ANY NEGOTIATIONS ARE A PROCESS AND THERE IS ALWAYS A "WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITIES"

Dr. Gayane Novikova, Director of the Center for Strategic Analysis SPECTRUM gives an interview to ARMINFO.

What do you think about the results of the Rambouillet meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents? Can they be considered as positive? Hasn't the meeting ruined the preparations of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs ?

That meeting should be treated in a well-balanced way, not forgetting that there have already been many such meetings. Another point is that this time there were a lot of expectations, mostly speculative, as they were based on the assumption that there would be no elections, referendums, any signs of revolutions and other things in the two countries in 2006. The optimism of the Co-chairs turned into more sober attitude late 2005, and on the eve of the meeting Bernard Fassier, the French Co-chair, said that the Rambouillet might become some moment of truth to open a new stage in the talks. I don't think that the Co-chairs expected any breakthrough - it is truly hard to coordinate packages of contradictions between three conflicting parties and between the three mediator-countries, and between all the parties taken together. Bernard Fassier also said, and I fully agree with him, that to make a decision at once means to jeopardize the whole negotiating process. In general, it is possible to say that there was no failure and the decision to continue the dialogue can be considered as positive.

Aren't the statements about "some progress" and the Armenian side's "positive assessment" of the continuation of the talks just a politeness? Hasn't the presidential meeting shut down the "window of opportunities"?

No, it is not just politeness. Any talks are a process, I mean, a continuous action and there are always "windows of opportunities" there. Another point is how realistic the conflicting parties and the mediators are in assessing the width of these "windows." If I am not mistaken, in an interview to Radio Liberty, before the presidential meeting, the US Co-chair Stephen Mann said that the US would not like the sides to miss the historic chance to reach peace agreement in the following few months, and right after the meeting he said that the sides had failed to reach an agreement. But this does not mean that the window has been shut down. Even more, the fact that the next round will be held in Washington (to an apparent displeasure of France and, especially, Russia) with a shortened period of preparations shows that the US is ready to exert appropriate pressure to get some formal agreement on paper, something like Memorandum of Intentions, as one can hardly expect anything more given the present reality in the conflict zone.

Is the irreconcilability of the parties based just on the essence of the conflict or there is another domestic political motive? Can the leaders of the parties afford a compromise without losing their political weight?

Both factors are present. We all know about the essence of the Karabakh conflict in interpretations of all three parties. As regards to the domestic political motives, today not only experts but also politicians argue that the societies of the countries are not ready to compromise. These arguments are quite serious, giving room for maneuvering to both the Armenian President (with already ongoing pre-electoral race in Armenia) and the Azerbaijani President, who is ready to make a revolution from "above" with minimum losses.

For the political leadership of the two states, today directly involved into the negotiating process, the Karabakh factor may be decisive, and the question is not only refers to the loss of their own political weight. The future of the countries is at stake, their ability to defend their own national interests and to attain the current strategic goals. One can no longer neglect the national interests of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, and here time "works" in favor of Karabakh. However, it has worked against Azerbaijan's interests for the present and the Azerbaijani elite perfectly realizes that. No surprise that it was the Azerbaijani FM who has made known about the arrangement of 7 out of 9 proposed points.

How do you think why did US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have phone talks with Presidents Kocharyan and Aliyev prior to the meeting?

If I were Ms Rice, I would not answer this question, as the negotiating process is confidential. But seriously, this might be a signal about a substantial intensification of the US efforts in the peace process, and also a guarantee safeguarding the Rambouillet meeting from any unexpected things.

So, do you think that the capacities of the OSCE MG have been exhausted? Isn't there any necessity of enlarging or changing the mediation format?

I don't think so. For almost 12 years the Minsk Group has been fostering a dialogue and as long as the talks are underway, we can hope that the hostilities in the zone of the conflict will not resume. As a I can see, it is the MG's key task. Only the immediate parties to the conflict are able to settle the conflict, and not - to settle the conflict rather than to damp it down. Otherwise, irrespective of the format, promises or foreign pressure, the number of mediators and other things, the conflict will not be resolved.

Is there any possibility that the parties will reconcile, achieving the peace agreement?

Of course, yes. But it is possible to achieve it only taking into account the present realities. Maybe the key to the logic and dynamics of unsettled conflicts and, first of all, the Karabakh conflict, is understanding that the negotiation process, which started after the cease-fire agreement - no matter how protracted or accelerated it is - cannot bring the situation back to the starting point, preceding the conflict. Besides, a real settlement of the conflict requires active involvement of experts of the conflicting parties, i.e. the people for whom the given conflict is not just an abstract phenomenon.

How will the region develop? How likely is it that the military actions will be resumed given the economic and political interests of super powers in the South Caucasus?

The super powers are interested, first of all, in stability of the given region, and in its ability to play a buffer role against the threats, coming from the Middle East. The resumption of military actions in the South Caucasus - be it the zone of the Karabakh, Abkhazian or even the South Ossetian conflicts - means violation of the tenuous stability. As regards to the Karabakh conflict, I think the resumption of military actions are unlikely in the short-term and mid-term outlook. However, I would not rule out such a possibility in the long-term outlook.

ARMINFO, 14 February, 2006