Tweet
NAGORNO-KARABAKH WILL NOT BE AZERI UNLESS THE LAST ETHNIC ARMENIAN LEAVES THE REGION
RIA Novosti
16:5628/05/2010
MultimediaVideo:Nagorno-Karabakh will not be Azeri unless the last
ethnic Armenian leaves the region Video:Nagorno-Karabakh compromise
needs new atmosphere between Armenia and Azerbaijan Hello. Our guest
is Grigory Anisonyan, the chief editor of the international Armenian
newspaper Noah's Ark. Hello, Mr. Anisonyan.
Hello.
Q: There is an impression that all sides of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict are as close as never before to a compromise and that some
kind of agreement is possible. Do you think this is indeed the case?
A: You know, I do not think that Armenia and Azerbaijan are currently
ready for a compromise. Both sides have rather radical positions. And
this is understandable. One can understand the Armenian side. They
lived on their own land for centuries, and Karabakh became a part of
Azerbaijan during the Soviet period as a result of Stalin's "national,
fraternal" decision.
However, the people continued to live all those years on their land,
and when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh
expressed their desire to live independently. But, as you know,
certain developments followed, pressure was exercised, and Soviet
troops were sent to crush the independence movement in the late
1980's. As a result, people living on their own land were forced to
take up arms to defend their homes.
Eventually, a war broke out between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
Of course, Armenia supported the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and so
got involved in the conflict. In 1994, a peace agreement was signed
in Bishkek. In fact, if this agreement had not been signed in 1994,
I believe that all of Karabakh would have been liberated, not only the
mountainous part of Karabakh but also the lowlands that are populated
by Armenians as well.
But Armenians would have been forced to leave the lowlands, as these
areas remained part of Azerbaijan. As a result, a buffer zone of
sorts emerged, consisting of seven regions and providing a viability
guarantee to Nagorno-Karabakh. Today, Azerbaijan demands the return
of these lands, the seven regions which surround Nagorno-Karabakh,
without making any concessions in return. That is, they will not
accept the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh or recognize that it
belongs to the native people of this land.
Q: Don't you think that some countries in the West (we are not going
to name them here) are to a certain degree guilty of dragging out the
resolution of this conflict? Isn't it in their interest to maintain
some level of instability in the region and to put pressure on these
countries, primarily on Azerbaijan and Armenia?
A: Of course, there is some truth to this. Each of these Western
European countries and the U.S. can benefit from this conflict.
Depending on the development of their economic and political relations
with Azerbaijan and Armenia, they put pressure on either side. But on
the other hand, the West has recently embraced a different position and
wants to see the conflict resolved. The continuation of the conflict
is no longer in the interest of the big Western corporations that
are involved in the construction of gas and oil pipelines from Baku
to Turkey.
Q: Do you think people on both sides are ready for reconciliation? As
an editor-in-chief and as a human being, what do you do to promote
the swift resolution of the conflict? I mentioned earlier that this
is an international Armenian newspaper, does this mean that it is a
mouthpiece for Armenian propaganda?
A: Of course, this is true to a certain degree. We are an Armenian
publication, and it would be strange if we did not support the
Armenian position. But my colleagues and I understand that for the
newspaper to be interesting, it needs to be truthful, as truthful
as possible. And that is what we aspire to. Our newspaper has been
published for 13 years, and we have a page permanently dedicated to
Azerbaijan, the fifth page, and the fourth page covers Georgia. In
general, our newspaper covers the entire southern region (the South
Caucasus and the neighboring states of Turkey and Iran).
Q: Do Azerbaijanis read your newspaper?
A: They do read and even study it carefully.
Q: They probably use it as a source for an alternative opinion.
A: Yes, we invite leading Armenian and sometimes Azerbaijani experts
to contribute. Russian political analysts are often published in our
newspaper. Therefore, reading our content should be quite interesting.
Q: On this subject I have the following question: Just as it is
impossible to discuss the conflict without Russian political analysts,
it is also impossible to settle it without Russia and Russian
policymakers. And what role has Russia been playing over the past
years in trying to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict? Has
that role changed in recent years, if at all?
A: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of
post-Soviet states, Russia certainly supported Armenia which was its
main strategic partner and ally in the South Caucasus. This was the
case until recently. Today, Russia has a more balanced position.
Perhaps this stems from Russia's national interests; most likely the
Turkish factor (the active rapprochement between Russia and Turkey
that has been taking place recently) has also played a role here. All
of this affects the course of the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.
Turkey agreed to open borders with Armenia, but made the resolution
of the Karabakh conflict, an issue that does not directly apply to
Armenian-Turkish relations, a precondition for going through with
the agreement. This was unacceptable to Armenia. So it turns out that
it was a set-up on Turkey's side. In general, Turkish diplomats have
been known to be rather shrewd.
And it is well known that depending too much on relations with Turkey
is dangerous. This applies not only to Armenia, but also to Russia.
Russia's role in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
has become more balanced, and currently Moscow does not have any
privileges in the resolution process. I cannot say that Russia is
directly backing either the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Azerbaijan.
In other words, Russia has become more neutral. Still, I believe
that Russia has always played, continues to play, and should play a
primary role in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Q: What do you think should happen? Under what conditions would the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Armenia agree to have this territory
returned to Azerbaijan? Is this even possible?
A: This is not possible, unless, of course, there were no
Armenians left in Nagorno-Karabakh. If, however, the independence
of Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized, the issue of returning the seven
regions will be resolved. Yet, this would not include the Lachin
corridor, which links Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh.
Q: Azerbaijan's position is the exact opposite. I do not see a
compromise here.
A: You know, there is also a human factor. People live on their land
and they want to live independently. So, you would have to completely
exterminate them, which is not so easy. And the Karabakh people have
such a mentality that they would successfully resist this. Therefore,
Azerbaijan should sit down with them to negotiate, and specifically
with them and not with Armenia. And Armenia will just act as the
guarantor of the independence and stability of Nagorno-Karabakh. Just
as Turkey today is the guarantor of security for Azerbaijan.
Thank you very much for your time and comments.
From: A. Papazian
RIA Novosti
16:5628/05/2010
MultimediaVideo:Nagorno-Karabakh will not be Azeri unless the last
ethnic Armenian leaves the region Video:Nagorno-Karabakh compromise
needs new atmosphere between Armenia and Azerbaijan Hello. Our guest
is Grigory Anisonyan, the chief editor of the international Armenian
newspaper Noah's Ark. Hello, Mr. Anisonyan.
Hello.
Q: There is an impression that all sides of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict are as close as never before to a compromise and that some
kind of agreement is possible. Do you think this is indeed the case?
A: You know, I do not think that Armenia and Azerbaijan are currently
ready for a compromise. Both sides have rather radical positions. And
this is understandable. One can understand the Armenian side. They
lived on their own land for centuries, and Karabakh became a part of
Azerbaijan during the Soviet period as a result of Stalin's "national,
fraternal" decision.
However, the people continued to live all those years on their land,
and when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh
expressed their desire to live independently. But, as you know,
certain developments followed, pressure was exercised, and Soviet
troops were sent to crush the independence movement in the late
1980's. As a result, people living on their own land were forced to
take up arms to defend their homes.
Eventually, a war broke out between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
Of course, Armenia supported the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and so
got involved in the conflict. In 1994, a peace agreement was signed
in Bishkek. In fact, if this agreement had not been signed in 1994,
I believe that all of Karabakh would have been liberated, not only the
mountainous part of Karabakh but also the lowlands that are populated
by Armenians as well.
But Armenians would have been forced to leave the lowlands, as these
areas remained part of Azerbaijan. As a result, a buffer zone of
sorts emerged, consisting of seven regions and providing a viability
guarantee to Nagorno-Karabakh. Today, Azerbaijan demands the return
of these lands, the seven regions which surround Nagorno-Karabakh,
without making any concessions in return. That is, they will not
accept the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh or recognize that it
belongs to the native people of this land.
Q: Don't you think that some countries in the West (we are not going
to name them here) are to a certain degree guilty of dragging out the
resolution of this conflict? Isn't it in their interest to maintain
some level of instability in the region and to put pressure on these
countries, primarily on Azerbaijan and Armenia?
A: Of course, there is some truth to this. Each of these Western
European countries and the U.S. can benefit from this conflict.
Depending on the development of their economic and political relations
with Azerbaijan and Armenia, they put pressure on either side. But on
the other hand, the West has recently embraced a different position and
wants to see the conflict resolved. The continuation of the conflict
is no longer in the interest of the big Western corporations that
are involved in the construction of gas and oil pipelines from Baku
to Turkey.
Q: Do you think people on both sides are ready for reconciliation? As
an editor-in-chief and as a human being, what do you do to promote
the swift resolution of the conflict? I mentioned earlier that this
is an international Armenian newspaper, does this mean that it is a
mouthpiece for Armenian propaganda?
A: Of course, this is true to a certain degree. We are an Armenian
publication, and it would be strange if we did not support the
Armenian position. But my colleagues and I understand that for the
newspaper to be interesting, it needs to be truthful, as truthful
as possible. And that is what we aspire to. Our newspaper has been
published for 13 years, and we have a page permanently dedicated to
Azerbaijan, the fifth page, and the fourth page covers Georgia. In
general, our newspaper covers the entire southern region (the South
Caucasus and the neighboring states of Turkey and Iran).
Q: Do Azerbaijanis read your newspaper?
A: They do read and even study it carefully.
Q: They probably use it as a source for an alternative opinion.
A: Yes, we invite leading Armenian and sometimes Azerbaijani experts
to contribute. Russian political analysts are often published in our
newspaper. Therefore, reading our content should be quite interesting.
Q: On this subject I have the following question: Just as it is
impossible to discuss the conflict without Russian political analysts,
it is also impossible to settle it without Russia and Russian
policymakers. And what role has Russia been playing over the past
years in trying to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict? Has
that role changed in recent years, if at all?
A: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of
post-Soviet states, Russia certainly supported Armenia which was its
main strategic partner and ally in the South Caucasus. This was the
case until recently. Today, Russia has a more balanced position.
Perhaps this stems from Russia's national interests; most likely the
Turkish factor (the active rapprochement between Russia and Turkey
that has been taking place recently) has also played a role here. All
of this affects the course of the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.
Turkey agreed to open borders with Armenia, but made the resolution
of the Karabakh conflict, an issue that does not directly apply to
Armenian-Turkish relations, a precondition for going through with
the agreement. This was unacceptable to Armenia. So it turns out that
it was a set-up on Turkey's side. In general, Turkish diplomats have
been known to be rather shrewd.
And it is well known that depending too much on relations with Turkey
is dangerous. This applies not only to Armenia, but also to Russia.
Russia's role in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
has become more balanced, and currently Moscow does not have any
privileges in the resolution process. I cannot say that Russia is
directly backing either the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Azerbaijan.
In other words, Russia has become more neutral. Still, I believe
that Russia has always played, continues to play, and should play a
primary role in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Q: What do you think should happen? Under what conditions would the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Armenia agree to have this territory
returned to Azerbaijan? Is this even possible?
A: This is not possible, unless, of course, there were no
Armenians left in Nagorno-Karabakh. If, however, the independence
of Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized, the issue of returning the seven
regions will be resolved. Yet, this would not include the Lachin
corridor, which links Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh.
Q: Azerbaijan's position is the exact opposite. I do not see a
compromise here.
A: You know, there is also a human factor. People live on their land
and they want to live independently. So, you would have to completely
exterminate them, which is not so easy. And the Karabakh people have
such a mentality that they would successfully resist this. Therefore,
Azerbaijan should sit down with them to negotiate, and specifically
with them and not with Armenia. And Armenia will just act as the
guarantor of the independence and stability of Nagorno-Karabakh. Just
as Turkey today is the guarantor of security for Azerbaijan.
Thank you very much for your time and comments.
From: A. Papazian