Tweet
WILFRIED FURMAN: "THE ATTEMPT TO CONTINUE UNILATERAL CHANGES IN THE ETHNIC MAP IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH IS OBVIOUS"
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 12 2014
12 September 2014 - 2:44pm
Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, the head of the European Bureau of
Vestnik Kavkaza
Professor Wilfried Furman of Potsdam University has expressed his
opinion about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the light of the
Ukrainian crisis and changes in the geopolitical situation in the
world.
- Mr. Furman, how would you evaluate the events around the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in particular, the meeting of the
Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Sochi and Wales, preceded by
violent August clashes in Karabakh?
- I would point out three main interconnected events here. Firstly,
the meeting of the presidents in Sochi initiated by Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Secondly, as you noted, the Americans tried to keep up,
organizing the meeting of Aliyev and Sargsyan in Wales, where the NATO
summit was held. And, finally, on September 8, the European Union
published information about granting Armenia and Azerbaijan funds
within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy - up to
74 million euros to Baku and up to 170 million euros to Yerevan. The
event should not be pulled out of the common context.
All these meetings and grants of certain sums to the sides of the
conflict prove that none of the three main actors (Russia, U.S. and
EU) are interested in aggravating the conflict and its transition to
a "hot phase." The large players I named are trying to keep all the
conflicts in a deep frozen state.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in fact, happened in a zone between two
power blocks and, as it happens in a zone between two tectonic plates,
the region was in the zone of maximum military-political danger.
I disagree with the opinion that the key to the Nagorno-Karabakh is
in the hands of Moscow. Neither the EU or the U.S. have it. The key
to settlement of the problem is in the hands of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Speaking of Armenia, it puts maximum efforts into removing everything
associated with genocide against Azerbaijanis in Karabakh out of
memory. For me, it is a classic form of regional-scale genocide.
Expulsion from the region and extermination of a whole ethnos, call
it ethnic cleansing, destruction of the cultural landscape and all
memories about Azerbaijanis living in the region, is genocide. Armenia
accuses Azerbaijan but does not consider granting Azerbaijanis driven
out access to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. In other words, the Armenian
side is not ready for any concessions.
- The Armenian side assures that it would be possible but only after
Azerbaijan recognizes "the independence of the NKR..."
- I will tell you, give me a million dollars, and I will invite you for
coffee tomorrow morning... Azerbaijan keeps pointing out violations of
territorial integrity, four resolutions of the UN Security Council,
of international law. I, as a liberal-spirited man, can only welcome
the fact that there has not been a full-scale war so far. On the other
hand, the problem of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has not
found a solution. The principle of territorial integrity is constantly
emphasized in the case of Eastern Ukraine or Crimea. But when it
comes to Azerbaijan, no one in the West seems to express readiness to
support it in a potential war for restoration of territorial integrity.
- Do you think the problems of Crimea and Karabakh are similar?
- These cases are very similar but, at the same time, I think
that separation of Crimea is more legitimate, because it was done
via a referendum where the population of the peninsula was given
an opportunity to express its will. In Nagorno-Karabakh, such a
"referendum" was followed by pogroms, threats and the expulsion of the
Azerbaijani population. Driving out Karabakh Azerbaijanis, holding
a "referendum" and announcing that Armenians support Armenians is
certainly a big surprise. The argument that Armenians were the majority
in the NKAO before the conflict can in no way serve as justification
or explanation for the genocide they committed against Azerbaijanis.
Azerbaijan, relying on international law and insisting on restoration
of territorial integrity, does not find honest support from the West.
Thus, it was left in solitude with its attempts to restore sovereignty
over Karabakh.
- What do you think is the reason for the West's refusal to help
Azerbaijan?
- Risking getting into speculations, I will make a cautious
supposition that it is greatly associated with the factor of Christian
solidarity, present to a certain extent in all Western countries
and governments. In this aspect, preferences between Azerbaijan and
Armenia are unequal in the West. On the other hand, in the light of the
topical events in Iraq and Syria, where religious fundamentalists are
rampaging, the public of the West, having heard that Azerbaijan was
predominantly a Muslim state, forms an opinion through the prism of
their attitude towards all the Muslim world. The fact that Azerbaijan
is a secular state becomes secondary.
Finally, in the West, there are many people interpreting the law
depending on personal preferences. What some deserve, others do not.
- The unrecognized authorities of the "NKR" proposed resettlement of
Yazidi Kurds from Iraq to Nagorno-Karabakh. How would you comment on
that proposal?
- At first glance, the proposal looks very positive and humane. Giving
refuge to persecuted people is a good deed. But on closer inspection,
it becomes absolutely obvious that resettlement of an ethnos from
one crisis region to another conflict region has nothing to do with
humanism. Moreover, I do not believe that the unrecognized authorities
of Nagorno-Karabakh had motives of humanism when they were making
the proposal. One the one hand, it is a classic PR move to get mass
media attention, improve one's own reputation, gain sympathy and
legitimacy in the world. On the other hand, Armenians are trying to
compensate for the outflow of their own population, young people from
Nagorno-Karabakh, because they have no prospects and future there.
Finally, considering the hostile stance of Yadizi Kurds against
Muslims, which include Azerbaijanis, Armenians are trying to create
another stronghold against Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh, using
Yazidi Kurds for that. Armenia can also try to use the EU funds to form
such a stronghold: build settlements, infrastructure. The attempt to
continue unilateral changes on the ethnic map of Nagorno-Karabakh is
obvious, and preventing it, other than by using diplomatic mechanisms
and active work with mass media, is extremely hard.
- The Baku authorities have stopped concealing their disappointment
and irritation with the position of the West on the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue. The foreign political preferences of Azerbaijan are becoming
more oriented towards the north, towards Russia. Does this mean that
European integration has been scrapped?
- It will largely depend on development of the events in Ukraine,
in particular, the resolution of the problem of the long-term status
of the political system in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In the near
future, in my opinion, the problems will be projected in the South
Caucasus. In NATO, pressure from the Americans insisting on admission
of Georgia to the Alliance will grow. Abkhazia and South Ossetia will
appear on the agenda against, and pressure on Georgia will keep rising.
At the same time, President Putin will put pressure on Kazakhstan and
Armenia because he wants Yerevan to join the Customs and the Eurasian
Unions. Nagorno-Karabakh here is the key issue for Armenia, because
Kazakhstan insists on Armenia joining the unions only in accordance
with its internationally-recognized borders, which means exclusion
of Nagorno-Karabakh from the process.
Armenia, in its turn, will put maximum effort into pulling
Nagorno-Karabakh into the CU and the EaEU. And finally there is
Azerbaijan, a country on "a lonely island." Azerbaijan, in fact,
has only two opportunities. It either starts drifting to the West,
like Georgia, undermining prospects to get Nagorno-Karabakh under its
jurisdiction. Another alternative is that Baku gives up its ties with
the West and goes for a close alliance with Moscow and participation in
all its integration projects. Because, at the moment, when Armenia is
joining the EaEU, Azerbaijan will not do that, its chances of regaining
Nagorno-Karabakh would significantly drop because Baku would be unable
to affect the decisions that Moscow, Astana, Minsk and Yerevan will
make. Now the question of whether Azerbaijan joins the EaEU or not,
just as it was in Ukraine, greatly depends on financial circles,
if you wish, the oligarchs, in Azerbaijan: will they prefer money
or territorial integrity? Will they prefer dynamic EU markets and
innovations or Nagorno-Karabakh, which can receive major autonomy as
part of the Azerbaijani republic, at best?
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/59880.html
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 12 2014
12 September 2014 - 2:44pm
Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, the head of the European Bureau of
Vestnik Kavkaza
Professor Wilfried Furman of Potsdam University has expressed his
opinion about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the light of the
Ukrainian crisis and changes in the geopolitical situation in the
world.
- Mr. Furman, how would you evaluate the events around the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in particular, the meeting of the
Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Sochi and Wales, preceded by
violent August clashes in Karabakh?
- I would point out three main interconnected events here. Firstly,
the meeting of the presidents in Sochi initiated by Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Secondly, as you noted, the Americans tried to keep up,
organizing the meeting of Aliyev and Sargsyan in Wales, where the NATO
summit was held. And, finally, on September 8, the European Union
published information about granting Armenia and Azerbaijan funds
within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy - up to
74 million euros to Baku and up to 170 million euros to Yerevan. The
event should not be pulled out of the common context.
All these meetings and grants of certain sums to the sides of the
conflict prove that none of the three main actors (Russia, U.S. and
EU) are interested in aggravating the conflict and its transition to
a "hot phase." The large players I named are trying to keep all the
conflicts in a deep frozen state.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in fact, happened in a zone between two
power blocks and, as it happens in a zone between two tectonic plates,
the region was in the zone of maximum military-political danger.
I disagree with the opinion that the key to the Nagorno-Karabakh is
in the hands of Moscow. Neither the EU or the U.S. have it. The key
to settlement of the problem is in the hands of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Speaking of Armenia, it puts maximum efforts into removing everything
associated with genocide against Azerbaijanis in Karabakh out of
memory. For me, it is a classic form of regional-scale genocide.
Expulsion from the region and extermination of a whole ethnos, call
it ethnic cleansing, destruction of the cultural landscape and all
memories about Azerbaijanis living in the region, is genocide. Armenia
accuses Azerbaijan but does not consider granting Azerbaijanis driven
out access to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. In other words, the Armenian
side is not ready for any concessions.
- The Armenian side assures that it would be possible but only after
Azerbaijan recognizes "the independence of the NKR..."
- I will tell you, give me a million dollars, and I will invite you for
coffee tomorrow morning... Azerbaijan keeps pointing out violations of
territorial integrity, four resolutions of the UN Security Council,
of international law. I, as a liberal-spirited man, can only welcome
the fact that there has not been a full-scale war so far. On the other
hand, the problem of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has not
found a solution. The principle of territorial integrity is constantly
emphasized in the case of Eastern Ukraine or Crimea. But when it
comes to Azerbaijan, no one in the West seems to express readiness to
support it in a potential war for restoration of territorial integrity.
- Do you think the problems of Crimea and Karabakh are similar?
- These cases are very similar but, at the same time, I think
that separation of Crimea is more legitimate, because it was done
via a referendum where the population of the peninsula was given
an opportunity to express its will. In Nagorno-Karabakh, such a
"referendum" was followed by pogroms, threats and the expulsion of the
Azerbaijani population. Driving out Karabakh Azerbaijanis, holding
a "referendum" and announcing that Armenians support Armenians is
certainly a big surprise. The argument that Armenians were the majority
in the NKAO before the conflict can in no way serve as justification
or explanation for the genocide they committed against Azerbaijanis.
Azerbaijan, relying on international law and insisting on restoration
of territorial integrity, does not find honest support from the West.
Thus, it was left in solitude with its attempts to restore sovereignty
over Karabakh.
- What do you think is the reason for the West's refusal to help
Azerbaijan?
- Risking getting into speculations, I will make a cautious
supposition that it is greatly associated with the factor of Christian
solidarity, present to a certain extent in all Western countries
and governments. In this aspect, preferences between Azerbaijan and
Armenia are unequal in the West. On the other hand, in the light of the
topical events in Iraq and Syria, where religious fundamentalists are
rampaging, the public of the West, having heard that Azerbaijan was
predominantly a Muslim state, forms an opinion through the prism of
their attitude towards all the Muslim world. The fact that Azerbaijan
is a secular state becomes secondary.
Finally, in the West, there are many people interpreting the law
depending on personal preferences. What some deserve, others do not.
- The unrecognized authorities of the "NKR" proposed resettlement of
Yazidi Kurds from Iraq to Nagorno-Karabakh. How would you comment on
that proposal?
- At first glance, the proposal looks very positive and humane. Giving
refuge to persecuted people is a good deed. But on closer inspection,
it becomes absolutely obvious that resettlement of an ethnos from
one crisis region to another conflict region has nothing to do with
humanism. Moreover, I do not believe that the unrecognized authorities
of Nagorno-Karabakh had motives of humanism when they were making
the proposal. One the one hand, it is a classic PR move to get mass
media attention, improve one's own reputation, gain sympathy and
legitimacy in the world. On the other hand, Armenians are trying to
compensate for the outflow of their own population, young people from
Nagorno-Karabakh, because they have no prospects and future there.
Finally, considering the hostile stance of Yadizi Kurds against
Muslims, which include Azerbaijanis, Armenians are trying to create
another stronghold against Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh, using
Yazidi Kurds for that. Armenia can also try to use the EU funds to form
such a stronghold: build settlements, infrastructure. The attempt to
continue unilateral changes on the ethnic map of Nagorno-Karabakh is
obvious, and preventing it, other than by using diplomatic mechanisms
and active work with mass media, is extremely hard.
- The Baku authorities have stopped concealing their disappointment
and irritation with the position of the West on the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue. The foreign political preferences of Azerbaijan are becoming
more oriented towards the north, towards Russia. Does this mean that
European integration has been scrapped?
- It will largely depend on development of the events in Ukraine,
in particular, the resolution of the problem of the long-term status
of the political system in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In the near
future, in my opinion, the problems will be projected in the South
Caucasus. In NATO, pressure from the Americans insisting on admission
of Georgia to the Alliance will grow. Abkhazia and South Ossetia will
appear on the agenda against, and pressure on Georgia will keep rising.
At the same time, President Putin will put pressure on Kazakhstan and
Armenia because he wants Yerevan to join the Customs and the Eurasian
Unions. Nagorno-Karabakh here is the key issue for Armenia, because
Kazakhstan insists on Armenia joining the unions only in accordance
with its internationally-recognized borders, which means exclusion
of Nagorno-Karabakh from the process.
Armenia, in its turn, will put maximum effort into pulling
Nagorno-Karabakh into the CU and the EaEU. And finally there is
Azerbaijan, a country on "a lonely island." Azerbaijan, in fact,
has only two opportunities. It either starts drifting to the West,
like Georgia, undermining prospects to get Nagorno-Karabakh under its
jurisdiction. Another alternative is that Baku gives up its ties with
the West and goes for a close alliance with Moscow and participation in
all its integration projects. Because, at the moment, when Armenia is
joining the EaEU, Azerbaijan will not do that, its chances of regaining
Nagorno-Karabakh would significantly drop because Baku would be unable
to affect the decisions that Moscow, Astana, Minsk and Yerevan will
make. Now the question of whether Azerbaijan joins the EaEU or not,
just as it was in Ukraine, greatly depends on financial circles,
if you wish, the oligarchs, in Azerbaijan: will they prefer money
or territorial integrity? Will they prefer dynamic EU markets and
innovations or Nagorno-Karabakh, which can receive major autonomy as
part of the Azerbaijani republic, at best?
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/interviews/politics/59880.html