news.az, Azerbaijan
March 5 2010

No ‘extraordinary formulae’ on Karabakh settlement
Fri 05 March 2010 | 06:32 GMT Text size:

Alexey Vlasov News.Az interviews Alexey Vlasov, director of Moscow
State University’s analytical centre on post-Soviet states.

How would you describe the current state of the Karabakh settlement process?

The current state of the Karabakh process can be described as
discrepant. The sides have not managed to find the support point which
would promote small but definite achievements in the resolution
process. This is because of the difference between the approaches of
Baku and Yerevan whose positions have not been reconciled at all
recently and the sense of the limited resources and capabilities of
the main moderators and co-sponsors of the peace settlement.
Therefore, some experts have a feeling that the mediators in the
Karabakh conflict settlement would prefer to leave the situation
frozen, as they have no real chance to change the situation for
better.

At a joint news conference on negotiations with Russian leader Dmitry
Medvedev, French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated the intention of
Paris and Moscow to work closely on resolution of the Karabakh
conflict. Does this mean that France and Russia have additional
mechanisms to reconcile the conflict parties?

I do not think that Paris and Moscow have any extraordinary formulae
for the conflict settlement. It refers more to an attempt to ‘add
potential’ which Moscow and Ankara have been doing recently and now
Paris may get involved too. But it is not clear what the ‘added value’
of French participation may mean. Probably, this will become clearer
after the meeting of the Armenian and French leaders, for example in
terms of France’s influence on Armenia’s foreign policy and the
existence of the influential Armenian diaspora there. But this
underscores presumptions that can be confirmed or dismissed only
through experience.

How can you explain the fact that Russia and France are currently more
active in mediation, while previously it was the United States that
was active?

It is clear that Washington has serious problems in other regions,
considering the upcoming withdrawal of troops from Iraq and possible
conduct of operations against nuclear facilities in Iran. I suppose
this is the real cause of Washington’s passivity, not only on the
Karabakh conflict but also in other US policy areas in the post-Soviet
space. Hillary Clinton’s ambitious statements have not yet been
confirmed by real capabilities of the State Department to have more
active influence on the situation. The more significant role of Paris
and Moscow is primarily filling the influence vacuum that developed as
a result of Washington’s gradual withdrawal from the mediation
process. But I would not hope now for a final withdrawal of the United
States, because they might return, though it is unclear what they
would bring.

The Azerbaijani side says that if the negotiations on the Madrid
principles enter deadlock, the potential for negotiations may be
considered exhausted. Baku would then have no alternative but to opt
to liberate its land by force. Do you think a settlement by force is
possible?

I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe in settlement of the
conflict by force. However, I understand that the patience of the
Azerbaijani side has a definite limit. Yet, I am confident that the
foreign powers will not let the conflict enter a hot phase. None of
the mediators is interested in this now. In addition, the experience
of the August conflict of 2008 showed that local conflict can be short
and last a maximum of four to five days in the current conditions. I
think neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan have enough power to meet these
terms.

The Iranian ambassador in Azerbaijan told a recent news conference
that such conflicts should be settled by the mediation of regional
states. He said that the Minsk Group format was ineffective because
each co-chairing state pursued only its own interests, which was why
the conflict had not been settled for 18 years. Is he right?

The Iranian ambassador’s statement certainly prompted a serious
reaction, but I would like to ask the same question ` what formulae
different from the positions of the Minsk Group can Tehran propose? To
be honest, this is not their first statement about the need for the
more active involvement of regional powers in the conflict settlement.
Turkey also has the same position, but it has not made any significant
achievements. But the fact that Iran’s mediation seems to start with
Baku’s approval shows that hopes have been placed on Iran which
recently has had quite close relations both with Yerevan and Baku.
Undoubtedly, this is a new plus in terms of new opportunities. But,
anyway, Tehran’s mediation will not replace the Minsk Group. It will
supplement it. This format of interaction seems more substantiated and
probably more effective to me.

Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az