RUSSIAN EXPERT: AZERBAIJAN IS MUCH MORE STRONGER THAN ARMENIA
H. Hamidov

Today
9363.html
Jan 13 2010
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with Leonid Fridman, doctor of economic sciences,
head of the socio-economic department at the Moscow State University
Institute of Asia and Africa, head of the Laboratory for Complex
Studies of Central Asia and Caucasus.

How can you assess the past year in terms of progress in resolving
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

Regardless of what media and public representatives in both Azerbaijan
and Armenia say, I believe the results of last year are positive
because 2009 saw high-level meetings. Of course, I would like to see
concrete results.

In your opinion, do the conflicting parties reach certain agreement
last year?

I an confident that they could. But both sides will not talk about
it until concrete steps are made. Both sides will be limited to the
above-mentioned phrase until the main issue is not resolved.

What do you mean by concrete steps by the sides? What is a concrete
step by the Azerbaijani side?

I will give more extensive reply to your question and start with
Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has become stronger both economically and
politically over the past few years. At present, Azerbaijan’s GDP is
four times higher than that of Armenia. In 2009, it increased by 6
to 8 percent, while that of Armenia reduced 16-17 percent which is
more than in any of the CIS country. Azerbaijan outperforms Armenia
also in military terms. All this suggests that Azerbaijan is much
more stronger than the then and current Armenia in all respects.

I will say probably paradoxical idea in this regard. Ultimately,
both countries have to make some compromise. Many have spoke about
what the compromise implies many times. I think that it is earlier
to speak about it today. This is not the main thing. I believe that
it is easier to compromise from a position of strength than from a
position of weakness. I’m talking about a compromise from a strategic
viewpoint and I think that today it possible most of all.

And how do you see the compromise?

I believe that all possible options have already been voiced,
discussed, stamped and are known to all. I will not say which one is
preferable. There are obvious preconditions for this.

Why Azerbaijan, the land of which has been occupied, and as you
mentioned, many times stronger than Armenia in all major indicators,
should be the first to compromise, albeit from a position of strength?

I did not say anything about who should compromise first. It is not so
important. Both sides will compromise at the same time. If Azerbaijan
were weak, it would never have compromised. It is easier to do this
from a position of strength. And this makes sense, since the other
side, in this case, Armenia, understands that the move will be made
from viewpoint of strength and it will have to act based on this.

I want to mention another very serious event in the region. Older
people remember that in early 1970s rapprochement between the U.S. and
China began with an invitation of the U.S. team for ping-pong in
Beijing. So, they called this fact "pingpong" diplomacy. What happened
between Ankara and Yerevan is called "football" diplomacy accordingly
which will push Armenia to compromise in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The Armenian-Turkish protocols aimed at normalizing relations have not
been ratified yet. Armenia expects Turkey to ratify the protocols while
Ankara expects concrete steps from Yerevan in terms of settling the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In this case, a vicious circle is formed
which Yerevan has to unlock. Do you believe the protocols will be
ratified this year?

I am not surprised at such an attitude by the two parliaments at all.

I remember Soviet Union parliament supported thaw between the USSR
and the FRG in the 1970s. As a so-called historical optimist, I hope
very much that these protocols will finally be ratified. It meets
everybody’s interests. It will benefit Turkey, which wants to integrate
into the EU and Armenia, which will have open borders with Turkey.

Azerbaijan will also benefit since partially normalized Turkey-Armenia
relations will give Ankara leverage of pressure over Armenia also in
terms of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

In your view, how will the Kremlin act once Yerevan falls under
Ankara’s pressure and accordingly, comes out of Moscow’s zone of
influence?

I think Moscow would react calmly to Turkey’s role as a regional
leader. You know, we have already witnessed it. When the Union
collapsed, the Central Asia countries were in a euphoria of
possibility of rapprochement with Turkey and adopting its model of
economic development. However, after two decades, we see that each
country has its own model of development, its policies emanating from
national interests.

Turkey itself easily takes the concept of a regional leader. It is now
more concerned over expansion of economic and cultural ties with its
neighbors. There is nothing wrong about it. The Kremlin will unlikely
be particularly worried about it. After all, Russia is interested in
stabilized situation along its borders and good relations with Turkey.

Why do you believe that Russia is interested in resolving the conflict?

Russia is very much interested in stabilized situation around its
borders, including … ,I would say, primarily in the South Caucasus
after the well-known sad events in 2008, which spoiled relations
with Tbilisi, led to Georgia’s withdrawal from CIS with many other
negative consequences.

Any option of conflict resolution that would satisfy both sides
would be acceptable for Russia. It is much better than existence and
aggravation of the conflict from time to time which can lead to very
dire consequences.

Do you mean military action? Incidentally, if Azerbaijan is tired
of waiting for real steps from Yerevan, a military solution to the
conflict is not excluded. How the Kremlin would react to this?

Any military aggravation is a catastrophe which nobody wants. I am
sure that both parties understand that the war is not the best way.

Nothing good will come of it. Even though some achieves successes,
and another fails, war is a tragedy for all. It claims the lives of
young children, destroys families and has a detrimental impact on
the economy. It should be understood that nobody beyond borders of
these countries wants war. Everything can be solved, everything can
be negotiated …