It is difficult to overestimate significance of the state of peace in
Karabakh conflict zone
Interview of NKR President’s advisor on foreign political affairs Arman
Melikyan with ArmInfo Agency
Mariam Levina
ArmInfo, June 25, 2007
2007-07-27 16:17:00
A declaration on principles of peaceful and fair settlement of the
Abkhazian, Ossetian, Karabakh and Transdniestr conflicts has been
recently signed in Tiraspol. How much viable will the document be
taking into account that it was signed by some of the parties to the
conflict , while other parties responded in no way?
As representatives of our states, we present the positions of our
peoples and, in this sense, no one can neglect these positions which,
in addition, fully meet the international legal regulations, moral
norms and concepts of justice. In this context, indication of our
approaches was important and one cannot but pay attention to this. I am
sure it will be taken into account in any case. It is quite another
issue what decisions will be made by one or another states per these
approaches.
You have recently expressed an opinion that Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Transdniestria have some apprehensions regarding GUAM. What does
Nagorno Karabakh feel towards this organization?
Every GUAM member seeks its interest in this community. They try to
achieve some common goals by joint efforts. Fundamentally, this is an
alliance of states which try to escape the `trusteeship’ of RF towards
the West, on one hand, and these states have some unresolved problems
which they try to solve, on the other hand. In particular, this is the
problem of interrelations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia for Georgia,
the problem of interrelations with Transdniestr Moldovian Republic for
Moldova and that with Nagorno Karabakh – for Azerbaijan. Georgia,
Moldova and Azerbaijan try to settle these interrelations by means of
dictate, pressure, threats of force application and, doing it jointly,
they want to legitimatize the force approaches and persuade the world
community, which has also ambiguous interests, into it. In a global
geopolitical context, the issue that exists in Azerbaijan-NKR
interrelations, seriously differs from all the other conflicts in the
post-Soviet space. If in a situation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia
much is linked with interrelations of the Western Europe with Georgia,
on one hand, and the relations of Russia with Georgia, on the other
hand, this is the issue of influence on Georgia for RF and the western
states. The same concerns Transdniestria. The situation in Karabakh is
different and the significance of Karabakh is quite different. It goes
beyond the regional processes and it is of global nature. Resumption of
military actions in Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict zone will seriously
hit both the communications and possible energy supplies to the West,
as well as influence of Europe and the USA in this region, in general.
In this sense, it is difficult to overestimate significance of the
state of peace, not so much for the conflict parties as for the world
community. That is the serious difference.
Is preserving of peace in the region also important for Russia?
Undoubtedly it is. The issue of war and peace here is sufficient for
Russia.
Does it seem to you that attempts are lately made to artificially raise
the authority of GUAM?
It does not seem to me, it is unambiguously so. Problematic states have
gathered in GUAM. They have huge internal problems, which are not only
concerned with their unrecognized neighbours. First of all, this is the
problem of society’s self-organization, which they are unable to solve
in view of several reasons. GUAM is a community of states-semifinished
products. Being recognized by the world community, they turned out
unable to organize the internal life, govern their own people and the
political process without violence. I am not talking of Ukraine, it has
no conflicts, however, the internal political situation there is
unstable. This is an unstable state, torn up by opposite forces. It is
difficult to predict the result of this confrontation. There are lots
of opportunities there, right up to split of the country. As for us,
though we are in the gravest condition, we have nobody to blame and ask
for something, we have to set hopes upon ourselves, and I am sure we
shall be able to overcome this difficult situation worthily. We should
model the situations, which create conditions, by ourselves for the
world community be interested in our position and reckon with our
opinion.
Can you tell in more details how these situations are modeled and what
is done particularly?
I would prefer not to go into details as many elements are already
afoot. I think it will be shown better with time. In general, we have
the same problems as in other states of the post-Soviet space and the
countries of the transitional period. We should be able to formulate
our goals more clearly and determine their solution ways, i.e. to be
better self-organized. I am sure we shall manage it.
There was the information that EU Special Representative on South
Caucasus Peter Semneby had changed his mind on his way to Nagorno
Karabakh and turned back. Do you have any data on this issue as it is
difficult to imagine that a European official may `change his mind’
being on the way?
It is also difficult for me to imagine. However, this is an issue
concerned with piquancy of the situation in the region. Any miscounted
step may lead to catastrophe. Therefore, the world forces prefer fixing
a status quo and undertaking no actions able to break it. Imbalance may
lead to irreversible consequences. However, this is the greatest plus
for us, since it means that within the frames of status quo, each of
the parties in the territory under its jurisdiction can realize the own
plans and no one will oppose to it if such plans do not contain a
threat of using force.
Do you consider the steps of OSCE MG cochairman, who made different
statements about the negotiation process, non- calculated?
I would not say that they are not calculated. Matthew Bryza acts within
the frames where he is authorized to make statements about the peaceful
process. However, I think that the USA will lose at any result. That is
the advantage of their foreign policy: they will have some average
profit, that one cannot say of EU. Therefore, it is not by accident
that the French co-chairman Bernard Fassier is the most active among
the three co-chairs. In itself, the process of Karabakh conflict
settlement is very interesting and instructive. I think one should not
set hopes upon someone’s favour. Both the people and the state must be
able to seek the ways of their prosperity, their future and security,
for which it is necessary to neatly count the same factors for
contiguous states. Some common geopolitical vector exists, we have to
catch this vector and lay our interests within its frames. I think it
is real. No money can replace this calculation, no spread-eagle or
militaristic statements can do what correct calculation can.
I would like to specify, do you mean Armenia or NKR or all together
under the word «we»?
I mean both Armenia, NKR and Diaspora. Fundamentally, this is a
national problem today.
In your opinion, do the relations between Armenia and NKR need some
specification?
Specifications must be introduced continuously. The life is running and
new ideas come to take the place of the old ones. However, one should
remember that Nagorno Karabakh Republic is not the Republic of Armenia.
Everyone who is there and here, must learn it. The second aspect is
that the talks on NKR’s joining Armenia mean serious territorial
changes, that is a great luxury for us and for which there are no
grounds. By the way, I would like to emphasize that both the co-chairs
and the Azerbaijani party mean NKAR when saying Nagorno Karabakh, that
is unacceptable for us. NKR has formed as an independent state with the
territory it controls now. This is the only approach to allow us avoid
the territorial losses. We must know what we shall receive in one or
another case. The talks on Karabakh’s joining Armenia mean not only
loss of great territories ` this joining will never be legitimized. It
means that even a territory to be joined to Armenia, will be always
questionable. Finally, the policy for NKR independence was taken in
1991, it is efficiently carried out and it will continue up to the
international recognition. There is no alternative. We should realize
it and not rush about in the hope of finding indulgence of Turkey or
Azerbaijan or someone else. No one will be on friendly terms with us by
force. All the pathetic calls to friendship with Turkey or Azerbaijan
lead to the one – they say: `Guys, we do not want to deal with you!’.
This will last until they have a burning desire to settle the relations
with us, for which one should act and not to seat and complain.
The Azerbaijani party has recently made a statement saying that Armenia
intends to take time-out in negotiations, that was responded by RA
Foreign Minister. Who takes the time-out in fact?
Mutual accusations are not a basis for negotiations. The point is that
the Karabakh party multiply claimed that the format of negotiations has
been perverted. I think it is impossible to achieve some settlement,
acceptable for Karabakh, in this format. The Azerbaijani party achieves
its goals via this format, i.e. it makes Armenia’s positions
vulnerable, as Armenia unambiguously figures as an aggressor in this
format. There are issues, on which Armenia cannot talk to Azerbaijan at
all: the issues of territories and refugees. Indeed, Armenia touches on
the issue of the status, that is right, since Armenia today is a
guarantee of NKR security. I think one may talk of real settlement only
when the negotiations are held with participation of all the involved
parties to the conflict. In addition, each party will bear
responsibility for a definite segment of agenda of the negotiation
process. We are in a cross-point of geopolitical interests. In this
sense, all the interested external forces try to create maximum
comfortable conditions for them. In this case, they have been trying to
create such conditions over several years due to exclusion of Nagorno
Karabakh from the negotiation process. Therefore, the process remains
fruitless from the viewpoint of positive shares. The only positive
moment here is non-resumption of the military actions.
There is also a positive moment of work of public organizations
concerning attraction of attention to the issue of refugees-Armenians
from Azerbaijan. This issue was long suppressed. However, due to the
work, being carried out, in particular, by the network of civil society
`Refugees and the International Law’, the issue attracts more and more
attention and the co-chairs have to respond to it. A poll was conducted
among the refugees and, if I am not mistaken, 90% of respondents
refused to return, while over 50% of Azerbaijanis, according to the
polls, are against their return. However, these people must live
somewhere. They should find their second Motherland. Karabakh, as one
of the two state formations in the territory of the former Soviet
Azerbaijan, has a right to receive its former nationals from
Azerbaijani SSR. It is noteworthy, that ethnic demarcation and
territorial division may become a key for the problem solution. In its
time, Azerbaijan was created as a common state of Armenians and
Moslems, since there were no Azerbaijanis at that time. Well, they
could not part in a civilized way, the Azerbaijani authorities applied
force, and now they have to bear with the reality. They have lost the
trust of the former Armenian population of Azerbaijani SSR and the
moral right to make any terms. In addition, the way of ethnic
demarcation is not a know-how, it was applied in the European practice
as well. It is quite another issue that the superpowers will have to
revise some of their approaches.
The American party periodically claims of uniqueness of the Kosovo
conflict, justifying it by the fact that this conflict was considered
by the USA, NATO and UN. How will you comment on it?
We must understand that the Law is a serving discipline. After every
repartition of the world, the parties negotiate about observance of the
agreements achieved. The agreements are periodically violated. Part of
the states says it is necessary to follow the agreements, while another
part says that they have become outdated and need to be changed. Today,
we are at the next crucial stage. Every conflict is unique. I do not
know how the statement of the American party `on uniqueness of the
Kosovo problem’ sounds verbatim, but what’s the difference if the NATO
participated in it or not? The Karabakh conflict is unique by the fact
that NATO did not take part in it! However, this is not the ground for
recognition of one or another newly-formed state. Fundamentally, it
gains the right for existence by itself.