Day.az, Azerbaijan
Nov 20 2006
AZERI EXPERT PREDICTS NO CHANGES IN KARABAKH ISSUE
An Azerbaijani pundit has said he does not expect any dramatic
changes in the Karabakh issue as the USA and Russia have their own
interests in the region, and although pressure on Azerbaijan may
increase, neither the USA nor Russia will dare to impose a
pro-Armenian solution. In an interview for an Azerbaijani website,
director of the Department of Conflict Studies of the Institute for
Peace and Democracy Arif Yunus said he was not surprised that
pro-American senators triumphed in the mid-term US elections, but
doubted that the so-called "genocide" of the Armenians would be
generally recognized in the USA. Azerbaijan, he said, must work more
with American policymakers and strengthen its ties with Europe and
Israel as a counterbalance to the Armenian lobby. The following is
the text of his interview entitled "It is now time to switch to
specific actions, to open an embassy in Israel and not to be afraid
of the reaction in the Arab world or Iran. They will be on the side
of the Armenians anyway", published on the Day.Az website on 21
November; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
An exclusive interview for the Day.Az website with the Director of
the Department of Conflict Studies of the Institute for Peace and
Democracy, Arif Yunus.
[correspondent] Arif muallim [mode of address], do you think it is
surprising that senators who are well known for their pro-Armenian
positions have been elected leaders of the Democratic and Republican
parties in the US Senate, or is this what was expected as a result of
organized and methodical work by the Armenian lobby?
Pro-Armenian senators elected in USA
[Yunus] The role, activities and influence of the Armenian lobby in
the USA are too overstated in our country. Yes, during election
campaigns, as a rule, nominees to the Senate or Congress, as well as
the presidency, frequently try to play up to certain groups of the
population. They promise to do something about women’s or other
issues, and so on. In fact, it is all about trying to win as many
votes as possible. But once a candidate is elected to this or that
post, many promises remain just that. So, there is no point in making
too much of the activities of the Armenian lobby. It is more a
question of a clash of circumstances, because political life in the
USA is built on different principles. Here, the interests of other
peoples and countries are lobbied, but only on condition that this is
not detrimental to the country’s national interests.
When the question of revoking the notorious amendment No 907 [Section
907 to the Freedom Support Act banning US aid to the Azerbaijani
government] in relation to Azerbaijan was raised, many of the
pro-Armenian senators did not object because they realized the
importance of our country’s role for US interests. It is another
matter that whereas up to now the US administration, to suit the
interests of the oil companies, has turned a blind eye to many of the
problems in our country in the sphere of democracy and human rights,
now it will be much more difficult to do so.
[correspondent] Senator Harry Reid, who supported the draft bill on
"the genocide of the Armenians" in Ottoman Turkey, has been elected
leader of the Democrats in the Senate. Reid also appealed to the
White House administration to give a precise definition of crimes in
the Ottoman Empire. Do you think it can now be said that everything
is leading towards the US recognizing the so-called "genocide" of the
Armenians?
Armenian "genocide" unlikely to be recognized in USA
[Yunusov] I doubt it. I have already pointed out that the attitude of
senators and American politicians in general to this or that country
depends on many factors. Were Turkey not so important for US
interests, then one could expect such recognition. Why is Western
Europe so guarded in its attitude to Turkey over the question of
acceptance into the European Union and is constantly raising the
issue of the Armenian "genocide"? It is not at all out of respect for
the memory of the dead Armenians or any particular lobbying of the
Armenians.
It is nothing to do with the Armenians but their attitude to Turkey.
They are frankly rather afraid of it in Western Europe and are doing
everything to prevent it joining their Christian club called the
"European Union". If it wasn’t the Armenian "genocide", then they
would be raising some other issue. And in the USA it is not the
Armenians who play the main role in adopting this or that decision,
but the attitude to Turkey. Chances are the question of the
recognition of the "genocide" will always be raised in the USA, and
at the same time the Armenians will organize noisy campaigns and
believe that this time the question will be resolved. This will be
used for the USA to put pressure on Turkey to adopt this or that
decision in the Near East. After all, the Americans have many
problems in the region, not least of which is the problem of solving
the Iranian crisis or the Palestinian question and Israel’s attitude
to the Arab world. Meanwhile, Turkey may play a very important role,
which is both a positive and a negative thing for the Americans. So
the problem of recognition of the "genocide" of the Armenians is just
an American big stick for Turkey. It will always be raised, but
whether it will be lowered is a question that is a long way from
being resolved and will depend on the geopolitical situation in the
region.
Armenia a permanent US trading partner?
[correspondent] Mitch McConnell, who is also well known for his
position in favour of solving Armenian issues, has been elected to
the Senate from the Republican Party. In particular, Mr McConnell
came out in support of a draft bill under the Freedom Support Act
programme to confer on Armenia the status of a permanent trading
partner of the US. What will the conferring of this status on Armenia
bring and how will this affect the positions of the Armenians in the
Karabakh conflict?
[Yunusov] I don’t know if Armenia will receive the status of a
permanent trading partner of the USA or not. As a rule, there are
many factors involved in taking such a decision, and to some degree
the geopolitical factor is one of them. But one thing is clear:
relatively good times are on the way for Armenia. US economic aid to
Armenia is likely to increase even more. But there will be no basic
changes in the Karabakh question, because one cannot expect any
drastic moves in a settlement of the conflict during the elections
(presidential or parliamentary) in Azerbaijan and Armenia. But in the
USA they will be nervous about statements by the Azerbaijani
authorities about the possibility of solving the conflict by military
means. Here one should expect pressure on Azerbaijan. The
Azerbaijanis will act on the principle that the Karabakh conflict
must not be resolved now, because we will not allow a war to start.
[correspondent] We have dealt with Armenia. But what conclusions
should Azerbaijan draw in the question of building future relations
with the USA?
Azerbaijan, USA and Karabakh conflict
[Yunusov] Azerbaijan should, ultimately, realize that it has to work
in different directions and be a country that is important to US
interests. We have backed the US administration and the alertness of
the oil lobby. Plus the fact that lately there has also been the
Jewish lobby. However, other forces may also take over the US
leadership, and what should be done then? We must work more and,
especially, more effectively with the lawmakers, i.e. the US Senate
and Congress, and also with various politicians and public figures
whose voices have important significance for decision-making in the
USA. We must also strengthen even more our ties with Israel and the
European lobby as a counterweight to the Armenian lobby. The Jewish
lobby is potentially much stronger and more effective in the USA than
the Armenian one. It is now time to switch to specific actions, to
open an embassy in Israel and not to be afraid of the reaction in the
Arab world or Iran. They will be on the side of the Armenians anyway.
We must think about our national interests.
[correspondent] Let me put the question more broadly. Everyone knows
how strong the positions of the Armenians are in Russia, and now they
are being strengthened in the USA. Does this mean that the Karabakh
conflict will also be solved in favour of the Armenians?
[Yunusov] In the Karabakh question everything will remain without
particular changes. The pressure on Azerbaijan may be stepped up, but
they will hardly succeed in forcing a pro-Armenian solution to be
adopted. And this also unlikely to happen in the USA and Russia, and
not because of the lobby towards Armenia or special feelings towards
Azerbaijan. The USA and Russia have their own interests in the
region, and proceeding from precisely these interests, these
countries are deciding on their own attitudes to the Karabakh
conflict. In Russia they realize that a final settlement of the
Karabakh conflict will lead to it being squeezed out of the region
and to a further strengthening of America’s positions. This also
explains Russia’s actions in the conflicts in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia which are seen as a means of pressure on Georgia and, more
widely, on the USA which is standing behind Georgia. Therefore,
Russia will simulate wanting to help in resolving the Karabakh
conflict, but in reality it will operate in another direction. The
USA is worried that if the Karabakh conflict is perceived by
Azerbaijani society in a negative way, this will lead to the
strongest growth of anti-American emotions and, as a consequence, to
a strengthening of Russia’s positions, or of the radical Islamic
forces. Therefore, no-one in fact will seriously rock the boat.
[correspondent] And my final question. Is the strengthening of the
Armenians’ position in the USA and Russia merely the consequence of
the good work of the Armenian lobby, or of the poor work of the Turks
and the Azerbaijanis?
[Yunusov] Both claims are true. The Armenians have always worked and
continue to work more effectively, although, as pointed out above,
not everything depends on them. And there is no cause to doubt the
poor work of the Turks, and especially the Azerbaijanis, in the
information sphere. Take just one example the blowing up of our
compatriots in Iran in May. There can be no doubt that if it had been
the Armenians who went on a protest demonstration, then this news
would have been widely publicized in the West, and the governments of
these countries would have taken one decision after another in this
connection in favour of the Armenians. There was virtually no
reaction in the West or even any coverage in the media, partly
because the USA and its allies did not want to face accusations by
Iran, but also to a considerable degree because of the information
inactivity of the leaders of the southern Azerbaijanis and the
authorities of Northern Azerbaijan.