible today.
- Can a moment when a diplomatic settlement be impossible come?
- I hope not. Why should it come? The Karabakh conflict is unique. It
has never involved peacemakers. The situation which appeared in 1994 is
supported only because of an absence of separating forces. There is a
certain balance between the sides, which enables the status quo to be
supported and to continue negotiations. Probably someday opportunities
for a settlement will occur, the sides will be ready for concessions,
and some changes will appear. At the moment it will continue. The
conflict is young. The conflict over Kashmir has existed since 1949;
over Cyprus - since 1963; the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - since the
late 19th century... To resolve a conflict, generations are needed. It
is a big deal.
- Is Armenia ready to go against the interests of Karabakh in favor of
wider strategic interests at the regional and international level? For
instance, in favor of closer cooperation with Russia.
- It depends on definition of "going against the interests."
Armenia cannot give away Karabakh or go against the will of the
Karabakh residents. There are two ways of approaching the Karabakh
conflict.
The first approach is treating Karabakh as a territory. This is more
common in Azerbaijan. There, Karabakh is considered as a territory
which Azerbaijan believes to be a part of its state and actually says:
"Give me back what belongs to me." It is an approach to Karabakh as
to a piece of land. It exists in Armenia as well, but the leading
approach is treating Karabakh as people.
The second approach is that Karabakh is not a territory, but people.
And nobody can marry me without me. It is impossible to tell Karabakh
residents that they would now live so. It's like me telling you that
from now on you will live not with your wife, but with a lady. It
is impossible. Karabakh is people, a land populated by people. And
Armenia cannot solve their destiny without them. It is not serious
talking about this. The conflict will continue till somebody in
the world suggests an alternative to the current situation. At the
moment the army and the configuration of borders are guarantees of the
current situation for residents of Karabakh. But to suggest anything
instead of it, some other security guarantees are needed, until then,
there will be no resolution.
- Is it possible that Azerbaijan would leave Karabakh to Armenia? For
example, in the 1990s the Megrin shuffle was discussed - Armenia
gives the Megrin Region and gets the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh...
- Nagorno-Karabakh is not a toy which can be exchanged. It is not
something you can take or give. All these verbs make Karabakh an
object, while Karabakh is a subject. Whether it is legally recognized
or not, that is a different question. I am a political scientist,
not a lawyer. But speaking about the political component, we cannot
ignore the interests of the people who live there, have their own
administrative principles, ways of supply, households, all institutes,
roads, drains, the parliaments, presidential elections and political
parties for 20 years. I think the perfect position for Azerbaijan
would be an attempt to attract these people somehow, rather than to
scare them that tomorrow we will buy armaments, start a war and take
away the territory because it is ours. In such a concept there are
no people. Armenia cannot ignore them. The brightest example is the
resignation of Ter-Petrosyan in 1998.
- Are informal meetings frequent between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
- The situation is bad. Meetings take place from time to time, but
there is a problem - the meetings can take place only outside the
region, i.e. in Tbilisi, in Europe, somewhere far away.
Unfortunately, for some reasons Armenian experts, analysts, political
scientists, representatives of civil society have no opportunity to
visit Azerbaijan. The last time I went to Azerbaijan was in 2000,
and not because I don't want to visit it, but as a citizen of Armenia,
an Armenian, I cannot visit the country. Not just citizens of Armenia,
but people of Armenian origin cannot visit Azerbaijan. Even if they
are not of Armenian origin, but they have an Armenian name. Once a
Russian citizen with an Armenian surname, Kyurchan, decided to make
a business trip to Azerbaijan; he wasn't aware of the situation at all.
And he couldn't fly because he was told that he was an Armenian. He
said: "I am not an Armenian, I have never been there, I am a citizen
of Russia!" But he couldn't. And when informal meetings have to
take place outside the region, it is more expensive and complicated,
from the organizational point of view. People who come to Karabakh
get onto the Azeri blacklist, and they cannot visit Azerbaijan any
more. I think it should be done vice versa. To prevent isolation and
paranoid ideas, Karabakh should be opened, rather than closed. They
have to try to work with them, to talk with the people. Finally, if
the Azerbaijani side thinks it is its territory, why can't a citizen
of Azerbaijan go there? And he cannot go there. I think it is not
even politics, but unsuccessful PR. Thus, it is not easy for civil
societies to cooperate and try to promote new ideas. It is being done,
I do it for example. I have Azerbaijani colleagues with whom I meet
regularly, we work together, but in general it is not easy.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/45480.html
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 24 2013
24 September 2013 - 2:58pm
Interview by Vestnik Kavkaza
Vestnik Kavkaza interviewed two well-known political scientists
from Azerbaijan and Armenia, Professor of Western University,
Fikret Sadykhov, and the head of the Institute of the Caucasus,
Alexander Iskandaryan, on the problems of the Karabakh settlement -
what current positions of the sides are today, whether Azerbaijan
and Armenia are ready for dialogue. Today we publish the interview
with Alexander Iskandaryan.
- Whose problem is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict today, only Armenia
and Azerbaijan or the region and the world in general?
- Of course the Nagorno-Karabakh problem influences the region and
determines many parameters of regional development. It influences
relations between Armenia and Turkey, Iran and regional countries -
Armenia, Azerbaijan; it also influences Georgia and so on.
The problem is not only between Armenia and Azerbaijan, even though
they depend on this most of all.
- Is participation of international moderators necessary or does it
only delay settlement of the conflict?
- International mediators cannot resolve the conflict without the
desire of the sides in the conflict. Of significant importance are the
positions of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh. But internalization
of the process, when not only an Armenian and an Azerbaijani are in
a room, but also a Frenchman, a Russian, and an American, enables
continuation of the process. International experience shows that
conflicts which have no such international channel between the sides
are settled worse.
- Are Armenia and Azerbaijan ready today for a diplomatic settlement
of the conflict? And who should make the first step?
- They are not ready at all. It depends on what we call a
settlement. Of course, if tomorrow Azerbaijan is proposed to deport
the whole of Karabakh and Azerbaijanis will settle the lands, Baku
will agree to this. Or if Armenia is proposed recognition of the
independence of Karabakh by Azerbaijan, Yerevan will agree. But this
is not serious! A real settlement means concessions from both sides.
It means losses. Azerbaijan is not ready for the losses which should
be in Azerbaijan. Armenia is not ready for the losses which should
be in Armenia. So, resolution is impossible today.
- Can a moment when a diplomatic settlement be impossible come?
- I hope not. Why should it come? The Karabakh conflict is unique. It
has never involved peacemakers. The situation which appeared in 1994 is
supported only because of an absence of separating forces. There is a
certain balance between the sides, which enables the status quo to be
supported and to continue negotiations. Probably someday opportunities
for a settlement will occur, the sides will be ready for concessions,
and some changes will appear. At the moment it will continue. The
conflict is young. The conflict over Kashmir has existed since 1949;
over Cyprus - since 1963; the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - since the
late 19th century... To resolve a conflict, generations are needed. It
is a big deal.
- Is Armenia ready to go against the interests of Karabakh in favor of
wider strategic interests at the regional and international level? For
instance, in favor of closer cooperation with Russia.
- It depends on definition of "going against the interests."
Armenia cannot give away Karabakh or go against the will of the
Karabakh residents. There are two ways of approaching the Karabakh
conflict.
The first approach is treating Karabakh as a territory. This is more
common in Azerbaijan. There, Karabakh is considered as a territory
which Azerbaijan believes to be a part of its state and actually says:
"Give me back what belongs to me." It is an approach to Karabakh as
to a piece of land. It exists in Armenia as well, but the leading
approach is treating Karabakh as people.
The second approach is that Karabakh is not a territory, but people.
And nobody can marry me without me. It is impossible to tell Karabakh
residents that they would now live so. It's like me telling you that
from now on you will live not with your wife, but with a lady. It
is impossible. Karabakh is people, a land populated by people. And
Armenia cannot solve their destiny without them. It is not serious
talking about this. The conflict will continue till somebody in
the world suggests an alternative to the current situation. At the
moment the army and the configuration of borders are guarantees of the
current situation for residents of Karabakh. But to suggest anything
instead of it, some other security guarantees are needed, until then,
there will be no resolution.
- Is it possible that Azerbaijan would leave Karabakh to Armenia? For
example, in the 1990s the Megrin shuffle was discussed - Armenia
gives the Megrin Region and gets the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh...
- Nagorno-Karabakh is not a toy which can be exchanged. It is not
something you can take or give. All these verbs make Karabakh an
object, while Karabakh is a subject. Whether it is legally recognized
or not, that is a different question. I am a political scientist,
not a lawyer. But speaking about the political component, we cannot
ignore the interests of the people who live there, have their own
administrative principles, ways of supply, households, all institutes,
roads, drains, the parliaments, presidential elections and political
parties for 20 years. I think the perfect position for Azerbaijan
would be an attempt to attract these people somehow, rather than to
scare them that tomorrow we will buy armaments, start a war and take
away the territory because it is ours. In such a concept there are
no people. Armenia cannot ignore them. The brightest example is the
resignation of Ter-Petrosyan in 1998.
- Are informal meetings frequent between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
- The situation is bad. Meetings take place from time to time, but
there is a problem - the meetings can take place only outside the
region, i.e. in Tbilisi, in Europe, somewhere far away.
Unfortunately, for some reasons Armenian experts, analysts, political
scientists, representatives of civil society have no opportunity to
visit Azerbaijan. The last time I went to Azerbaijan was in 2000,
and not because I don't want to visit it, but as a citizen of Armenia,
an Armenian, I cannot visit the country. Not just citizens of Armenia,
but people of Armenian origin cannot visit Azerbaijan. Even if they
are not of Armenian origin, but they have an Armenian name. Once a
Russian citizen with an Armenian surname, Kyurchan, decided to make
a business trip to Azerbaijan; he wasn't aware of the situation at all.
And he couldn't fly because he was told that he was an Armenian. He
said: "I am not an Armenian, I have never been there, I am a citizen
of Russia!" But he couldn't. And when informal meetings have to
take place outside the region, it is more expensive and complicated,
from the organizational point of view. People who come to Karabakh
get onto the Azeri blacklist, and they cannot visit Azerbaijan any
more. I think it should be done vice versa. To prevent isolation and
paranoid ideas, Karabakh should be opened, rather than closed. They
have to try to work with them, to talk with the people. Finally, if
the Azerbaijani side thinks it is its territory, why can't a citizen
of Azerbaijan go there? And he cannot go there. I think it is not
even politics, but unsuccessful PR. Thus, it is not easy for civil
societies to cooperate and try to promote new ideas. It is being done,
I do it for example. I have Azerbaijani colleagues with whom I meet
regularly, we work together, but in general it is not easy.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/45480.html