INTERVIEW: VALERY BALAYAN: NEITHER 2006, NOR ANY OTHER COMING YEAR CAN MAKE A “BREAK” IN THE KARABAKH ISSUE
PanARMENIAN.Net
23.03.2006 GMT+04:00
The International Crisis Group (ICG) new report titled Conflict
Resolution in the South Caucasus: The EU’s Role says that “With its
reputation as an “honest broker”, access to a range of soft and hard
power tools, and the lure of greater integration into Europe, the EU
has a greater role to play, and offers added value to compliment the
UN and the OSCE. To avoid instability on its borders, the EU seeks
a ring of well-governed countries around it,” the ICG believes. At
the instance of PanARMENIAN.Net, Chair of the Standing Commission for
Defense and Security of the Supreme Council of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic in 1992-1995, Chairman of Tradition NGO Valery Balayan
comments on the ICG new report.
How does the NKR assess reports and recommendations of the
International Crisis Group?
I can say nothing of ICG activities in the NKR, as there was no
such. As of the reports and recommendations, this is the rare case,
when the NKR society was negative both on reports and recommendations
of the International Crisis Group (ICG). A whole range of rhetoric
questions arises when acquainting with ICG documents and they remain
unanswered. Which of the parties to conflict invited the ICG as a
mediator? If none, who imposes them upon us? What do they have to do
with the conflict? Do they have any views of the many aspects of the
conflict? If they do, which are these, etc. ICG professionalism arouses
special perplexity. In their reports they often make conclusions based
on doubtful articles of interested parties in favor of the same party.
The OSCE has the leading role in settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. What are the statements on the need to involve the EU and
UN in the process, as Azeris insist, due to?
The role of the OSCE in settlement of the conflict is not that
much self-dependent, as it seems to Azerbaijan. Peculiarities of
contemporary policy in the globalization age are the way, that when
deciding core matters of world policy – and the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict refers to those – some consensus is reached at the EU
or UN. Consensus is being reached mainly within the interests of
large countries, who fund activities of those organizations, while
interests of the parties to conflict are taken into account “as luck
would have it.” This was true also at division of Yugoslavia, it is
observed now when solving the Kosovo issue and that of Iraq. Thus,
those who insist on it are advised to read Krylov’s fable or recall
arithmetic rule on changing the order of items.
How would you comment on attempts to settle the conflict in
Rambouillet, Washington and Istanbul? Can the year 2006 be a “break”
indeed?
Neither 2006, nor any other coming year can make a “break” in
settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, as bloody conflicts like
this can be settled only on the expiry of long time. Forecasting the
exact number of years necessary for that is impossible. A break is
being just outlined in the settlement of the Cyprus issue after 30
years, no break can be seen in the Palestinian issue. Please, recall
how long the conflict on the Indo-Chinese peninsula lasted, while
issues have remained until now. This is also true of any conflict
of the 20th century. To make the terms shorter, the negotiations
should be intensified, the format of the talks should be expanded,
society should participate, confidence measures should be arranged.
The conflict will not be settled for no particular reason. It is a
very hard work and it demands qualified and professional approach.
An idea of referendum in the NKR was proposed in Rambouillet. What
is your attitude to it?
As of a repeated referendum in the NKR, comments are unnecessary
here. In their time Azeris of Nagorno Karabakh just refused from
participation in it. I do not see what can change their viewpoint
now or on the expiry of the term, invented by the ICG.