Wednesday, August 5 2015 11:59

The recent statements of James Warlick, US Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, have harshly been criticized both in Armenia and Artsakh. In the meantime, the US Co-Chair has brought nothing new to the situation given that the peace process is based on the Madrid Principles. How would you assess his statements? 

 

A preliminary agreement on the meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents was reached in 2014, however, I do not think the meeting will feature any new approaches or elements. In his recent interview, US Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group James Warlick has also confirmed that, saying that the Co-Chairs are trying to invent neither new problems nor new approaches. Warlick says they intend to continue the dialogue based on what has been achieved. Several provisions of the Madrid Principles are unacceptable to us. This has also been repeatedly stated by the civil society and the authorities of Artsakh, who think that the territories enshrined in the NKR Constitution cannot be negotiable. Anyway, as long as Baku keeps acting according to the principle "I want it all and I want it now" without displaying a lightest wish to make concessions, one should not discuss the possibility of mutual concessions, especially given Azerbaijan's reluctance to recognize Artsakh's right to existence and the reluctance to hold a dialogue with the official representatives of Artsakh. I think there is no need to determine Artsakh's status that was legally determined by Artsakh citizens as early as in 1991.

 

Notwithstanding the reality, the international organizations and the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs urge not only the ceasefire violator Azerbaijan but also the other parties to the Karabakh conflict to observe the ceasefire. How does it contribute to the peace process and to the peace on the borders?      

 

The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs' attempts to equate the Karabakh conflict parties in the statements condemning the destabilization do not contribute to normalization of the situation on the borders. There has been no proper international reaction to the recent ceasefire violations. However, on July 23 the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs urged the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to take all measures to strictly adhere to the ceasefire. We perfectly realize that the Co-Chairs perform no arbitration functions, nevertheless, we think that the Co-Chairs' attempts to equate Azerbaijan - the obvious violator of the ceasefire and the Armenian sides do not at all contribute to normalization of the situation. The analysis of the recent actions of Azerbaijan demonstrates that the adversary does not want to give up the policy of artificial escalation and military blackmail. In this light, further escalation of the tension cannot be ruled out. I am convinced that the armed forces of Artsakh and Armenia have the necessary experience and potential to quell all possible aggressive steps of the Azerbaijani armed forces. 

 

Nevertheless, not only Warlick but also his French colleague has recently become more active. What is the reason? 

 

The recent intensification of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs' activities is explained by the striving to prevent the escalation of the Karabakh conflict, as well as by the geopolitical trends around Iran. Following the European Games in Baku, the Co-Chairs are trying to prevent new cases of ceasefire violation on the Line of Contact of the conflicting parties. It was the European Games that suspended the provocations on the border because Baku sought to hold the Games in stability. The resumption of ceasefire violations with not only small arms but also mortar launchers removes all doubts that it is the Azerbaijani authorities that escalate the tension both on the Line of Contact of the Karabakh and Azerbaijani armed forces and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. One more reason of the intensification of the Co-Chairs' activities is the dynamically changing geopolitical situation around Iran - the only country having common borders with all the parties to the Karabakh conflict. Certainly, when Teheran comes out of international isolation following the lifting of the sanctions, it will start playing a much bigger role in the economic and political component of not only the Karabakh conflict parties but also other countries of the South Caucasus.

 

Baku thinks that amid the large-scale purchase of Russian and Israeli arms, the balance of forces between the Karabakh conflict parties is in the past. What is your opinion about that?

 

The recent acquisition of certain military hardware by Azerbaijan has resulted in a minor imbalance of forces in the region. And this imbalance threatening the fragile peace in the region allows the adversary, which once lost the war it waged itself, to talk to the Armenian side from the position of strength. In the current circumstances, the emergence of new weaponry in Armenia will restore the balance of forces and would play a deterring role. To my mind, the process of negotiations would not suffer from this. In this reality, adequately assessing the external threats the Ministry of Defense of Armenia is taking relevant measures to ensure the security of both Armenian states by efficiently cooperating with both CSTO and NATO.

 

Can the increasing ISIS threats change Baku’s aggressive and militarist policy against Yerevan and Stepanakert? 

 

The increasing threats of the Islamic State shall urge Azerbaijan to decrease the level of tension in the Karabakh conflict zone. Proceeding from the sound logic, this should be done by Baku at least from tactical consideration aimed at maintaining stability in the zone of the Karabakh conflict. However, unfortunately, the actions of the official authorities of the neighboring country are still demonstrating a counter tendency. This terrorist organization is a threat to many countries, including Azerbaijan. The ISIS is only an external threat to some countries, but to Azerbaijan it is both an external and internal threat.