DEMOCRATIC POLLS ESSENTIAL FOR PROGRESS ON KARABAKH – AZERI EXPERT
Day.az, Azerbaijan
Dec 18 2006
Azerbaijani expert Eldar Namazov has said that the best way to settle
the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict lies through democratic elections in
Azerbaijan and Armenia. In his exclusive interview with the Azerbaijani
website Day.az, he said that democratic elections are essential
because their end result will be a government that will be able freely
to manoeuvre politically for a settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict and will be free from outside pressures. The following is the
text of M. Arzu’s report by Azerbaijani website Day.az on 18 December
headlined "Eldar Namazov: The Armenian president’s statement implies
the beginning of a two-year delay in the Karabakh settlement":
Azerbaijani political expert Eldar Namazov has granted an exclusive
interview with Day.az.
[Correspondent] Armenian President Robert Kocharyan has recently
said that he has decided to slow down negotiations over a Karabakh
settlement until after parliamentary elections in May 2007 because
he does not want the process to become a hostage to the election
campaign. What do you think is really behind this decision?
Kocharyan’s statement not surprising
[Namazov] In actual fact, this announcement should not really surprise
anybody since it has been known for some time that the election
campaign is a major influence on the negotiating process.
The practice of putting a freeze on the negotiations in this respect
is not a new one, and therefore, it is no coincidence that the OSCE
Minsk Group has insisted that a breakthrough be made when there are
no elections taking place in either Armenia or Azerbaijan. So it
is natural that the negotiating process should be on hold during an
election campaign. It is another thing that the leadership of Armenia
and Azerbaijan have not spoken openly about this to their people – it
was more of a gentlemen’s agreement between the two sides. Now it is
just that Kocharyan is the first to say this openly. In other words,
everything is proceeding as one might have predicted, and there is
nothing surprising in the president’s announcement.
Change of regime to facilitate conflict settlement
[Correspondent] Accordingly, one will have to wait for the next moves
in the Karabakh settlement until after 2008 when the presidential
elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia are over?
[Namazov] Yes, and international observers had warned of exactly that,
calling on the parties to show the political will for a breakthrough,
to take advantage of a realistic window for a breakthrough in 2006
and not to put off a decision for such a length of time. Furthermore,
any realistic moves towards a resolution of the conflict will be
possible only if in Azerbaijan and Armenia there are honest and open
elections, the result of which will be the formation of a government
whose actions really will have the support of its people.
At present, the existing governments of the two countries are simply
going through the motions of a negotiation process.
[Correspondent] In other words, a change of regime in Azerbaijan and
Armenia is a necessary condition for the conflict to be resolved?
[Namazov] I would say that it would make negotiations a little
easier. Although it is clear form history that even the most
authoritarian regimes can come to some agreement and fulfil its
conditions. A major factor in all of this is the following: how much
is the international community interested in putting pressure on the
parties to the conflict in order to make them come to a compromise?
Therefore, when I say that democratic elections are essential I mean
that the end result will not just be the election of a government
with the backing of a popular majority, but a government that will be
able freely to manoeuvre politically for a settlement of the Nagornyy
Karabakh conflict and will be free from outside pressures. It is well
known that in the case of a falsified election there is an element of
pressure and certain forces start saying that they will turn a blind
eye to electoral violations, but in return demanding something back
on certain issues. That is why the best way to settle the conflict,
in my opinion, lies through democratic elections.
Autonomy for Karabakh
[Correspondent] How expedient would it be for us to allow another
two years for the separatist regime in Nagornyy Karabakh to exist,
which has in any case been the unrecognized but de facto regime for
more than fifteen years?
[Namazov] In this instance, we are choosing between the lesser of two
evils, for the alternative to negotiations would be military means
which, in my view, is not at present the best way to resolve the
problem. It is possible that with time we will be forced to revisit
the military option, but for now there is a chance to use peaceful
means, and we should take it.
[Correspondent] Some observers consider Baku to be at fault in talking
about its readiness to allow the Armenians of Nagornyy Karabakh as
much autonomy as possible, but not doing anything concrete towards
this idea. What is your opinion?
[Namazov] The level of autonomy of which the president of Azerbaijan
has been talking is predicated on the population of Nagornyy Karabakh
actually being given great freedoms in a wide variety of areas,
including culture, education, welfare and so on. Of course, there are
far-reaching principles concerning our sovereignty that one cannot
ignore. In particular, one thinks of foreign and defence policy,
and law. In other areas the population of Nagornyy Karabakh must be
given freedoms as understood in democratic Europe.
Kocharyan has no room for manoeuvre
[Correspondent] Where do you stand regarding the view that it is
in principle impossible to reach a just resolution of the conflict
with Kocharyan because he took part in the occupation of Azerbaijani
territory?
[Namazov] In answering that, I would like to take as an example two
Armenian politicians: Kocharyan himself and his predecessor Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. Both are considered initiators of moves to split off
part of Azerbaijani territory – one in Karabakh, the other in Armenia –
who came to power because of events in Karabakh.
This notwithstanding, Ter-Petrosyan was ready to find a compromise
and that was exactly why he lost power, making way for Kocharyan. It
is true that the current president has taken a hard line on the issue,
which is understandable coming from someone who overthrew Ter-Petrosyan
on the issue of not agreeing to a staged resolution to the conflict –
he has boxed himself into a hardline position.
Even if Kocharyan himself admits the need for a staged resolution as
do the OSCE, the international community and even a pragmatic section
of Armenian public opinion, it would be difficult for him to bring it
about from a political and psychological point of view. Such a change
of stance would threaten him with a public backlash as Armenians would
ask, why have we been groping around in the dark all this time when
we could have had a solution eight years ago?
In short, Kocharyan has left himself with no room for manoeuvre
and will maintain his position until 2008, the end of his term and
president. So I agree with the view that a compromise is impossible
while Kocharyan is in power.
[Correspondent] Could the situation improve if Defence Minister
Serzh Sarkisyan, considered the most likely successor to Kocharyan,
came to power?
I don’t believe that we need to think about the next elections for the
time being. The elections are a matter for the Armenian people, who
in 2008 will not just have to choose a candidate but also a position
on the Karabakh question. The future of Armenia depends on whether
it will live in peace with its neighbours or continue to teeter on
the edge of war with them as before. On this depends the path of the
country and of the region as a whole.