Thursday, April 14 2016 14:44

 

In an interview with ArmInfo, Dr. Sanda Rašković Ivić, President of the Democratic Party of Serbia, shares her view of the reasons of the ‘four-day war’ around Nagorno-Karabakh and the responsibility of the war initiators. She also comments on Russia’s implementation of its obligations to Armenia, as well as the United States’ stand on the conflict.

Would you share your view of the reasons that made the Azerbaijani leadership launch offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh? Are the reasons purely domestic or geopolitical? Who benefits from the escalation in the Karabakh conflict zone? 

 

The reasons were purely geopolitical. One still has to find out within the next few weeks who was behind it. Turkish President Erdogan has already made some instigating statements but Turkey could not instigate Azerbaijan to the escalation all by itself. Erdogan had no enough influence to do that and Aliyev would not have followed his advice. I believe the matter concerns a much bigger game. Given the Yugoslavian experience, I think that the NATO structures are behind this, though I have no specific evidence of that.

 

The second Karabakh war lasted for 4 days, actually, leaving the status quo of 1994 unchanged. Amid the numerous peace     calls of a number of countries and international organizations, the leadership of only one country – Turkey – supported Ilham Aliyev’s aggression. What do you think of Ankara’s role in the Karabakh war?  

 

Erdogan is interested in escalation of the conflict in the Caucasus, because otherwise Moscow will have even bigger influence on the region than on Syria. All the Syria-related plans of Turkey have failed since Russia helped Bashar al-Assad in his fight against the terrorists. But let me reiterate: Erdogan has no enough influence to persuade Aliyev to unleash war.   

 

Who do you think should be responsible for the death of servicemen and civilians on both sides of the conflict after it entered a hot phase? 

 

It would be reasonable to set up an international commission basing on the experience of the war in Yugoslavia. It is an international commission that should delineate responsibility for war crimes in Karabakh. Serbs faced trials for insignificant deeds, and now I cannot understand why those who unleashed the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh should not be brought accountable.

 

In Armenia, there is serious discontent at various levels with Russia’s neutral behavior towards Azerbaijan. Even the summit of the EEU prime ministers scheduled for April 8 in Yerevan was canceled in order “not to make Baku nervous”. Do you think Russia has implemented its obligations to its strategic ally Armenia?   

 

Like Serbs, Armenians are a small nation and Armenia is a small country, like Serbia. Very often, our view of international politics significantly differs from those of the superpowers, the important actors on the international arena. The most important thing for us is to protect the interests of the people who have come to freedom through hardships.  We judge about the world through that prism and sometimes we get a wrong impression because of that. Russia is trying to maintain stability in the Caucasus. It does not support escalation in the parts of the world it is vitally interested in. This is why Moscow insists on negotiations and sometimes it uses mechanisms that cause public discontent in Armenia. However, Yerevan and Belgrade should not be worried about Russia's behavior. One should not confuse the current tactical elements with strategic goals. Russia will support both Armenians and Serbs because our common fight is a part of the common historical heritage. 

Through the statement of official representative of U.S. Department of State Mark Toner, for the first time Washington actually recognized Nagorno-Karabakh's people right to self-determination, thereby setting in motion the so-called Kosovo incident. What stand Belgrade should have on this matter given the friendly relations between Serbian and Armenian people? 

 

If Mark Toner in his statement had really meant recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh's people right to self-determination, the USA may equally well recognize the results of the referendum in Crimea. Armenia should not cherish illusions that the USA will support a CSTO member state, especially amid the military actions in Syria and Ukraine. The statement made at the US Department of State mentions both self-determination and territorial integrity. Roughly speaking both Stepanakert and Baku may find in Toner’s statement what they would like to hear. No one understood and seriously reacted to this statement in Serbia. I don't know how this could happen maybe the representative was not ready or maybe he did not want to accuse the Armenian lobby in Washington, which is quite well-organized. Possibly, this as a check action aimed at researching the responses. In any case, I would not pay so much attention to this statement made for the press during a conference. As regards Kosovo, we were seriously concerned about what would happen if the western countries recognized Albanians' separation. However, the West did not react to these concerns seriously. They were too assured that they would always have an opportunity to redraft the world as they would find necessary. Only because of their self-confidence and levity, a lot of things are now happening in different parts of the world. And unfortunately this is only the beginning. That is why we should consider Serbian-Armenian relations only in terms of friendship. We face many serious problems, which we should solve together.