Tweet
JAMESTOWN UNIVERSITY EXPERT: FRANCE SHOULD NOT BE CO-CHAIR OF OSCE MINSK GROUP
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/681 84.html
May 18 2010
Azerbaijan
Interview with expert at the U.S.-based Jamestown University Vladimir
Sokor.
In your opinion, to what degree the current Armenian authorities are
independent to make decisions in the Karabakh problem? For example,
liberation of territories in exchange for opening borders...
It depends on many factors that are difficult to predict. For example,
it is not known whether nationalist political forces of Armenia are
able to prevent moderate decisions by their own government or not. In
1999, the Armenian authorities tried to make a deal with Washington
to make it adopt a moderate political course in the resolution of
the Karabakh conflict. The deal failed for obvious reasons. It is
not known whether this scenario may happen again or not.
I think that the policy of the Azerbaijani leadership, which can be
characterized as a "strategic patience", is correct. Azerbaijan's
policy is designed for long term. Time is in favor of Azerbaijan.
Armenia has not been modernized, and the difference in development
between the two countries is growing every year. Armenia faces growing
public dissatisfaction and high rate of emigration.
It is clear that time is working in favor of Azerbaijan, but this
does not mean that one can indefinitely delay withdrawal of Armenian
troops from occupied areas. This must be achieved as soon as possible.
Withdrawal of Armenian forces is one of the basic items in the Madrid
principles of Karabakh conflict settlement. This is also position of
the OSCE Minsk Group.
However, Armenia does not agree with this. Hence, it is clear that
the co-chair countries must put pressure on Armenia. However, this is
not happening. In fact, Russia does not intend to put pressure on its
ally. France does not have a significant impact on the conflicting
parties. So, in general, this country should not be co-chair of the
OSCE Minsk Group.
We are witnessing endless transpositions in the United States. In
2006-2007, the Bush administration pursued scattered and chaotic
foreign policy. Decisions passed back them were ill-advised. Then
the Obama administration took up solution to the Karabakh issue. The
South Caucasus is not a priority for the current U.S. administration.
The priority of this administration is the internal policy. The U.S.
is in a state of permanent election campaigns. Foreign policy decisions
are largely based on domestic political considerations. That is why
the U.S. does not exert pressure on Armenia to accept the Madrid
principles and withdraw troops from Azerbaijani territories.
How can Russia help its ally Armenia to exit from isolation?
I cannot imagine how Russia can help Armenia in this situation. Moscow
has no influence on Turkey so that it will unilaterally open the
Armenian-Turkish border. At some point, Turkey did not exclude such
a possibility, but later declined to do this. Unfortunately, the U.S.
tried to put pressure on Turkey to open border with Armenia
without Azerbaijan's consent and, most importantly, without
withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territories. It
was a huge mistake of the American diplomacy. Such a policy by the
administration of President Barack Obama was motivated by purely
domestic considerations. Obama wanted to meet expectations of his
Armenian voters.
Washington's actions jeopardized strategic position of the West in
the South Caucasus. Fortunately, Turkey refused to open the border and
thereby saved the U.S. strategic interests in the region. Next year,
elections will be held in Turkey. Therefore, Ankara will not quarrel
with the fraternal Azerbaijan and set the Turkish public, which
expressed solidarity with the Azerbaijan people, against themselves.
Now Turkey's position is quite stable.
Resolution of the Karabakh conflict was also discussed during Russian
President's latest visit to Turkey. In your opinion, to what extent
Ankara and Moscow are interested in accelerating the peace process?
Russia is not interested in resolving the Karabakh conflict, which is
Moscow's leverage on both Armenia and Azerbaijan. So, Moscow does not
wish to lose such an opportunity. Russia may support a final settlement
of the conflict only if it meets its interests for example, deployment
of troops, formed mainly from the Russian military, in the conflict
zone. Alternatively, Russia may try to strike a deal with Azerbaijan,
under which Moscow will use its influence on Armenia to liberate at
least 5-6 occupied regions, and in return Baku will change its foreign
policy orientation. But I do not think that Azerbaijan will agree.
By the way, Russia and Turkey have reached an agreement on "South
Stream" project. In your opinion, what are chances of the EU-backed
Nabucco pipeline project?
The "South Stream" project has no a single chance to get to become
real. Russia has neither resources nor money to implement South
Stream. Nabucco's chances do not depend on the Russian project. In
August last year, Turkey and Russia agreed to build a gas pipeline
under the Black Sea in the area of Ankara's economic interests. But
there was no agreement on gas supplies. Nabucco is a very attractive
project for Turkey and other European countries. The fact is that
Nabucco is part of a more ambitious project of the European Commission
called "Southern Corridor". Nabucco will open a way for other pipelines
through Turkey. There is gas and finance for this project.
Moreover, Nabucco will help Turkey to become an important transit
country.
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/681 84.html
May 18 2010
Azerbaijan
Interview with expert at the U.S.-based Jamestown University Vladimir
Sokor.
In your opinion, to what degree the current Armenian authorities are
independent to make decisions in the Karabakh problem? For example,
liberation of territories in exchange for opening borders...
It depends on many factors that are difficult to predict. For example,
it is not known whether nationalist political forces of Armenia are
able to prevent moderate decisions by their own government or not. In
1999, the Armenian authorities tried to make a deal with Washington
to make it adopt a moderate political course in the resolution of
the Karabakh conflict. The deal failed for obvious reasons. It is
not known whether this scenario may happen again or not.
I think that the policy of the Azerbaijani leadership, which can be
characterized as a "strategic patience", is correct. Azerbaijan's
policy is designed for long term. Time is in favor of Azerbaijan.
Armenia has not been modernized, and the difference in development
between the two countries is growing every year. Armenia faces growing
public dissatisfaction and high rate of emigration.
It is clear that time is working in favor of Azerbaijan, but this
does not mean that one can indefinitely delay withdrawal of Armenian
troops from occupied areas. This must be achieved as soon as possible.
Withdrawal of Armenian forces is one of the basic items in the Madrid
principles of Karabakh conflict settlement. This is also position of
the OSCE Minsk Group.
However, Armenia does not agree with this. Hence, it is clear that
the co-chair countries must put pressure on Armenia. However, this is
not happening. In fact, Russia does not intend to put pressure on its
ally. France does not have a significant impact on the conflicting
parties. So, in general, this country should not be co-chair of the
OSCE Minsk Group.
We are witnessing endless transpositions in the United States. In
2006-2007, the Bush administration pursued scattered and chaotic
foreign policy. Decisions passed back them were ill-advised. Then
the Obama administration took up solution to the Karabakh issue. The
South Caucasus is not a priority for the current U.S. administration.
The priority of this administration is the internal policy. The U.S.
is in a state of permanent election campaigns. Foreign policy decisions
are largely based on domestic political considerations. That is why
the U.S. does not exert pressure on Armenia to accept the Madrid
principles and withdraw troops from Azerbaijani territories.
How can Russia help its ally Armenia to exit from isolation?
I cannot imagine how Russia can help Armenia in this situation. Moscow
has no influence on Turkey so that it will unilaterally open the
Armenian-Turkish border. At some point, Turkey did not exclude such
a possibility, but later declined to do this. Unfortunately, the U.S.
tried to put pressure on Turkey to open border with Armenia
without Azerbaijan's consent and, most importantly, without
withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territories. It
was a huge mistake of the American diplomacy. Such a policy by the
administration of President Barack Obama was motivated by purely
domestic considerations. Obama wanted to meet expectations of his
Armenian voters.
Washington's actions jeopardized strategic position of the West in
the South Caucasus. Fortunately, Turkey refused to open the border and
thereby saved the U.S. strategic interests in the region. Next year,
elections will be held in Turkey. Therefore, Ankara will not quarrel
with the fraternal Azerbaijan and set the Turkish public, which
expressed solidarity with the Azerbaijan people, against themselves.
Now Turkey's position is quite stable.
Resolution of the Karabakh conflict was also discussed during Russian
President's latest visit to Turkey. In your opinion, to what extent
Ankara and Moscow are interested in accelerating the peace process?
Russia is not interested in resolving the Karabakh conflict, which is
Moscow's leverage on both Armenia and Azerbaijan. So, Moscow does not
wish to lose such an opportunity. Russia may support a final settlement
of the conflict only if it meets its interests for example, deployment
of troops, formed mainly from the Russian military, in the conflict
zone. Alternatively, Russia may try to strike a deal with Azerbaijan,
under which Moscow will use its influence on Armenia to liberate at
least 5-6 occupied regions, and in return Baku will change its foreign
policy orientation. But I do not think that Azerbaijan will agree.
By the way, Russia and Turkey have reached an agreement on "South
Stream" project. In your opinion, what are chances of the EU-backed
Nabucco pipeline project?
The "South Stream" project has no a single chance to get to become
real. Russia has neither resources nor money to implement South
Stream. Nabucco's chances do not depend on the Russian project. In
August last year, Turkey and Russia agreed to build a gas pipeline
under the Black Sea in the area of Ankara's economic interests. But
there was no agreement on gas supplies. Nabucco is a very attractive
project for Turkey and other European countries. The fact is that
Nabucco is part of a more ambitious project of the European Commission
called "Southern Corridor". Nabucco will open a way for other pipelines
through Turkey. There is gas and finance for this project.
Moreover, Nabucco will help Turkey to become an important transit
country.