Tweet
THOMAS DE WAAL: "THE MEDIATORS CANNOT WANT PEACE MORE THAN THE PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT"
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Aug 15 2014
15 August 2014 - 8:39am
Experts had expectations that Russia would take the process of
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement into its hands at the meeting of Armenian
and Azerbaijani Presidents Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev with their
Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in the context of clashes on the
contact line. The sides expressed commitment to continue negotiations
to resolve the conflict. A British journalist specializing in the
Caucasus has discussed the problem in an interview with Vestnik
Kavkaza.
What is your evaluation of the latest meeting in Sochi?
Obviously the public part of it did not tell us very much. My main
impression was: how little was said, how little detail there was in
the public statements by the three presidents or [Russian] Foreign
Minister Lavrov. It obviously achieved its first aim, which was
to kind of dampen down the fighting on the ceasefire line, which is
positive. But as for more details, more substance about mechanisms for
preserving ceasefire or new commitment to the negotiating process. We
did not hear any of them.
Do you believe that there was something else said behind the closed
doors?
I am sure there were other things behind closed doors, particularly
in bilateral meetings: Russia-Armenia, Russia-Azerbaijan. But I
think neither side in the conflict really wants to commit itself to
anything substantial at this point and maybe even President Putin is
not interested in the details of the Karabakh negotiations. He also
had his points to make he also wanted to play a role of a peacemaker
for a day in contrast to what is going on in Ukraine.
The latest proposal by the Minsk group, the six principles - do you
believe they are acceptable by both sides?
Clearly, they are not acceptable for both sides, otherwise we would
have a peace agreement by now. These six principles have been on
the table in one form or another since end of 2007, when they were
called Madrid principles. So clearly they are the fundamental basis
for negotiations. There are no other ideas on the table. However,
I think, the problem is less in the proposals themselves, but just in
the complete lack of trust between the two sides, the lack of will to
have a proper peace agreement. They prefer to have a kind of imitation
of negotiations rather than a substantial peace agreement. In other
words, both sides are more or less happy with the status quo.
If we look at the map we can see that most of the occupied Azerbaijan's
territories are not in Karabakh. Do you think the time has come
for Armenia to return these lands at least, and then discuss the
Karabakh status?
I think the point about these six principles is that they cannot be
separated. So, if Armenia leaves the occupied territories, it does
so in return for a kind of guarantees about status and sovereignty
of Karabakh. Everything has to happen at the same time. This is why
the Devil is in the details.
Do you think that Russia and the US are doing enough to resolve
the conflict?
At the level of the Minsk group ambassadors they are doing what they
can. But I think that the basic reality of this conflict is that the
mediators cannot want peace more than the parties to the conflict
themselves are extremely cautious. So there is only so much the
mediators can do. And now, of course, we have an extra complications
the mediators are also involved in a big fight over Ukraine, which
again does not formally affected the Minsk process but certainly
undermine the overall authority of the Minsk process.
Do you believe that the people of Nagorno Karabakh should decide
the future of this region and do you see the possibility for Azeri
refugees returning to Nagorno Karabakh?
I think, everything has to happen... Nothing will happen in isolation.
Clearly, the idea of these basic principles is, basically, that
Azerbaijan will get occupied territories around Karabakh, but the
people of Karabakh get to express their right to self-determination
in some kind of a vote. In the future there is right of return,
including Azeris to Karabakh.
So, when you are talking about the right of people to vote, to choose
their future, you are talking about those who are living in Karabakh
right now?
I think, if there is a vote, it would need all present and former
residents of Karabakh there. But, of course, since the Armenians were
in the majority before, one can assume how the Armenians vote will
determine the answer.
What do you think can be and should be done at present to move forward
to resolve the issue?
I think, a lot can be done, obviously. But in practical terms,
I think, it is time to look again at a mechanism to investigate
violations of the ceasefire. It is very bad that the ceasefire is
violated. And basically, we do not know what is going on. If there
were more substantial mechanism to investigate the ceasefire, then,
I think, less people would die. I think, it is a shame, that it is
not being implemented.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/58824.html
From: Baghdasarian
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Aug 15 2014
15 August 2014 - 8:39am
Experts had expectations that Russia would take the process of
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement into its hands at the meeting of Armenian
and Azerbaijani Presidents Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev with their
Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in the context of clashes on the
contact line. The sides expressed commitment to continue negotiations
to resolve the conflict. A British journalist specializing in the
Caucasus has discussed the problem in an interview with Vestnik
Kavkaza.
What is your evaluation of the latest meeting in Sochi?
Obviously the public part of it did not tell us very much. My main
impression was: how little was said, how little detail there was in
the public statements by the three presidents or [Russian] Foreign
Minister Lavrov. It obviously achieved its first aim, which was
to kind of dampen down the fighting on the ceasefire line, which is
positive. But as for more details, more substance about mechanisms for
preserving ceasefire or new commitment to the negotiating process. We
did not hear any of them.
Do you believe that there was something else said behind the closed
doors?
I am sure there were other things behind closed doors, particularly
in bilateral meetings: Russia-Armenia, Russia-Azerbaijan. But I
think neither side in the conflict really wants to commit itself to
anything substantial at this point and maybe even President Putin is
not interested in the details of the Karabakh negotiations. He also
had his points to make he also wanted to play a role of a peacemaker
for a day in contrast to what is going on in Ukraine.
The latest proposal by the Minsk group, the six principles - do you
believe they are acceptable by both sides?
Clearly, they are not acceptable for both sides, otherwise we would
have a peace agreement by now. These six principles have been on
the table in one form or another since end of 2007, when they were
called Madrid principles. So clearly they are the fundamental basis
for negotiations. There are no other ideas on the table. However,
I think, the problem is less in the proposals themselves, but just in
the complete lack of trust between the two sides, the lack of will to
have a proper peace agreement. They prefer to have a kind of imitation
of negotiations rather than a substantial peace agreement. In other
words, both sides are more or less happy with the status quo.
If we look at the map we can see that most of the occupied Azerbaijan's
territories are not in Karabakh. Do you think the time has come
for Armenia to return these lands at least, and then discuss the
Karabakh status?
I think the point about these six principles is that they cannot be
separated. So, if Armenia leaves the occupied territories, it does
so in return for a kind of guarantees about status and sovereignty
of Karabakh. Everything has to happen at the same time. This is why
the Devil is in the details.
Do you think that Russia and the US are doing enough to resolve
the conflict?
At the level of the Minsk group ambassadors they are doing what they
can. But I think that the basic reality of this conflict is that the
mediators cannot want peace more than the parties to the conflict
themselves are extremely cautious. So there is only so much the
mediators can do. And now, of course, we have an extra complications
the mediators are also involved in a big fight over Ukraine, which
again does not formally affected the Minsk process but certainly
undermine the overall authority of the Minsk process.
Do you believe that the people of Nagorno Karabakh should decide
the future of this region and do you see the possibility for Azeri
refugees returning to Nagorno Karabakh?
I think, everything has to happen... Nothing will happen in isolation.
Clearly, the idea of these basic principles is, basically, that
Azerbaijan will get occupied territories around Karabakh, but the
people of Karabakh get to express their right to self-determination
in some kind of a vote. In the future there is right of return,
including Azeris to Karabakh.
So, when you are talking about the right of people to vote, to choose
their future, you are talking about those who are living in Karabakh
right now?
I think, if there is a vote, it would need all present and former
residents of Karabakh there. But, of course, since the Armenians were
in the majority before, one can assume how the Armenians vote will
determine the answer.
What do you think can be and should be done at present to move forward
to resolve the issue?
I think, a lot can be done, obviously. But in practical terms,
I think, it is time to look again at a mechanism to investigate
violations of the ceasefire. It is very bad that the ceasefire is
violated. And basically, we do not know what is going on. If there
were more substantial mechanism to investigate the ceasefire, then,
I think, less people would die. I think, it is a shame, that it is
not being implemented.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/58824.html
From: Baghdasarian