Tweet
Richard Kauzlarich: "Both sides are preparing for war"
January 19, 2015 11:01
EXCLUSIVE
Mediamax's interview with former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard
Kauzlarich
In 1990s, Richard Kauzlarich was the U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan and
Bosnia and Herzegovina. During his 32-year diplomatic career, Richard
Kauzlarich held various posts at the U.S. Department of State.
Last week the U.S. diplomat published an article titled "The Heydar
Aliyev Era Ends in Azerbaijan Not with a Bang but a Whisper" in which
he criticized the policy of Ilham Aliyev's administration.
In his article, Richard Kauzlarich also touched upon the possible ways
to step up Karabakh conflict negotiation process. In particular, he
suggested that the parties appoint fully-empowered negotiators who
will conduct face-to-face discussions based on the framework the Minsk
Group has provided but without Minsk Group direct mediation.
Mediamax asked Richard Kauzlarich to elaborate on his proposals.
- You have suggested that both sides should appoint "fully-empowered
negotiators" to conduct face-to-face discussions based on the
framework the Minsk Group has provided "but without Minsk Group direct
mediation". Why you think that Co-Chairs' direct mediation is not
needed any more?
- It's time to recognize that the Minsk Group has identified the
parameters for an N-K agreement and that the parties need to take
ownership of these ideas and negotiate directly. The parties do not
need the Minsk Group to negotiate the final deal. If Armenia and
Azerbaijan won't negotiate in good faith directly then there's not
much more the Minsk Group can do.
- In past there were direct talks between Armenian and Azerbaijani
Presidents' Advisors Gerard Libaridian and Vafa Guluzade, later
Presidents Kocharian and Aliyev appointed Deputy Foreign Ministers
Tatul Margarian and Tofig Zilfugarov as their Personal
Representatives. However, those formats haven's produced any visible
results. Why you think that such format could be sustainable today?
- I agree this is not a new format but I would re-introduce it now
because the Minsk Group process has developed a foundation for the
settlement that did not exist in the 1990s when I was involved as US
Ambassador in Azerbaijan. Rather than blaming the Minsk Group for the
lack of progress toward a peaceful settlement, Baku and Yerevan would
be responsible for showing the Armenian and Azerbaijani people that
the political leadership was more prepared to take risks for peace
than risks for war.
- If you suggest to "distance" from OSCE MG, don't you think it will
make more sense to restore the full negotiating format and to organize
talks between Armenian, Azerbaijani and NK negotiators as it was in
mid-90s?
- The format must be direct, bilateral, Azerbaijan-Armenia negotiations.
- Many people in Armenia believe that President Aliev puts pressure on
the civil society and on the people engaged in contacts with Armenians
because he prepares for war. What you think?
- Both sides, I regret to say, are preparing for war but in different
ways. Why do I say that? Because Baku and Yerevan have only created
conditions where military conflict rather than peaceful compromise is
the only politically acceptable outcome for the people in both
countries. Until the political leaderships in both countries have
prepared their populations to accept a compromise, peaceful settlement
to the conflict that does not include the extreme, zero-sum outcomes
that currently are the public positions, it is hard to imagine
diplomacy working.
- Don't you think that any resolution of the conflict will not be
possible as long as President Aliev is not ready to accept that
Nagorno-Karabakh will not return under the Azerbaijani rule?
- The current impossible situation is not the creation of a single
party. Over the years the Minsk Group framework has advanced a number
of different alternatives to the "all-or-nothing" positions on ending
the conflict and the peaceful future of Nagorno Karabakh. Until
Armenia and Azerbaijan (a) commit to (through direct bilateral
negotiations) a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the conflict, (b)
demonstrate willingness to take risks for peace, and (3) regard the
Minsk-Group mechanism as a partnership rather than a punching bag to
blame for the lack of progress; there is little hope that the current
approach will succeed.
Ara Tadevosyan talked to Richard Kauzlarich
http://www.mediamax.am/en/news/interviews/12870/#sthash.X9B8R3cg.dpuf
January 19, 2015 11:01
EXCLUSIVE
Mediamax's interview with former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard
Kauzlarich
In 1990s, Richard Kauzlarich was the U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan and
Bosnia and Herzegovina. During his 32-year diplomatic career, Richard
Kauzlarich held various posts at the U.S. Department of State.
Last week the U.S. diplomat published an article titled "The Heydar
Aliyev Era Ends in Azerbaijan Not with a Bang but a Whisper" in which
he criticized the policy of Ilham Aliyev's administration.
In his article, Richard Kauzlarich also touched upon the possible ways
to step up Karabakh conflict negotiation process. In particular, he
suggested that the parties appoint fully-empowered negotiators who
will conduct face-to-face discussions based on the framework the Minsk
Group has provided but without Minsk Group direct mediation.
Mediamax asked Richard Kauzlarich to elaborate on his proposals.
- You have suggested that both sides should appoint "fully-empowered
negotiators" to conduct face-to-face discussions based on the
framework the Minsk Group has provided "but without Minsk Group direct
mediation". Why you think that Co-Chairs' direct mediation is not
needed any more?
- It's time to recognize that the Minsk Group has identified the
parameters for an N-K agreement and that the parties need to take
ownership of these ideas and negotiate directly. The parties do not
need the Minsk Group to negotiate the final deal. If Armenia and
Azerbaijan won't negotiate in good faith directly then there's not
much more the Minsk Group can do.
- In past there were direct talks between Armenian and Azerbaijani
Presidents' Advisors Gerard Libaridian and Vafa Guluzade, later
Presidents Kocharian and Aliyev appointed Deputy Foreign Ministers
Tatul Margarian and Tofig Zilfugarov as their Personal
Representatives. However, those formats haven's produced any visible
results. Why you think that such format could be sustainable today?
- I agree this is not a new format but I would re-introduce it now
because the Minsk Group process has developed a foundation for the
settlement that did not exist in the 1990s when I was involved as US
Ambassador in Azerbaijan. Rather than blaming the Minsk Group for the
lack of progress toward a peaceful settlement, Baku and Yerevan would
be responsible for showing the Armenian and Azerbaijani people that
the political leadership was more prepared to take risks for peace
than risks for war.
- If you suggest to "distance" from OSCE MG, don't you think it will
make more sense to restore the full negotiating format and to organize
talks between Armenian, Azerbaijani and NK negotiators as it was in
mid-90s?
- The format must be direct, bilateral, Azerbaijan-Armenia negotiations.
- Many people in Armenia believe that President Aliev puts pressure on
the civil society and on the people engaged in contacts with Armenians
because he prepares for war. What you think?
- Both sides, I regret to say, are preparing for war but in different
ways. Why do I say that? Because Baku and Yerevan have only created
conditions where military conflict rather than peaceful compromise is
the only politically acceptable outcome for the people in both
countries. Until the political leaderships in both countries have
prepared their populations to accept a compromise, peaceful settlement
to the conflict that does not include the extreme, zero-sum outcomes
that currently are the public positions, it is hard to imagine
diplomacy working.
- Don't you think that any resolution of the conflict will not be
possible as long as President Aliev is not ready to accept that
Nagorno-Karabakh will not return under the Azerbaijani rule?
- The current impossible situation is not the creation of a single
party. Over the years the Minsk Group framework has advanced a number
of different alternatives to the "all-or-nothing" positions on ending
the conflict and the peaceful future of Nagorno Karabakh. Until
Armenia and Azerbaijan (a) commit to (through direct bilateral
negotiations) a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the conflict, (b)
demonstrate willingness to take risks for peace, and (3) regard the
Minsk-Group mechanism as a partnership rather than a punching bag to
blame for the lack of progress; there is little hope that the current
approach will succeed.
Ara Tadevosyan talked to Richard Kauzlarich
http://www.mediamax.am/en/news/interviews/12870/#sthash.X9B8R3cg.dpuf