Tweet
"ITS MUCH MORE FAVORABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH BAKU THAN WITH YEREVAN"
Today
June 17 2010
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with editor-in-chief of Saint-Petersburg-based
"Konservator" newspaper Rustam Arifjanov.
As of late, experts have widely discussed the stepped up U.S. efforts
in our region, in particular in respect to Azerbaijan. In your opinion,
why the United States has been so active lately?
Americans love and know how to say good words, but talk like that,
when these words do them benefit, and when they feel that they are
losing initiative. They feel that Russia and Turkey have increased
its efforts in the South Caucasus. Turkey is not with which Americans
are accustomed to deal with before.
So, the United States realized that the attempt of diplomatic or
political isolation of Azerbaijan weakens U.S. foothold in the
South Caucasus. They understand that the initiative in resolving
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be held by those who will be most
directly involved in its resolution.
The United States understands in what direction Yerevan will swim once
it faces a choice - Russia or the U.S., and especially Turkey. In case
with Azerbaijan, its not so clear. Baku pursues multi-faceted policy
despite the fact that Russia is a strategic partner of Azerbaijan.
Therefore, its much more favorable to negotiate with Baku than with
Yerevan.
In your opinion, may these increased U.S. efforts in the region speed
up the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
I was in Yerevan two weeks ago to attend a roundtable on the
situation in South Caucasus. There were participants from Georgia,
Abkhazia, South Ossetia and etc. Unfortunately, there was no one
from Azerbaijan. I was also invited as an expert versed in all of
these problems.
For me, it was not important what they say during the plenary
sessions. This may be interesting, but I think everybody understands
what they would say in such an event in Yerevan. Much more interesting
are the backstage talks. And there I felt a tendency towards a certain
unawareness of Yerevan political experts on what is happening in
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as some confusion. Confusion and recognition
that Armenia's foreign policy leads to dead end is a very interesting
trend.
As for what will accelerate resolution to the Karabakh conflict, let
focus on OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. Russia, France and the United
States are more than the best countries for Armenia. All these three
countries are home to strong Armenian diaspora organizations. At the
same time, all three countries have repeatedly told Armenia that a
decision to liberate occupied territories around Nagorno-Karabakh
should be made as a first step. Moreover, there are four UN
resolutions, the resolution of European Parliament and other
international organizations. Today there is even stronger pressure
on Armenia.
But it is rather hard to predict whether it will result in a sensible
and earlier resolution of the conflict because current Armenian
government with Karabakh roots retains power only thanks to the
Karabakh theme. It will be immediately overthrown once it makes a
step in line with real resolution process.
You said that in Yerevan definite stratum of political elites are not
so sensitive towards the Karabakh issue as before. Can we say that
today the Armenian society is ready for liberation of Azerbaijan's
ancestral lands?
Not everybody in Armenia believes that all occupied territories should
be returned to Azerbaijan's control. But many agree with liberation
of territories around Nagorno-Karabakh. True, they see it as some
element of a bargaining. That is, if we give away lands, we should
get something in return. This is what those in Armenia think.
While in Armenia, I often heard that Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent
occupied territories are considered as a single entity there. In
response, I told the Armenians: "You will not deny that it was
Azerbaijanis who lived in all these occupied territories, right?
Armenians also lived there. Let's hypothetically consider the scenario
in which you agree to return of all refugees, both Armenians and
Azerbaijanis, or their descendants to their homes as a humanitarian
action. And then three years later we hold a referendum in which
population of all occupied lands will decide under what state they
will live."
And what did Armenian experts say?
They said Azerbaijanis will outnumber Armenians and outcome of the
referendum in this case is predetermined. Then I ask, "Do you want
to hold a referendum where Azerbaijanis would be outnumbered?"
This suggests that the idea of Armenians and the ability to compromise
has exhausted itself. No new ideas are available. My opponents still
refused all scenarios I suggested. That is, any equitable solution,
which implies preferences toward Azerbaijan, is immediately rejected
by Yerevan.
I remember when Arkady Volsky was heading a special subcommittee on
Nagorno-Karabakh, Karabakh residents of Armenian origin turned to
him with a request to resolve the conflict "honestly and fairly in
our favor." Today Armenian authorities are of the same positions. So,
they will show extremely tough resistance.
In a period prior to Dmitry Medvedev's trip to Yerevan, Armenian media
reported that he will submit a new plan to bring an earliest resolution
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to the Armenian leadership. The plan
allegedly calls for liberation of three occupied regions of Azerbaijan
at an early stage. What are your views on this plan?
I think that this plan is not realistic not because that Russia and
its government cannot put forward any option. In my opinion, anyone
who deals with this problem can have an option. I just do not think
that Armenia and Azerbaijan will agree to the option that suggests
placement of peacekeepers in de-occupied territories, especially
Americans in areas that border with Iran.
Of course, Americans want this very much. But this option still is
hardly possible especially because only connection to the world for
Armenia lies through Iran. It should be noted that greater part of
Iranians who run factories, shops and engaged in trade in Armenia
are ethnic Azerbaijanis.
However, I think there will be numerous attempts to persuade Armenia.
Russian President shows interest and flexibility in resolving the
conflict which has caused U.S. to intensify efforts. The pressure
on Armenia is growing with no any tangible results. Armenians should
themselves decide who will lead their state and how they see future
of their country.
From: A. Papazian
Today
June 17 2010
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with editor-in-chief of Saint-Petersburg-based
"Konservator" newspaper Rustam Arifjanov.
As of late, experts have widely discussed the stepped up U.S. efforts
in our region, in particular in respect to Azerbaijan. In your opinion,
why the United States has been so active lately?
Americans love and know how to say good words, but talk like that,
when these words do them benefit, and when they feel that they are
losing initiative. They feel that Russia and Turkey have increased
its efforts in the South Caucasus. Turkey is not with which Americans
are accustomed to deal with before.
So, the United States realized that the attempt of diplomatic or
political isolation of Azerbaijan weakens U.S. foothold in the
South Caucasus. They understand that the initiative in resolving
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be held by those who will be most
directly involved in its resolution.
The United States understands in what direction Yerevan will swim once
it faces a choice - Russia or the U.S., and especially Turkey. In case
with Azerbaijan, its not so clear. Baku pursues multi-faceted policy
despite the fact that Russia is a strategic partner of Azerbaijan.
Therefore, its much more favorable to negotiate with Baku than with
Yerevan.
In your opinion, may these increased U.S. efforts in the region speed
up the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
I was in Yerevan two weeks ago to attend a roundtable on the
situation in South Caucasus. There were participants from Georgia,
Abkhazia, South Ossetia and etc. Unfortunately, there was no one
from Azerbaijan. I was also invited as an expert versed in all of
these problems.
For me, it was not important what they say during the plenary
sessions. This may be interesting, but I think everybody understands
what they would say in such an event in Yerevan. Much more interesting
are the backstage talks. And there I felt a tendency towards a certain
unawareness of Yerevan political experts on what is happening in
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as some confusion. Confusion and recognition
that Armenia's foreign policy leads to dead end is a very interesting
trend.
As for what will accelerate resolution to the Karabakh conflict, let
focus on OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. Russia, France and the United
States are more than the best countries for Armenia. All these three
countries are home to strong Armenian diaspora organizations. At the
same time, all three countries have repeatedly told Armenia that a
decision to liberate occupied territories around Nagorno-Karabakh
should be made as a first step. Moreover, there are four UN
resolutions, the resolution of European Parliament and other
international organizations. Today there is even stronger pressure
on Armenia.
But it is rather hard to predict whether it will result in a sensible
and earlier resolution of the conflict because current Armenian
government with Karabakh roots retains power only thanks to the
Karabakh theme. It will be immediately overthrown once it makes a
step in line with real resolution process.
You said that in Yerevan definite stratum of political elites are not
so sensitive towards the Karabakh issue as before. Can we say that
today the Armenian society is ready for liberation of Azerbaijan's
ancestral lands?
Not everybody in Armenia believes that all occupied territories should
be returned to Azerbaijan's control. But many agree with liberation
of territories around Nagorno-Karabakh. True, they see it as some
element of a bargaining. That is, if we give away lands, we should
get something in return. This is what those in Armenia think.
While in Armenia, I often heard that Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent
occupied territories are considered as a single entity there. In
response, I told the Armenians: "You will not deny that it was
Azerbaijanis who lived in all these occupied territories, right?
Armenians also lived there. Let's hypothetically consider the scenario
in which you agree to return of all refugees, both Armenians and
Azerbaijanis, or their descendants to their homes as a humanitarian
action. And then three years later we hold a referendum in which
population of all occupied lands will decide under what state they
will live."
And what did Armenian experts say?
They said Azerbaijanis will outnumber Armenians and outcome of the
referendum in this case is predetermined. Then I ask, "Do you want
to hold a referendum where Azerbaijanis would be outnumbered?"
This suggests that the idea of Armenians and the ability to compromise
has exhausted itself. No new ideas are available. My opponents still
refused all scenarios I suggested. That is, any equitable solution,
which implies preferences toward Azerbaijan, is immediately rejected
by Yerevan.
I remember when Arkady Volsky was heading a special subcommittee on
Nagorno-Karabakh, Karabakh residents of Armenian origin turned to
him with a request to resolve the conflict "honestly and fairly in
our favor." Today Armenian authorities are of the same positions. So,
they will show extremely tough resistance.
In a period prior to Dmitry Medvedev's trip to Yerevan, Armenian media
reported that he will submit a new plan to bring an earliest resolution
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to the Armenian leadership. The plan
allegedly calls for liberation of three occupied regions of Azerbaijan
at an early stage. What are your views on this plan?
I think that this plan is not realistic not because that Russia and
its government cannot put forward any option. In my opinion, anyone
who deals with this problem can have an option. I just do not think
that Armenia and Azerbaijan will agree to the option that suggests
placement of peacekeepers in de-occupied territories, especially
Americans in areas that border with Iran.
Of course, Americans want this very much. But this option still is
hardly possible especially because only connection to the world for
Armenia lies through Iran. It should be noted that greater part of
Iranians who run factories, shops and engaged in trade in Armenia
are ethnic Azerbaijanis.
However, I think there will be numerous attempts to persuade Armenia.
Russian President shows interest and flexibility in resolving the
conflict which has caused U.S. to intensify efforts. The pressure
on Armenia is growing with no any tangible results. Armenians should
themselves decide who will lead their state and how they see future
of their country.
From: A. Papazian