Charles King: "The Nagorno-Karabakh issue remains Azerbaijan’s most serious immediate concern on its further development" – EXCLUSIVE
Azeri Press Agency
April 22 2008
Azerbaijan
Expert of Georgetown University on the Caucasus and Balkans Charles
King interviewed by APA
– NATO summit was held in Bucharest. Unlike Georgia and Ukraine,
where the countries’ societies are supporting the membership in NATO,
the Azerbaijani society doesn’t have firm position on the issue. Thus
it would be interesting to know your opinion about perspectives of
Azerbaijan’s membership in NATO and its impact on the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.
-NATO has been clear that the resolution of internal conflicts and good
neighborly relations with surrounding states are important criteria for
membership. The US has pushed Georgia forward on the path to eventual
membership, but that policy has had more to do with US strategic
interests in Georgia than with the degree to which Georgia fulfills
(or doesn’t fulfill) some of the basic criteria. An instructive case
is Romania. It was not until Romania and Hungary signed a treaty
renouncing any mutual territorial claims and committed to developing
sound interstate relations that Romania was able to advance toward
membership.
I think the same logic will apply farther to the east, if there is
eventually another wave of NATO enlargement.
– You are one of the well known experts on the Balkan conflict. Your
most recent book "The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus" is
devoted to our region too. We know that the international community
had reacted seriously on the policy of ethnic cleansing, terrible
crimes against Kosovars and NATO started military "rescue" operation
against official Belgrade. But absolutely another respond came for
the crimes of the Armenian illegal bands in Nagorno-Karabakh. As
a result of the policy of ethnic cleansing Armenia occupies 20%
of Azerbaijani lands and appeals to the Kosovo precedent now…
-Conflicts in the Balkans presented an immediate security threat
to several European states, both because of the flight of refugees
and because of the reappearance of armed conflict on the borders of
the EU and within the traditional area of operations of NATO. The
Caucasus–for better or worse–has long been considered outside the
immediate sphere of interest of both organizations. However, as these
two organizations reassess their security interests and the possibility
of future enlargement to the east, the Caucasus comes squarely within
their zone of concern. I think it would be a mistake to take away
any particular lessons from the Balkans, however. After all, in the
case of Kosovo, the international community supported secessionist
demands, while in Bosnia and Croatia (especially the Serb Republic of
the Krajina) the response was to support the territorial integrity
of the existing states. So, the precedents that one can derive from
the Balkan experience are unclear at best.
-On March 20 you paneled the US-Azerbaijan conference in Georgetown
University. One of the main topics was the main threats to Azerbaijan
in the region. How serious threat may Russia, Iran and unsolved
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict create for Azerbaijan in its decision to
integrate the European institutions? Do you see Iran or Russia as
the main threat to secular democratic Azerbaijan now?
-Many of the speakers see things in different ways, so it is difficult
to comment on the event as a whole. In my view, the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue remains Azerbaijan’s most serious immediate concern, just as
other unresolved disputes in Georgia and Moldova serve as a brake on
the further development of these states. At the same time, I think it
is incumbent on the Azerbaijani Government not to use its newfound
oil and gas wealth as a way of increasing its military capabilities
in such a way that would further destabilize the situation. A renewed
war over Nagorno-Karabakh would be disastrous for the entire south
Caucasus and would present a serious set-back to all countries’
efforts to integrate with Euro-Atlantic institutions.