Monday, December 23 2013

 

The past 20 years
of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks have proved the futility of the maximialism
displayed by the conflicting parties. How can this problem be solved, in your
opinion? What the conflicting parties should begin with to avoid a new
confrontation? 

 

The maximalist or incompatible position
of the parties to the conflict is chiefly linked with the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh.  So, if they want to
reach progress in settlement, they should put stress at the issues significant
for both parties. I mean liberation of the occupied territories with a
guarantee that battle actions will not be resumed; ensuring of equal security
through demilitalization; using of divisive forces and international observers,
as well as, returning of the forcefully displaced people and opening of
communications, and finally, establishment of diplomatic and trade and economic
relations. In this context the parties should start discussing transitional
status for Nagorno-Karabakh. This may give not only guarantees to
Nagorno-Karabakh but also involve it in the negotiating process and interaction
with Baku and foreign structures. Even without fixing in the Constitution, the
obligations of the parties on transitional status of Nagorno-Karabakh, fixed in
the peace agreement, are significant, as they will be of the international
nature. All the above mentioned is fixed in the Madrid principles. So, progress
may be reached in the talks if the parties to the conflict have will and the
intermediary countries in the person of the OSCE Minsk Group have a
consolidated position. From endless discussion of settlement principles they
have to pass to direct revising of the text of the peace treaty, as not general
principles will be fulfilled but a specific agreement that will be reached. As
a direct participant in the talks as Azerbaijani president's adviser at the
beginning of the 90-s, I understand how difficult is to make the first steps
towards peace, and what responsibility is put on the presidents which have
dared to take the burden of hard compromises met with a mixed reception.
However, we should do our best to make use of the opened for peace window of
opportunities. 

 

During the Heydar
Aliyev’s times people’s diplomacy played a big role in the negotiating process.
Armenian and Azeri journalists kept exchanging visits. In the last years this
practice has become very rare, with some sources in Baku even reporting plans
to adopt a law criminalizing contacts with Armenians. What is the reason for
such reluctance to build contacts?

 

Though less active than before,
people's diplomacy between Armenians and Azeris still exists. A number of Armenian
political experts, like Zhirayr Liparityan and Stepan Grigoryan, have attended
international conferences in Baku over the last years. Azerbaijani analyst Arif
Yunusov and political reviewer Rauf Mirkadyrov often guest at similar events in
Armenia.  Regular meetings are held in
Georgia and Europe in the framework of the so- called Independent Civil Minsk
Process. The Azeri authorities have repeatedly suggested organizing a dialogue
between the Armenian and Azeri communities of Nagorno-Karabakh but the Armenian
authorities ignore this initiative. People's diplomacy is important but it
cannot substitute for official talks. I have taken part in both formats, so, I
know what I am saying.  People's
diplomacy throws bridges, prepares parties for steps to meet each other and can
pave the way for positive results.  But
its role is auxiliary. Should Armenia and Azerbaijan register progress in their
talks and come closer to mutually acceptable settlement, people's diplomacy will
become more active and more acceptable to both peoples and authorities.

 

 

After two years’
pause the Armenian and Azeri presidents have met again? Are you optimistic
about this?

 

It is a positive fact that after a long
pause the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents have met again - for it is clear
that only top leaders can make fateful decisions on such issues. All the
previous meetings were first promising but then proved to be vain. There were
times when the parties were just one small step away from settlement but took a
step back rather than a step forward. But negative experience is also good.
There must be progress one day, so, why not now? Hence, I remain a cautious
optimist and an advocate of a further dialogue. For sensible people in both
Armenia and Azerbaijan it is obvious that ten years of negotiations are better
than one year of war.

 

 

Could you please
name the key problem caused by the unsettled Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
       

 

There are lots of problems caused by
the conflict: instability, the risk of a new war, closed borders, use of vast
material and financial resources for armament and the region's inability to
become an integrated economy. But the biggest problem is the problem of
refugees and internal displaced people. Those people are the key victims of the
conflict and their problems must be given the highest priority.

 

In one of your
last interviews you said that Russia is doing nothing to settle the conflict,
while the United States is becoming more active in the matter. Why?

 

For twenty years of the peaceful
intermediary activity, this or that co-chair country of the Minsk Group used to
take the key part of a moderator of the meeting of the presidents and for
moving forward the process of peaceful settlement of the conflict. Before the
Istanbul summit and in Key West the USA initiated settlement through the
territorial swap. The former President of France, Jacques Chirac, held several
meetings of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, during which the so called
Paris principles were drawn out. Dmitri Medvedev was moderating the Karabakh
settlement process for a long period of time. However, all these efforts
failed. In these conditions, he thinks that Vladimir Putin has take a pause and
is waiting for "ripening" of the parties to the Karabakh conflict for
new initiatives. He does not rule out that if the negotiations give an
opportunity for making an agreement, the Russian leader may offer his services
as a moderator and guarantor so that to gain extra geo-political dividends for
Russia.

 

Do you expect Iran to become more active
in the South Caucasus after its Geneva agreements with the
P5+1?

 

 

 

I don't see Iran as a mediator in the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks. Iran borders on the conflict zone, so, it must be
informed of the talks. But I don't see that country as a mediator in the
process. The talks have a format, Minsk Group. Iran is not an OSCE member, so,
it cannot be part of it. As regards the possibility of independent mediation,
the Azeri MP remembered the events of May 1992, when the Tehran agreement
signed by the then presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan Levon Ter-Petrosyan and
Yagub Mamedov was followed by the seizure of Shushi. As far as I know,
officially Armenia does not see Iran as an independent mediator either though
in words both parties welcome the signals coming from Tehran.