Thursday, May 8 2014

 The name
of the known human rights defender, conflictologist, analyst, the head
of the Department of Conflictology and Migration Studies at the Baku-based Institute of Peace
and Democracy, Arif  Yunusov, has been
circulating in mass media of Azerbaijan
and Armenia.
Among other our Baku counterparts, Yunusov is
accused in espionage activity in favor of Armenian intelligence services,
allegedly, as a result of his participation in the international conferences
organized in Armenia.
Yunusov’s interview with ArmInfo correspondent was ready to publication when
the information about detaining Yunusov and his wife Leyla Yunus made us delay
it, so that not to give another reason to the official Baku “to prove” its
accusation in the so called “cooperation” with Armenia. Now, when the situation
has been more or less clarified, the editor’s office has decided to publish the
interview.

  

Certain
circles in Armenia and Russia point at the Crimea
like a precedent for Nagornyy Karabakh. What is the most possible motivation of
that?

  

 By pointing at Crimea as a precedent for
Karabakh, Moscow tries to exert pressure on Yerevan.  This is just a message to Yerevan. In other words, it is just an
element of a political game, which does not at all demonstrate that Russians
are concerned over the fate of Karabakh people. The question is who is making
such statements. Officials are responsible for their statements, especially
given that their words may be misinterpreted by another party. For instance,
some proposals have repeatedly been made in Armenia
to recognize the independence of Karabakh and unite it with Armenia. It is noteworthy that the
ruling party keeps making efforts to prevent it. It is clear that they do that
not because they like or dislike the people of Karabakh, but because they
realize that such steps will immediately affect the peace process and that
Baku's response will create a new situation that will change the whole format of
the peace process.

I think
that freer experts and journalists can afford more but the people bearing
direct responsibility for the peace process cannot. In Azerbaijan the opposition experts' statements on
Crimea are much freer than the careful response of the authorities who realize
that the relations with Moscow
may inevitably become tense.  This is why
whenever I hear that a particular conflict is a precedent for another conflict,
I know that it first of all demonstrates that the conflict will not be resolved
soon. To search for precedents means to lack the aspiration to resolve the
conflict by the direct efforts of the conflicting parties, I  believe that the parties to any conflict
resolve the conflict by themselves if they want. If they have no desire to
resolve it, they look for "elder brothers" and precedents. Besides
the Crimea, both Kosovo and Eritrea
could have been precedents for Karabakh. History has a plenty of examples. When
resolving conflicts, one should be a pragmatist rather than a theorist .

 

Armenia supported the right of the people
of the Crimea for self-determination. Is such
a stance of our leadership stemming only from the interest of the expected
recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh?

  Intrinsically, none of the states, including
the USA,
which speaks of democracy so much, displays an approach meeting some
international principles. The right to self-determination is a two-edged sword.
Azerbaijan considers itself
a victim of separatism and raises this issue in Iran,
where Azeris live in the northern
provinces. Turkey
does the same in Cyprus.
Europeans speak so much of democratic values but we perfectly see that they
give high priority to the energy values. Europe blames Russia for using gas as a tool of blackmail and
at the same time turns a blind eye to the similar actions of Azerbaijan. In the relations with Azerbaijan, Europe
puts the democratic principles aside. In this light, I perceive such talks as
diplomatic rhetoric. As regards pragmatism, it is restricted to Realpolitik
which is far from all these principles.   

This is big
geopolitical game, in which strong pressure is being exerted on Armenia and
other countries. So, Russia badly needs its actions in Ukraine to be supported
not only by its strategic allies, especially given Lukashenko's silence and the
fact that initially Nazarbayev was totally against recognition of Crimea.  Therefore, now Russia
gives high priority to the response of Armenia, which kept silence in
2008. As for the West, it needs an absolutely different response from Yerevan. I think that the
steps of small Armenia,
which is swimming between the waves of pressure, should meet its own national
interests.  One should understand that
the unresolved Karabakh problem dictates deliberation. A statement in Yerevan will inevitably be followed by a response in Baku. And it is still a
big question who will benefit from the following developments.

 

Ankara links its refusal to open the border to Armenia
with Azerbaijan’s
pressure. Is it really so?

  

 Certainly, Azerbaijan
uses all its possibilities to exert pressure on Ankara in order to prevent it from unblocking
the Turkish-Armenian border. Nevertheless, if we take a pragmatic view of this
issue, it becomes clear that small Azerbaijan
is unable to dictate Turkey's
foreign political agenda. And of Turkey
decides to open Turkish-Armenian border, it will not even take Azerbaijan's
stance into account. So, if Turkey
takes such a decision tomorrow, it will not even take into account Azerbaijan's
stance.  Neither does Turkey give much importance to the Armenian
Cause, which is so important to Armenia.  Most Turks do not even know what happened in
1915. Turkey
gives high priority to the relations with the West, with the European
Union.  Turks are imperial people and in
this context they can be compared with Russians. Armenians, Azeris, Georgians
are small nations, which are constantly looking for "elder brothers”.

In the
meantime, Russians and Turks have an absolutely different psychology. In fact,
Russians do not care for Georgia
or Armenia.  Russians demand respect from the United States and Europe.
The same can be said about Turks, who are eager to join the European
Union.  But when they throw sand in the
wheels of Turks and demand normalizing relations with Armenia, Turks understand that after normalizing
relations with Armenia
they will be forced to improve relations with Kurds and so on and so forth.
Therefore, Turkey perceives
the Armenian Cause as an element of big geopolitics in relations with Europe,
which does not want to admit Turkey
to its Christian club - European Union. So, if Turkey
understands that it really has the prospects to join the EU, it will
immediately open the Turkish-Armenian border even without taking into account
the stance of Azerbaijan.

 

What is
the key motivation of the USA
demanding from Turkey to
unblock the border to Armenia?

 

 The USA remembers about the shut down
border from time to time especially before the elections, taking into
consideration the role, authority and the votes of the Armenian Diaspora. But
in general, not so much Armenians as Russia
is important for the USA.
That is to say, everything is again returning to the course of the big
geo-political game, the part of which is confrontation between the USA and Russia
for controlling the South Caucasus, the
Azerbaijani political expert.

The
improvement of relations between Turkey
and Armenia will cast doubt
upon Russia's influence in Armenia and the necessity of its military base
deployment in Armenia.
That is to say.  much will change. This
is the reason, why I have never believed that Moscow is really striving to settle the
Karabakh conflict. If the conflict is settled suddenly and normal relations are
established between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, the problems
between Armenia and Turkey
will be automatically removed. In that case a question will arise - who will
the Russian base protect Armenia
from? Iran?

Meanwhile,  though it is paradoxical. but today the
pro-Western moods are stronger in Armenia
than in Azerbaijan.
Who knows, what will happen tomorrow after settlement of the Karabakh conflict.
I  think that the Karabakh conflict is
like a punching ball for Russia,
which the latter uses from time to time for imposing pressure either upon Armenia or Azerbaijan. From time to time, Russia promises to help either Baku
or Yerevan to
settle the Karabakh conflict, according to the principle "if you behave
well". Actually, they will never help either Azerbaijan
or Armenia.
Karabakh should hang thick in the air and Armenia
and Azerbaijan
remain tied to Karabakh. Just for this reason, Americans are so much hurry to
settle the Karabakh conflict and to open the border between Armenia and Turkey. This will make it possible
to withdraw Russia
from the region. Not the American altruism is the reason of that, but  the struggle for the influence in the region.

 

The Iranian
counterparts have been traditionally blaming the USA
and Israel for the tense
relationas between Iran and Azerbaijan.
What is your point of view on the matter?

 

 

 When my Iranian counterparts traditionally
blame the USA and Israel for the
tense Iran-Azerbaijan relations, I want to ask them.  Why does Iran hinder restoration and
enhancing of the Azerbaijan-Israel relations? We have Israel's Embassy in Baku,
but despite availability of a big Azerbaijani community in Israel, we do not have Azerbaijan's
Embassy in Tel-Aviv. The reason of it is that Iran is absolutely against
normalization of relations between our countries. For this reason, Iran is the third party in the relations between
Azerbaijan and Israel.
Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani society remembers very well Iran's stance in the Karabakh conflict and
thinks it is not impartial, although Iran does not think so. Certainly,
there is misunderstanding, weak contacts and the role of the third countries in
the relations between Baku
and Teheran. The point is, in what assembly to revise all this. I think that
undoubtedly the problem of Islam is the main thunder for Azerbaijan from the Iranian party as well as the
policy of Iran regarding the
national minorities of Azerbaijan:
the Talish and Tat nations. So, if in its relations with Azerbaijan Russia
uses the problem of the Lezgins and naturally the Karabakh conflict, just the
same way, Iran
uses the national minorities in its own interests. The "Seher-2" TV
channel is an anti-Azerbaijani one, which broadcasts anti-Azerbaijani
propaganda in Azerbaijani language every day. Naturally, the small Azerbaijan does not like it, as it has its own
phobias regarding Iran.
Incidentally, for its part, Iran
scares an independent Azerbaijan
which promotes separatist moods in its northern
provinces.