KARABAKH ANALYST: SUBJECTIVITY AND DOUBLE STANDARDS HINDER SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

17:28 04/04/2006

“While solving all kinds of conflicts so-called ‘double standards’
always appear. There is an opinion; these standards are negative
phenomenon, which hampers final conflict settlement, especially
international ones. But it would be a serious mistake categorically to
maintain rightfulness of such approach,” expressed such opinion adviser
to Nagorno Karabakh president David Babayan, interviewed by REGNUM.

According to him, double standards are, first of all, clearly defined
state interests; and in such context, presence of double standards,
i.e. clear objective interests by different actors and interested
sides in conflict settlement, especially international ones, may give
additional impetus for the conflicts’ settlement, because in case
of clash of different interests, inhered in both conflict parties
and external powers, possibility of finding compromise appears. “In
such case, the double standards become necessary element of conflict
settlement. But they really begin to hamper conflict settlement, and
sometimes worsen situation, if they are based on subjective approaches,
because of which they often totally reverse.

Discrimination, as most dangerous result of subjectivism in double
standards, is most striking example of that,” said David Babayan.

At the same time, he stressed, at present there are clear double
standards — both objective and subjective ones — in conflict
settlement, especially in post-Soviet space. “Among all foreign
actors the USA and Turkey have most clearly defined interests. Iran
has its permanent interests too. Changes of interests of Russia
are obvious. Parties, which immediately conflict, have rather clear
position in Nagorno Karabakh settlement. Europe as whole has more or
less unclear interests, and it may be explained by fact, that Europe
is still forming, and continuing to look for compromise foreign policy
doctrine. The latter becomes rather apparent during visits of some
European politicians to the region too”, said the analyst.

As an example David Babayan named former Spain Foreign Minister Anna
Palacio, who visited Stepanakert as member of group of analysts and
former politicians two years ago. “I had occasion to speak with her
rather long on Nagorno Karabakh settlement. Of course, the matter
concerned territories. Palacio did not know details of the question,
and I explained her, among other things, territorial questions have
many ingredients, in particular, political, military, ecological
aspects. She especially interested in ecological aspects, and in
the context, I presented her importance of Kelbajar area, where 85%
of water resources of former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic
originated, including rivers Arpa and Vorotan. They play key role to
rescue Lake of Sevan which contains 80% of Armenian water reserves.

Vitally importance of the territory, especially taking into
consideration facts of hydro-terror from Azerbaijan, as well as
its threat to repeat them in future, if the area is controlled by
Azerbaijan again, was stressed. On the following day Palacio told me,
she had been thinking about our conversation the whole night, and had
concluded, Kelbajar area might not be returned to Azerbaijan because
of guaranteeing water security of Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia. But
in her article in Washington Post, published on April 11 of this year,
Palacio stated, Armenia had to return Azerbaijan ‘occupied territories,
around disputable territory, Karabakh must receive full autonomy
before definition of its final status’ etc. It is nothing else, but
a subjective approach, and may be to a certain extent a mercantile
one, fully corresponding with winged words ‘O tempora, o mores!’,”
resumed David Babayan.