LEADERSHIPS OF ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN SHOULD PREPARE THEIR POPULATIONS FOR PEACE

news.az, Azerbaijan
March 25 2010

Hovhannes Nikoghosyan News.Az interviews Hovhannes Nikoghosyan,
Visiting Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS), Washington, DC.

How do you estimate the current situation on security in the South
Caucasus? Which threats do you see here?

First of all, I appreciate your interview request. "Green" and unbiased
future to your news service!

Coming to your question, there are several security threats in South
Caucasus. The more challenging thing is that the insecurity is not only
in the agenda for politicians, for obvious political manipulations,
but also in people’s minds. The best and obvious fact – the recent
TV program aired in Georgia and subsequent reaction of people. This
is to show that the insecurity is a comprehensive challenge for the
region. For those, who do not want to see new wars and bloody clashes,
the basic "hope" is upon those great powers and TNCs involved in
the region. You know, that the common saying is "They will not let
us to slip into war". The August War of 2008 showed how easily wars
are done in our explosive region.

Now, for the good for all, to settle all disputes in the region, this,
of course, will not happen in the near future. Blame it on the often
contradicting interests of regional states, as well as great power
rivalry that no one has ever cancelled after the end of Cold War. But
the happy news is that all those great powers have at least one
consensus developed since summer 2008: Armenian-Turkish border should
be opened. Of course, each of them – United States, Russia, EU – has
different plans for that in aftermath, but still all of them jointly
advocate for border opening. And perhaps, today we should acknowledge
that this is totally capable to soften the solution of other issues
in the agenda in the perspective. At one point in January this year,
regrettably, Azerbaijan and Turkey remained in a "brilliant isolation"
with their developing denialitic approach to this particular issue.

Well, as far as everyone now perfectly understands where and what
are the security risks, it’s better to concentrate upon solutions,
not the problems. A great solution could be to develop Turkish-Russian
initiative of the security platform, to create a forum for empathic
discussion of all available issues that are at stake now. Though
this is not a new idea for South Caucasus – still in late 1990’s
former presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan – Robert Kocharian and
Heydar Aliyev, agreed with Russians to create the security pact,
but that was not realized because of the known reservations made by
Georgian leadership, which did not trust Russians even back then. An
organization, that I am proud to be affiliated with in Armenia,
developed a concept on this, and so it’s quite a realistic thing to
elaborate more. Perhaps, the security platform/pact (or whatever the
name) proposal will be discussed in a wider range in upcoming OSCE
Summit this year (the idea being pushed by Kazakhstan very actively).

More on solutions. I believe the recent initiative coming from
Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan should be developed, too. But
again, regretfully, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry rejected it almost
immediately.

How real is opinion that Nagorno-Karabakh conflict may be resolved
till the end of this year? And what does it depends on?

I would not be that optimistic, even though I am an optimist in
Armenian-Turkish rapprochement issue. We all have been hearing such
prognosis since the ceasefire managed in 1994. The conflict is too
complicated to be settled in one year, as you mentioned the timeframe.

Moreover, the leaderships of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh
should prepare their own populations for peace, if they really
negotiate it now. But they fail to do this obviously.

Considering the military rhetoric from Baku, and it is very important
to realize now, Armenian authorities are being exhausted its internal
resources to a peaceful settlement either. After president Sargsyan
suggested the treaty on non-use of force (while negotiations are
there), and its subsequent refusal, all this staff do not contribute to
peace at all. I mean, all these developments can invoke the hard-liners
in Yerevan and Stepanakert (Khankendi – in Azerbaijani) to jump out
from the process for itself, giving the floor for direct negotiations
to the leadership of Nagorno Karabakh. I know, this sounds utmost
unrealistic and even strange to say this now, since sides officially
announced to be agreed on so-called Madrid principles… But still,
I can remind you about a dozen of principles that has been negotiated
so far, and nothing became real….

Recently the Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan stated that his country
had begun intermediary mission in settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Do you believe in success of this mission?

I do not have that statement at hand, haven’t heard it, so I cannot
comment on this comprehensively. But, please, keep in mind the first
Iranian experience back in 90s. And now the entire environment around
Iran getting tougher, it will be even more difficult to become a
successful mediator. Although, I suppose, we should acknowledge the
balanced stance of Iran in the conflict, which contributes to the
peace so much.

Instead, I have in mind the statement by the Iranian ambassador to
Yerevan, where he mentioned about having direct borders with Nagorno
Karabakh, and thus being worried about the path that the current
negotiations lead. This is also a point to keep in mind.

How could you characterize the situation on normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations?

The common language of all insiders argues that we are in an impasse.

No doubt, the recent remarks by Turkish PM R.T. Erdogan to BBC had
a shocking effect to all those involved in the talks.

Recently I have been thinking that the "zero problems with neighbors"
policy, coined by FM Davudoglu, now turning into "zero-sum policy"
instead. Just pay attention to the developments with Kurdish opening,
Cyprus issue and the protocols….

All in all, I see 3 very different go-ahead strategies looming over
the process. First one is ratification and the follow-up as subscribed
in the protocols – becoming extremely unlikely. The alternative of
this is a small-scale political-military clash in Nagorno Karabakh,
an extremely unwanted either for regional stability or for major
players in region. Perhaps the smell of the war in the air pushed
president Sargsyan to appeal to Azerbaijani leadership for signing a
"an agreement not to use force", which was immediately rejected by
a foreign ministry official Elhan Poluhov in Baku.

While the sides now evidently failing to accomplish what had been
agreed and signed in Win/Win documents, the third way, which sounds
more likely at the moment, is to establish diplomatic relations beyond
the protocols and by April 24, institutionalizing the discussion
between states, and leaving aside the active international mediation.

By the way, this was also the suggestion of FM Davudoglu in a recent
statement made in Sofia, Bulgaria. Thus, Turkey could silence the
criticism of the international community, and Armenian president will
ensure the support of his fellow allies domestically.

In the end, the reasons why Armenia and Turkey publicized the
negotiations and are now engaged in public debates – are still valid.

Turkey wants "zero problems", regional weight and European image. For
Armenia, ironically, Turkey is a best way towards Europe.

Armenia says about normalization of relations with Turkey and at the
same time it doesn’t refuse from the attempts to get recognition of
genocide in 1915. Don’t you see contradiction in this issue?

I suppose this question has been answered by numerous other
interviewees and I cannot invent anything new to satisfy your needs.

Just get through the archives and you will get the answer.

In short, there is no contradiction there, since no one in Armenia,
even the ultra-nationalists, accuses Republic of Turkey for the
genocide, but they see it being happened at the hand Ottoman Turkey
and particularly by the gang of Unionist government (Ittihatcılar,
in Turkish). Under this, the recent statement by PM Erdogan played
on wrong grounds, invoking the opposite effect all over the world,
perhaps even damaging the "denialist" policy of modern Turkey.

Do you expect that president Obama will call the event of 1915 in
Ottoman Turkey as genocide against Armenian people in his speech on
April 24?

Nowadays some analysts tend to forget last Obama’s presidential
statement on April 24, where he did utter the G-word in his message,
and perhaps he did it in a better way, introducing the new label of
"Meds Yeghern" – which is the common definition of 1915 in Armenian.

And note, that nothing extraordinary happened, nothing changed
in American policy. These G-word expectations now have become an
extremely technical thing, which does not worth to comment. Just note,
that even those on March 4 that voted "nay" in US House Committee –
did not deny the genocide happened, they just reasonably pointed at
the specific timing of such a measure to undertake.

Lala B.

News.Az