END TO KARABAKH STATUS QUO ‘TO RUSSIA’S ADVANTAGE’
news.az
Aig 10, 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews political scientist Sahib Aliyev, a non-partisan
member of Azerbaijan’s parliament, the Milli Majlis.
How do you assess President Medvedev’s latest initiative to organize
meetings with the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia to discuss
resolution of the Karabakh conflict?
The recent meeting of the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia in
Kazan, mediated by the Russian president, bore no fruit. After that
Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev made new proposals to settle the
Karabakh conflict. However, Medvedev went beyond this, sending Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Baku and Yerevan and holding talks
with US President Barack Obama.
The same consultations were held with France – the other country
co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group. It’s worth noting that after the
failure of the talks in Kazan President Medvedev did not wait but
made new proposals right away.
I also want to draw your attention to the fact that after the Kazan
meeting, the Armenian side announced that the talks had failed because
of new changes to the conflict resolution process proposed by the
Azerbaijani side. But if Russia makes new proposals which are agreed
by the Azerbaijani side right after the Kazan meeting, it means that
Medvedev practically took Baku’s changes into account. In this view,
the proposals of the Russian president should be assessed positively.
All the same, if the Russian president holds intensive meetings
with the heads of Azerbaijan and Armenia and organizes meetings, it
means he wants progress in the Karabakh settlement. In other words,
the Russian side considered Baku’s remarks fair, which is why it made
new proposals in such a short time.
Assessing President Medvedev’s meetings with the heads of Azerbaijan
and Armenia, I believe that the Russian president will use these
meetings to study opportunities for the next trilateral meeting of
the heads of state. I think that if it emerges after the talks that
a joint meeting of the heads of Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia will
be held, this will certainly see the signing of the basic principles
for a Karabakh conflict settlement.
Moreover, it means that issues of concern to the Azerbaijani side
will be removed, though progress on the basic principles does not
mean the signing of a peace agreement in the future. The issue arises
of striking a peace deal, since the signing of this document may be
protracted, as it was between Palestine and Israel who agreed on
the basic principles for a conflict settlement. I am hopeful that
Medvedev’s new proposals will reflect all these issues.
In a recent interview, comparing the decision of President Mikheil
Saakashvili to ensure the territorial integrity of Georgia by force
with the Karabakh conflict, the Russian president said that it was
better to hold endless talks than to start war. Does this apply to
the Karabakh conflict?
The talks on a Karabakh settlement have been going on for 20 years
now. I think that in this case attention should be paid to the part
of Medvedev’s statement where he said that long-standing talks would
help Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia come to a solution. Medvedev
hints that Georgia could ensure territorial integrity through long
talks. As for negotiations on Karabakh, I don’t think it possible to
settle this conflict at the current stage. Now only a phased resolution
of the conflict is possible.
Does Russia benefit from the resolution of the Karabakh conflict,
given that it has assumed the role of chief moderator on the conflict?
Many observers tend to assume that the Karabakh problem is an
instrument of pressure in Russian hands on the countries of the
region. In this regard, an option for a phased solution to the conflict
can satisfy all parties involved in the settlement of the problem,
including Russia. In other words, the first stage of the conflict
settlement can discuss the return of refugees to their homeland,
and in the future we can talk about a referendum on the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh.
In other words, Russia will continue to reserve the mechanisms of
control over the region for a longer period. So, the option for a
Karabakh solution which is currently on the table is beneficial to
Russia as much as it is profitable to Azerbaijan. Progress in the
negotiating process is beneficial both to improve Russia’s image and
to rescue Armenia.
How may Russia behave in the event of a new war in Karabakh?
Baku has repeatedly stated that it will not wait another 20 years
and, therefore, will liberate its territory by military means. In
this case, Russia would be involved in the war to some extent. There
is a problem for Russia here, as it would be affected itself by its
involvement in the war in varying degrees. Judging from the statements
of Russian officials, Moscow is hesitating on this issue. Therefore,
I emphasize that an end to the status quo in the Karabakh conflict
is also to Russia’s advantage.
What does Baku expect from Russia’s increased focus on Karabakh?
In general, Baku expects a speedy resolution of the conflict to result
from Russia’s mediation. Baku has repeatedly stated the inadmissibility
of preserving the status quo on Karabakh, since it could lead to a
new conflict. Therefore, Baku expects Russia to justify the hopes
placed on it as a primary mediator on the Karabakh conflict.
Lala B.