news.az, Azerbaijan
Dec 30 2009
Thaw in Turkish-Armenian relations meets Azerbaijan’s interests, expert
Wed 30 December 2009 | 09:09 GMT Text size:
Arif Yunus News.Az interviews Arif Yunus, director of the Department
of conflict studies at the Institute of Peace and Democracy.
How do you see the results of 2009 and the forecasts for Karabakh
settlement for the next year?
I cannot say that the results of 2009 on the Karabakh conflict differ
much from the result of previous years. We have witnessed the same
that we saw earlier. There have been the meetings of presidents and
OSCE Minsk-Group co-chairs, there have been many optimistic statements
about the advancement, about the coordination of main issues, except
for 1-2 arguable questions. We heard it ten and five years ago. I am
more than confident that we will hear the same things next year. It
means that there will be the meetings of presidents and the co-chairs
and there will be statements. But the most important that concerns us
all is the result. We have not seen it this year and most likely we
will not hear it the next year. If we consider the passing 2009 in the
sense of effectiveness, it does not differ in anything from the
previous years.
But we hear many optimistic statements both from the side of official
Baku and from mediators. Are they all groundless?
I assure you that the statements of this year were less optimistic
than when late President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev met Armenian
President Robert Kocharyan in Key-West. At that time they said 95% of
issues are settled and only some insignificant moments are left. A
meeting in Switzerland was scheduled in July of 2001 about signing the
document on peace agreement. Therefore, the current events are not
news to me. The reconciliation of the positions of the conflict
parties is rather important for me than the statements of officials. I
have no grounds for optimism in this case. It is clear that the
positions of the sides are too far from each other. This is the most
important thing that does not allow me being optimistic both by
results of the year and with regard to the forecast for the next year.
How do you see possible settlement of the conflict by peaceful means
with the provision of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan?
We should define what we want. This is the most important issue. Do we
want peaceful settlement of the conflict? If yes, this will be one
direction. Do we want the military solution to the conflict? This is
another direction. Do we want this conflict to be settled for us? This
is the third direction. In fact, there is a great difference between
these three directions. Unfortunately, all these three directions were
united in Azerbaijan. On the one hand, we are speaking of peace, but
once a week we are speaking about war. It means that if we say that
two and two is four, Karabakh Armenians will say five. Because, there
is no trust. And when our authorities say that we will grant wide
autonomy to Karabakh Armenians, they are not trusted. Armenians need
to know what wide autonomy within Azerbaijan means. Azerbaijan’s
problem is that we do not clarify this issue.
We are just saying common phrases which is an inadmissible method. We
should put a document specifying what wide autonomy means for
Armenians and Azerbaijanis to start discussions on more definite
things. But as we do not propose anything and just use common phrases,
Armenians think that we will not give them that. Moreover, Azerbaijan
does not take into account the opinion of Nagorno Karabakh’s
Armenians. Tomorrow Azerbaijan may attain an agreement with Armenia
but Karabakh may frustrate the negotiation process like it has
repeatedly been in the 90’s. This is not ruled out. Azerbaijan should
take into account the role of Karabakh Armenians. They can merely
frustrate everything if they consider that negotiations do not meet
their interests. I would like to note that when Serzh Sargsyan came to
Nagorno Karabakh he was merely hissed off in the `parliament’ in
Khankendi. This proves most things. We need to establish trust with
them.
Is the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict possible with
preservation of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan?
This is quite possible. The problem rests in the status of
NagornoKarabakh. The problem is that we have not made any proposal to
Armenians which they could not refuse. We only frighten them. We do
not have a normal dialogue with them. But they are the same people
like we are. And when there is no dialogue, of course, any discussion
on the possibility of the presence of Nagorno-Karabakh within
Azerbaijan today is simply meaningless. I think if we start a dialogue
and the normal negotiation process with, we can then expect much. If
Karabakh is our territory, Karabakh Armenians are our citizens,
therefore, we must engage in dialogue and convince them that they were
on the wrong path. There has not been any dialogue for the past eight
years. In these circumstances, it would be naive to hope that the
Karabakh Armenians will be so mad to agree to enter Azerbaijan.
But after all the Armenians themselves say that they didn’t take this
land with blood to return it as a gift or go back to the status of
autonomy. How about this?
This is an Armenian rhetoric and I am familiar with it. But the
Karabakh Armenians themselves are well aware that without Azerbaijan’s
consent, they will not get their independence. Armenians’ statements
are called bargaining. This is a natural bargain to sell for a higher
price. In fact, there are many realistic people in Armenia who
understand at heart that they need to make compromises. For example,
they may agree to be part of Azerbaijan, if Baku specifies their
status within the country. This is the case.
Baku considers that Armenia would be happy to return Karabakh to
Azerbaijan but the superpowers that are backing it, especially Russia,
do not allow doing this as they are not interested in the settlement
of the Karabakh problem. What can you say about it?
I think this is an illusory point of view. Naturally, Russia’s role is
significant especially if Russia’s influence on Armenia’s policy is
implied. But in fact we should realize that the world does not consist
of only black and white colors. It is multicolored. There are also
different views among Armenians. There is a position of Karabakh
Armenians and there is a position of Yerevan Armenians that differs
from them. This is a minus to Azerbaijan and we do not try to behave
like Russia does towards Chechnya. Moscow has divided Chechens into
`good’ that implies supporters of Kadirov and `bad’ that they call
militants. We have never behaved like that and we have even united all
Armenians against us. For some reasons we consider that Armenia is
merely a single silent crowd controlled by Russia. Certainly, Russia
has its own interests. Certainly, Russia does not want the conflict to
be settled. If this conflict is settled, the Armenian-Azerbaijani
relations improve, this will automatically cause improvement of the
Armenian-Turkish relations and this will immediately raise the issue
of Russia’s role in the region. Russia has bad relations with Georgia,
the relations with Azerbaijan are up in the air and, on the whole,
these are not the best relations, but we have friendship and
cooperation on the basis of distrust and suspicions. It means that on
official level we are friends and partners, but in reality each side
is harboring thought of revenge. Armenia is the only country that
Russia controls in the South Caucasus.
And to keep Armenia and Azerbaijan under control Russia needs Karabakh
to be always unsettled. They need illusions in Armenia and Azerbaijan
that if they behave well on Russia, Russia may settle the Karabakh
issue in favor¦ and every side should think that it will be settled in
its favor. In fact, Russia will not do anything unless it restores its
complete influence in the region. As for western countries, they
absolutely do not care in whose favor the conflict will be settled.
The most important for them is to settle it. The West has its economic
interests in this region as it has invested great funds in projects in
the region. Therefore, naturally, they do not need war which does not
meet their interests that exist until there is oil in Azerbaijan.
Therefore, West demonstrates painful reaction on the possible
resumption of hostilities. However, not everything depends on Moscow
and Washington. Karabakh is a complex issue. Most things here depend
on Russia and the United States but much depends on the peoples too
including Azerbaijan, Armenia and Karabakh Armenians. The thing is
that if our conflict was somewhere in Europe, like Kosovo, when first,
the international influence would have been more active and, second,
the settlement would continue. Serbia has in fact agreed to reject
Kosovo in exchange for EU accession which means great dividends and
money.
In addition, the loss of Kosovo is not a great loss considering the
fact that borders in Europe have been removed, there is a single
currency, a single army and economy. In this sense, if we were
geographically Europe, we could have done much. But we are far from it
and nobody needs us. The interest to our region is not as big as
imagined. This is the mistake of Armenians and Azerbaijanis because
they consider this conflict to be significant and they quarrel with
the world for not settling the problem. But nobody needs us. Our
conflict is too insignificant. There are many conflicts in the world
but we are not in Europe. The interest to our region is connected only
to its transit potential and our energy sources. That’s all! There are
no other interests. West’s position is that it is not scary if we
cannot settle the conflict, the most important is that there is no
war.
How can the initiated Turkish-Armenian rapprochement affect the
Karabakh settlement?
Personally, I believe that this rapprochement will not only help the
Karabakh settlement. This will have a very good effect on this
process. It meets the interests of Azerbaijan. If we are talking about
the outcome in 2009, it was a big mistake of our leadership and our
political establishment that we have been captured by old illusions
and stereotypes for long. We have used the phrase "one nation – two
states" for long, we have been insisting on closed borders between
Turkey and Armenia for long without thinking about the reason. After
all, in fact the Armenian-Turkish border is a de facto open, the
annual trade turnover between Armenia and Turkey is around $ 100-150
million, flights between the two countries are as frequent as between
Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia is not inferior in this sense. Merely
Armenians call these flights commercial and that is a difference.
There are bus trips, and I assure you that today the number of
Armenian citizens is growing in Turkey. Now suppose that the border
will be opened officially tomorrow? What will be the benefit? What
does small Armenian economy mean in comparison with the huge and
dynamic economy of Turkey? It means nothing and even is not worthy of
comparison. Therefore, it is clear that the open borders of Armenia
will not affect the Turkish economy while Turkey will be able to
easily influence on Armenian economy. In short, the Turkish economy is
able to occupy the Armenian economy. After all, what does the
dependence of Armenia on Russia mean?
It rests on the fact that Russia mostly keeps control over main
spheres of Armenian economy which means Russia has levers of influence
on Armenia. Tomorrow, if the Turkish side opens the border, the
Turkish capital will flow in Armenia and naturally it will soon start
playing a dominating role in the country raising the including of
Turkey in Armenia. When joint business projects are initiated, the
Turkish capital will start playing a great role and Armenians will
become dependent. Then, I assure you, Armenians’ positions will change
strongly not only on Turkey but also on Azerbaijan. The opinion that
the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border will stiffen Yerevan’s
position in negotiations over Karabakh is erroneous. We should not
perceive Armenians as zombie robots. They are the same people that
want to benefit and they understand that orientation on Russia with
whom they do not have even a single border has not yet been effective.
Armenia also has a border with Georgia and the war between Georgia and
Russia led to the 8 times drop in Armenian economy. This is a disaster
for Armenia. It is also unclear whether they will preserve the border
with Iran. It is unclear what will happen in this country, whether the
war with Israel or the United States will start or the revolution will
be launched inside the country: again Armenian interests will be
affected. New generations in Armenia are already not pro-Russia. I
have meetings with Armenian politicians and political scientists and I
see that the new generation of Armenians is oriented to the West, but
they are scared. This fear is raised by the Russian propaganda that
`without Russia, Turkey will terminate you and repeat genocide’ and
this fear is strong among Armenians. If this fear is overcome and when
Armenians come to understand that Turkey is a modern country, then
they will change their position on many issues including Karabakh.
Therefore, I have always been for the normalization of the
Turkish-Armenian relations.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az