INTERVIEW OF VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV, THE FORMER CO-CHAIR OF OSCE MINSK GROUP
By Mariam Levina

ArmInfo
2008-10-09 11:56:00

– What do you think of the current stage of Karabakh conflict
settlement? Do you see the so-called ‘window of opportunities’ there?

– You are not likely to mean the current stage i.e. after the elections
in Armenia. You mean the stage that will follow the elections in
Azerbaijan and the analysis of the ‘five-day war’.

Here one can easily find himself in self-delusion. Certainly if
compared with the previous stage the ‘window of opportunities’ should
objectively be extended and in the light the lessons of the recent
events and after overcoming the narrowed opportunities before the
election. It will be easier for the presidents and ministers meet more
often, though it is not the most optimal form for the serious regular
talks. But this will hardly be enough for real progress. The stands
of the parties are very polar and it is not clear if the leaders
will have enough political will and courage to make compromises,
"forgetting" their former too tough requirements.

Everything depends mostly on all the three conflicting parties.

I guess we need some time for the situation to mature.

– Azerbaijani party regularly makes attempts to discuss the Karabakh
conflict in the UN. Do you think suc h attempts reasonable?

– It is rather aspiration for ‘soap bubbles’ i.e. propagandist scores
than for real breakthroughs.

If the parties have not fulfilled any requirement of the four
resolutions of the UN Security Council dated 1993, except the
cease-fire (though not all the military and hostile actions), it
is naive counting on fulfillment of just advisory and more formal
resolutions of UN General Assembly like the last one. UN Security
Council may go into Karabakh problem again only subject to some
essential progress and with great care.

– Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson’s Center for
Eurasian Policy, the spouse of OSCE MG US Co-chair, stated not so long
ago that the cooperation of Russia and the USA within OSCE MG is no
longer possible given Russia’s actions in Georgia. Do you think such
statement, even not official, grounded? How effective is the current
format of the negotiations within OSCE MG?

– These are lacks of pointless judgments, facilitation of formal logic:
if it is bad here, there must be bad there as well. The activity of
OSCE MG Co-chairs can remain harmonious. It is evident taking into
consideration the joint statement by the mediators in New York in
late September. The effectiveness of their efforts depends not only
on them but mostly on the heads of the parties to the conflict. I
guess there are reserves to improve the mediation but I see no
format bet ter than Minsk Group Co-chairmanship for settlement of
the Karabakh conflict. The mediators have in vain concentrated just
on the principles of the settlement for many years. There are many
important though private issues (for instance incidents) that should be
discussed alongside with the principles. There is more than enough time
for that. After all, in conditions of the years-long deadlock when no
issue except the ceasefire was settled, breakthroughs even in ‘private’
issues, in ‘small things’, would be of a great importance. It is
easier to make compromises in particular cases than in global picture.

– What do you think about Turkey’s activation particularly in Karabakh
conflict settlement? Can Turkey’s participation in the negotiation
process have any positive effect on it taking into account Ankara’s
stand and its brother relations with Baku?

– Against the background of the confusions in South Caucasus and even
out of its bounds, Turkey presently positions itself as a supporter of
peaceful settlement of disputes and cooperation in the region, which
is welcomed. Of course, the proposal on the Caucasus Platform is too
abstract still and needs many consultations and specifications. It
will be very difficult to set forth this idea as a draft and even to
materialize it in some way, however, it may serve a positive guide
for future. Taking into account close relations with Baku and the
first contacts with Yerevan, Ankara could play a useful role in
comprehension of lessons of the latest events, as well as in the
Karabakh conflict settlement as a Minsk Group member, if it stood
back of its too obvious one-sidedness.

-May the sample of Abkhazia and South Ossetia become precedent for
recognition of Nagorny Karabakh essentially and how impartial is the
world community in such situations? Moreover, how much effective and
realizable you think the international law is or the ‘law of might’
is more effective?

– I think that precedents can be neither automatic nor momentary. In
the fight of the two well-known Helsinki principles much depends on the
place, time and specific circumstances. Could the territorial integrity
of Georgia, which was not so convincing from the very beginning, remain
‘inviolable’ after repeated application of force by its leadership?

Over the last 20 years there have been already 20 force executions
to the national minorities there. It is rather difficult speaking
of the role of the world community in it in general. Recognition of
other states is the sovereign right of every state though somebody
would like to turn it into a subject of his dictatorship or a ban in
the name of allegedly collective decision.

The present crisis in the world order is the result of the force
atavisms and full negligence of the international law despite loud
referring to the latter.0D

– Leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan as well as of the Nagorny Karabakh
Republic, on the one hand, and MG co-chairs and representatives of the
co-chair states on the other hand, regularly make various statements on
the negotiation process and the content of ‘Madrid Proposals’. Their
statements, to put it softly, not always coincide. The Armenian
party insists on the document that stipulates the Nagorny Karabakh
people’s right to self-determination, and the Azerbaijani party says
the document supposes settlement of the conflict within the frames
of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Is it possible to suppose
or assert who is right?

– It is the propagandist cording of rope – each party wants to calm
down its fellow citizens, although one is not so much right and another
one is not right at all. OSCE MG co-chairs’ suggestion still remains
like a suggestion but not an arrangement until all the parties accept
it. Their suggestion about expression of will of the people of Nagorny
Karabakh regarding its status (either referendum, plebiscite or just
vote) is probably stemming from the self-determination principle,
but one can hardly say it fixes that.

Mediators seem not give way to a simple trick to hold a referendum
in the whole Azerbaijan, which was additionally written in its
Constitution specially for such purpose. In Baku they dispute about
the Madrid proposals being a document. It is certainly a do cument,
but only like an offer of the intermediaries, but not an agreement
yet. So, both parties are wrong in different way.

– Would you comment on the statement by President of Armenia Serzh
Sargsyan that Azerbaijan could try to attract residents in the region
and increase their interest through investments in economy of Nagorny
Karabakh?

– When the conflict is settled, such proposal may obtain a real
sense. So far it is just definition of the far future or a trick in
order not to say ‘joke’ like somebody did.

– Do you think personal contacts of the leaders of conflicting parties
important for settlement of Karabakh or any other conflict?

– Of course. However, in such a complicate conflict and polarity of the
positions of the parties, one should not lay the whole responsibility
on the first persons. Quite on the contrary, it is better lay it
on a whole team of ministers, their deputies, and experts. Then,
it will be easier to go on concessions and it will be more difficult
for demagogues to blame top officials for yielding positions or even
betraying national interests. After all, it is a collective decision.

– Sharp growth of the cases of the cease-fire regime breaking have been
registered over the current year. Simultaneously, both the Armenian and
Azerbaijani press keeps on anti-propaganda and formation of the image
of enemy. In the case of Azerbaijan, it is backed by militaristic =0
D rhetoric of the Azerbaijani authorities. What do you think about
the role of Mass Media in reconciliation of the two nations? Is it
possible without the state policy?

– It is a multi-layer question. Only after the 3-4 March big incident
the co-chairs remembered about the timeless agreement of all the three
parties dated February 1995 about fortification of the cease-fire
regime, that is about the order of resolving incidents at the line of
contact. The parties stopped fulfilling it long ago. A sacramental
but principle question arises – Why do the parties need agreements
if they do not fulfill them? Will the agreement signed on the basis
of the basic principles be an exclusion?

-Yerevan and Stepanakert have repeatedly said they are ready to return
to fulfillment of the agreement, but Baku is quiet, though it reports
almost every day on the cease-fire regime breaking by Armenians. A
naive person thinks Baku worries about the incidents. But where are
its suggestions in this matter? The incidents with victims are the
means of raising tension, hatred and enmity.

This is the resource of those who are still dreaming about the
force revenge. One should not indulge a vain hope that no bellicose
statement has been heard since August of the current year, since it
is not abandoning of the militaristic rhetoric but just a forced
pause of a person who has suddenly gagged on something. This is a
convenient moment for=2 0the moral shooting of the ‘shrill hawks’.

The role of Mass Media is rather big both in reconciling two nations
and making them confront. Which God to serve? It much depends also
on the course of a state. However, I would like to believe in the
ability of the thinking class – journalists – to define the Gods of
good and evil.

– Thank you for interview.