Wednesday, September 10 2014

The
Sept 4 tripartite meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents with
Secretary Kerry in Newport at the initiative of the USA actually repeated the
Kremlin-initiated meeting of the presidents in Sochi. It was in Newport that Francois Hollande and Serzh Sargsyan announced
the Sargsyan-Aliyev-Hollande tripartite meeting. Can we say that the crisis in
Ukraine has made certain adjustments to the work of the OSCE MG Co-Chairs on
Karabakh?

Half-and-half. The Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders have met many times at the
initiative of not only Russia’s leaders but also the presidents of
other OSCE MGco-chair-states: in Paris, Key West etc. There is nothing unusual
in it.  It is noteworthy, however, that after the Sochi meeting of Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev with Vladimir Putin on
9 August, the United States extremely quickly organized the trilateral meeting
of the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders with Secretary John Kerry already on 4
September in Wales. However, it is still uncertain whether all this results
from the recent upsurge of tensions around Nagorno
Karabakh and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, or from the global aggravation
of the situation and the unwillingness of global actors to leave the initiative to reduce tensions between Armenian and
Azerbaijanis to Moscow. I suppose, both the reasons have had an impact  on the situation. Further developments will probably unveil more.

What
do you think of the Minsk Group’s further activity in the light of the recent
events? Those who criticize the activity of the
OSCE MG co-chairs have another argument, and now they blame the mediators for
uncoordinated efforts the co-chair-states.

That argument is unconvincing so far. The co-chairs have single stand on the most important issue –  they are against thoughtless and
insane attempts to resolve the conflict by force.  They have single stand
also on many specific parameters of the search for peaceful resolution of the
conflict. In this light, I think, all the critics of the Minsk Group co-chairs
should be suggested something more efficient than the current mechanism of
mediation. It must not be done spontaneously, however. They need serious
arguments able to bring confidence. Generally, the criticism against the
co-chairs is another attempt to “muddy the waters.” Karabakh conflict lacks
breakthroughs due to abruptness and maximalism of the parties, not the idleness
or impercipience of the OSCE Minsk Group  mediators.

In the light of the summer upsurge
in tensions in the Karabakh conflict zone and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani
border, certain external and local forces in Armenia and Azerbaijan hurried to
blame Russia for “imperial ambitions and fight for influence.” What were the
reasons of the deadly clashes on the border?

All the slander against Russia over this conflict is very familiar to me
yet from the past years. I respond to it half-kiddingly. I often say: “You say
that Russia is allegedly interested in this conflict. So, ‘punish’ it and
achieve the conflict’s resolution by your own. However, they have done it so far...”  Meanwhile, they easily “forget” that it was
Russia that stopped military bloodshed in all the 5 conflicts in the
post-Soviet area (I’d like not to list them) and brought them to the phase of
political settlement, due to its insistent contribution and mediation. 
One should keep in mind that this political settlement now depends on the will
of the parties to those conflicts, first of all.

 As
for the upsurge in tensions on the Line of
Contact in July-August, it is apparently insufficient to speak of its reasons
only. Every incident could have its specific reasons that could be inquired
into and even made public later. Unfortunately, someone does not want it.
Therefore, it is much more important to look deeper into the reasons of those
incidents to find their root causes. One of the root causes is technical but
with some political motives. The other is purely political. First was Baku’s
refusal to fulfill the arrangements under the Protocols dated 18 February 1994
– to withdraw the opposing forces from the Line of Contact.  The troops
are still on rather short distance from each other. Furthermore, Azerbaijanis
had even brought their frontline positions closer to the Armenian ones.

The second root cause is official Baku’s philosophy “not let
the enemy rest,” “not let the occupants rest.” Hence, Aliyev’s bellicose
rhetoric, arms race, groundless propaganda, incidents and sabotage attacks.
Desperately calling the maintenance of the status quo inadmissible, in practice
Baku does its best to make the change of the status quo impossible.  That is, they seem to fight against
occupation, but the result is diametrically opposed. Who will leave their
remote positions favorable for defense to and take ones that are more
vulnerable and closer to their towns and villages, amid constant threats? Here
are two root causes of the summer upsurge of tensions. There
would not be so many casualties on both the sides, including among civilians,
if those reasons were liquidated.

Many analysts claim that Ukraine has made Russia
“forget about” Karabakh, while others think that Karabakh may become another area of the
Russia-West global confrontation. What do you think over that?

I disagree with
both the viewpoints.  Such views are more
like idle speculations on relevant topics.

 On August 28 the California State Senate passed
Assembly AJR 32, encouraging Artsakh's (Nagorno Karabakh) continuing efforts to
develop as a free and independent nation and formally calling upon the upon the President and Congress of the United
States to support the self- determination and democratic independence of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.  This has become the 4^th State to
welcome NKR’s independence. Don’t you think that this process may repeat the
one with recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the USA. The fact has been
recognized by over 40 States, but not by Washington.

That process is
rather complicate, given that almost everything is in the hands of Washington
that leads the United States’ foreign policy.  From the Karabakh conflict’s perspective, it
is necessary to pay attention also to other processes in Scotland and Catalonia.
The way those issues will be resolved is not known. However, that is not the
point. Who will vote on the referendums, if they are such:


Scotland or the entire UK, Catalonia or the
Spain? Who voted in the past: Quebec or the entire Canada?  This has a lot
to do with the Karabakh conflict’s resolution. Who will become self-determined:


Nagorno Karabakh or Azerbaijan? Baku refers to
the Constitution of the Azerbaijani Republic, sidestepping the question about
the date of its adoption.  Meanwhile,
nation-wide referendum is indicated in it not to allow the residents of Nagorno
Karabakh to get self-determination. Unlike Nakhijevan, NK had autonomy due to
the evident majority of Armenians.  These issues are of vital importance
for resolution of the given conflict.