Tweet
RUSSIAN EXPERT: INT'L SITUATION IS VERY FAVORABLE TO RESOLVE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT
H. Hamidov
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/5 8529.html
Dec 24 2009
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with Konstantin Truevtsev, Russian political expert,
doctor of philosophy, associate professor at the Department of Applied
Political Science of State University - Higher School of Economics.
Day.Az: You were in 1989 Baku and witnessed beginning of the
Azerbaijani-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ...
Konstantin Truevtsev: It is a painful theme for us. It is painful for
me because the issue of the Caucasus is close to me. Apart from this,
I have been both in Azerbaijan and Armenia, and I feel a deep and
sincere sympathy to both countries and both peoples.
While in Baku in 1989, when I was participating in a scientific
conference on ethnic and religious conflicts, I and my colleagues from
Moscow and other cities and republics of the former USSR witnessed
how the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict broke out. The conflict then
escalated into a fratricidal war in the Nagorno-Karabakh. It dealt a
deep political and moral harm not only to Azerbaijani and Armenian
peoples, but also to other nations and former Soviet republics,
including Russia as well.
Realizing the depth of the Karabakh conflict, I am very skeptical,
or at least extremely careful about simple recipes offered to resolve
it believing imposing such recipes (such as "exchange") can only
exacerbate the conflict rather resolve it. It seems to me that in this
case, the medical rule of "do no harm" should be fundamental to the
obvious long-term settlement process for both parties to the conflict,
and especially for those who act in this process as mediators.
Efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been stepped
up lately. OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs state a serious progress in the
resolution process. In your opinion, what does this progress imply? Is
there actually real progress or these are just habitual statements?
If one still tries to return to the "dry residue", that is, those
constituent parts of a conflict which we have today as result of its
effects, overall situation seems extremely complex.
Some aspects of the settlement, for example, return of Azerbaijanis
to their places of historical residence in Karabakh is intractable
and it seems there has been progress in this regard.
The conflicting sides still have differences about status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. I do not see possibility of even coming closer in
this issue.
The position of the Azerbaijani side is to recognize territorial
integrity of states stipulated not only by a certain norm of
international law which was further consolidated in the Helsinki
accords of 1975, but also legal practice established during the
Soviet collapse, according to which the boundaries of the new states
remain unchanged and integrity of these states has international
legal recognition.
Armenia's position is based on the alleged right of nations to
self-determination, which in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, they say
was formed on basis of the status quo in the course and outcome of
the Karabakh conflict, in fact, even before the Soviet collapse.
Simultaneously with resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the whole
region also keeps a close eye on Turkey-Armenia protocols. Many in
Turkey say that ratification of the protocols depends on resolving the
Karabakh conflict. In your view, to what extent these two processes
are interdependent?
Exactly these aspects of development of events in the region and
around it create an entirely new situation which I regard as one of
dimensions of nonlinearity of the political process. It can be viewed
from different angles, what is done including by those in Armenia
and in the Armenian Diaspora who are inclined to consider Sargsyan's
policy almost as a national betrayal, and those in Azerbaijan who
tend to see Turkey's policy as betrayal of closest Turkic brothers.
It seems Serzh Sargsyan is strongly willing to resolve the conflict
while he makes statements such as "We won't give a single inch of the
occupied Azerbaijani lands." In your opinion, what does it mean? Are
his words are meant for the Armenian people so that radicals will
not replace him?
It is clear that it is not a personal position of Serzh Sargsyan,
although, he has to politically maneuver in very difficult conditions
which prevailed after the August events.On the one hand, Armenia
wound up in a geopolitical and economic semi-blockade (in fact, Iran
is the only lasting and stable outlet for the outside world for it).
On the other hand, partly because of the war, partly because of
complex interplay of interests between NATO-EU-Turkey-Russia, almost
unprecedented alliance between Turkey and Russia began to take shape
in the formation of which Armenia saw unique historical opportunity
for itself.
Do you think, the United States and Russia are really interested
resolving the Karabakh conflict?
In my opinion, the international situation today is very favorable to
resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, especially if we bear in mind
the two main outside players - the United States and Russia, as well
as current relations through the Russia-EU and Russia-NATO Council.
As for Russia, despite all conflicts and contradictions, process
of recovery of the post-Soviet area in a new format of unity took
place in last few days. The question is whether Transcaucasia will
enter this area. Armenia participates in this process despite its
geographic isolation. Azerbaijan partly participates and partly does
not participate in this process.
Russia's relations with the United States, NATO, the EU have reach
such a point that many shifts (economic, political, etc.) firstly
lead to the convergence of many positions including in international
field and specifically in the Azerbaijani-Armenian issue (though not
in Georgian). It is taking place under the United States-Russia and
Russia-France line, which is essential for this specificity. Secondly,
the EU and the U.S. most recently made a number of steps to recognize
Russia's role in the post-Soviet area as compared with even very
recent times.
H. Hamidov
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/5 8529.html
Dec 24 2009
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with Konstantin Truevtsev, Russian political expert,
doctor of philosophy, associate professor at the Department of Applied
Political Science of State University - Higher School of Economics.
Day.Az: You were in 1989 Baku and witnessed beginning of the
Azerbaijani-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ...
Konstantin Truevtsev: It is a painful theme for us. It is painful for
me because the issue of the Caucasus is close to me. Apart from this,
I have been both in Azerbaijan and Armenia, and I feel a deep and
sincere sympathy to both countries and both peoples.
While in Baku in 1989, when I was participating in a scientific
conference on ethnic and religious conflicts, I and my colleagues from
Moscow and other cities and republics of the former USSR witnessed
how the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict broke out. The conflict then
escalated into a fratricidal war in the Nagorno-Karabakh. It dealt a
deep political and moral harm not only to Azerbaijani and Armenian
peoples, but also to other nations and former Soviet republics,
including Russia as well.
Realizing the depth of the Karabakh conflict, I am very skeptical,
or at least extremely careful about simple recipes offered to resolve
it believing imposing such recipes (such as "exchange") can only
exacerbate the conflict rather resolve it. It seems to me that in this
case, the medical rule of "do no harm" should be fundamental to the
obvious long-term settlement process for both parties to the conflict,
and especially for those who act in this process as mediators.
Efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been stepped
up lately. OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs state a serious progress in the
resolution process. In your opinion, what does this progress imply? Is
there actually real progress or these are just habitual statements?
If one still tries to return to the "dry residue", that is, those
constituent parts of a conflict which we have today as result of its
effects, overall situation seems extremely complex.
Some aspects of the settlement, for example, return of Azerbaijanis
to their places of historical residence in Karabakh is intractable
and it seems there has been progress in this regard.
The conflicting sides still have differences about status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. I do not see possibility of even coming closer in
this issue.
The position of the Azerbaijani side is to recognize territorial
integrity of states stipulated not only by a certain norm of
international law which was further consolidated in the Helsinki
accords of 1975, but also legal practice established during the
Soviet collapse, according to which the boundaries of the new states
remain unchanged and integrity of these states has international
legal recognition.
Armenia's position is based on the alleged right of nations to
self-determination, which in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, they say
was formed on basis of the status quo in the course and outcome of
the Karabakh conflict, in fact, even before the Soviet collapse.
Simultaneously with resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the whole
region also keeps a close eye on Turkey-Armenia protocols. Many in
Turkey say that ratification of the protocols depends on resolving the
Karabakh conflict. In your view, to what extent these two processes
are interdependent?
Exactly these aspects of development of events in the region and
around it create an entirely new situation which I regard as one of
dimensions of nonlinearity of the political process. It can be viewed
from different angles, what is done including by those in Armenia
and in the Armenian Diaspora who are inclined to consider Sargsyan's
policy almost as a national betrayal, and those in Azerbaijan who
tend to see Turkey's policy as betrayal of closest Turkic brothers.
It seems Serzh Sargsyan is strongly willing to resolve the conflict
while he makes statements such as "We won't give a single inch of the
occupied Azerbaijani lands." In your opinion, what does it mean? Are
his words are meant for the Armenian people so that radicals will
not replace him?
It is clear that it is not a personal position of Serzh Sargsyan,
although, he has to politically maneuver in very difficult conditions
which prevailed after the August events.On the one hand, Armenia
wound up in a geopolitical and economic semi-blockade (in fact, Iran
is the only lasting and stable outlet for the outside world for it).
On the other hand, partly because of the war, partly because of
complex interplay of interests between NATO-EU-Turkey-Russia, almost
unprecedented alliance between Turkey and Russia began to take shape
in the formation of which Armenia saw unique historical opportunity
for itself.
Do you think, the United States and Russia are really interested
resolving the Karabakh conflict?
In my opinion, the international situation today is very favorable to
resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, especially if we bear in mind
the two main outside players - the United States and Russia, as well
as current relations through the Russia-EU and Russia-NATO Council.
As for Russia, despite all conflicts and contradictions, process
of recovery of the post-Soviet area in a new format of unity took
place in last few days. The question is whether Transcaucasia will
enter this area. Armenia participates in this process despite its
geographic isolation. Azerbaijan partly participates and partly does
not participate in this process.
Russia's relations with the United States, NATO, the EU have reach
such a point that many shifts (economic, political, etc.) firstly
lead to the convergence of many positions including in international
field and specifically in the Azerbaijani-Armenian issue (though not
in Georgian). It is taking place under the United States-Russia and
Russia-France line, which is essential for this specificity. Secondly,
the EU and the U.S. most recently made a number of steps to recognize
Russia's role in the post-Soviet area as compared with even very
recent times.