Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sabine Freizer: The Peace Plan Proposed By International Crisis Grou

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sabine Freizer: The Peace Plan Proposed By International Crisis Grou

    SABINE FREIZER: THE PEACE PLAN PROPOSED BY INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS REALISTIC
    Haroutiun Khachatrian

    Noyan Tapan
    Armenians Today
    Mar 13 2006

    YEREVAN, MARCH 13, NOYAN TAPAN - ARMENIANS TODAY. The International
    Crisis Group, a respected organization involved in efforts of
    conflict resolution, has recently proposed its suggestions about a
    possible way of regulation of the Nagorno Karabakh problem. These
    suggestions have had controversial echoes both among Armenians and
    Azeris. Sabine Freizer, the Caucasus Project Director of the ICG,
    presents the details in an exclusive interview with Noyan Tapan.

    "NOYAN TAPAN": Please remind us briefly the pre-history and current
    activities of your organization. Whose was the idea of its creation,
    who is involved in its activities, who provides funding?

    SABINE FREIZER: The International Crisis Group is an international not
    for profit organization based in Brussels, Belgium. The organization
    was created in 1995 as an independent body that could combine detailed
    field assessment and analysis with political advocacy to try to
    resolve or prevent conflict. Its founders were leading international
    decision-makers who were shocked by their own governments' inability
    to respond effectively to the conflicts in former-Yugoslavia, Somalia,
    Rwanda and other situations that had spiralled out of control in the
    early 1990s. They wanted to create an organization that could provide
    comprehensive, quick and neutral analysis on conflicts, and recommend
    means to respond to them.

    Crisis Group receives funding from a variety of sources. The goal is to
    have a diverse funding base to insure independence and credibility. In
    2004 40% of Crisis Group's funds came from governments, 43% from
    foundations, and 16% from private individuals and corporations. In
    2004 the organization raised some million to cover operating costs.

    "NT": You are an organization of experts, which means that your
    recommendations should be addressed to policymakers rather than to
    the public opinion.

    Meanwhile, you often address to wider society, including political
    parties and NGOs. Isn't there a controversy present here?

    S.F.: Our recommendations are mainly addressed to policy makers
    especially in Washington, New York, Brussels, London, Moscow and
    other major capitals. We try to influence their decision-making and
    the activities of state and international actors. However especially
    in the South Caucasus where international attention is weaker then in
    other parts of the globe, we also take the time to share our reports
    and recommendations with local policymakers, political actors, NGOs
    and others. We believe that it's important to do this to increase
    public knowledge and understanding about conflict in the region from
    a relatively neutral standpoint.

    "NT": Continuing the above question, your comments about the Nagorno
    Karabakh conflict go beyond the conflict per se to include the
    issues of domestic politics such as the problems of elections or
    referendum. Why do you think it is proper?

    S.F.: We think that its important to look at domestic political
    developments in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia because they of course
    also affect the potential for conflict resolution. Our focus is on
    analysing the conflicts but we sometimes report on local political
    issues such as the Fall Azerbaijani parliamentary elections and the
    Armenian referendum. We were quite critical in both cases.

    "NT": In recent months, some Armenian media have argued that your
    organization is influenced by pro-Turkish lobby. Can you deny these
    allegations? And, if so, what is, in your opinion, the reason that
    such publications appeared in the Armenian media?

    S.F.: We have been accused of being pro-Turkish in Armenia and
    pro-Armenian in Azerbaijan. This is very frequent in our work. People
    who don't like what we have to say try to discredit us by linking
    us with outside political forces. But Crisis Group is a truly
    international organization with staff and funding from across the
    globe. We are fully independent and are not politically influenced
    by anyone.

    Of course I can deny that we are influenced by any kind of pro-Turkish
    lobby. In our report in Armenia in 2004 we several times mention
    the Genocide including in the Introduction. We also make tough
    recommendations to Turkey to open its border with Armenia. It would
    be hard for me to imagine a Turkish lobby group who would come out
    with these kinds of statements.

    "NT": What are the benefits of the peace plan proposed by ICG for
    the Armenian side, including Nagorno Karabakh?

    S.F.: The peace plan proposed by ICG is good because it is realistic
    in the current situation and meets a significant part of the both
    sides key demands.

    For the Armenian side it provides security guarantees and the right
    to self-determination for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. For
    the Azerbaijani side it offers the return of all internally
    displaced persons and return of all its occupied lands around
    Nagorno-Karabakh. The plan also calls for assurances of free movement
    of people and goods, including the lifting of all blockades and the
    reopening of all transport and trade routes closed as a result of the
    conflict. For Armenia this would mean the end of its regional isolation
    and the opening of its border with Turkey. The plan also grants
    Nagorno-Karabakh with an internationally recognized interim status.

    "NT": As for the proposals of your organization about the Nagorno
    Karabakh conflict, they are criticized by Armenian politicians for
    several reasons:

    First: The proposal to hold another referendum in Nagorno Karabakh
    whereas a referendum meeting all democracy standards was held there
    in 1991.

    S.F: A referendum on statehood is not worth much -- even if it meets
    democratic standards -- if its not internationally recognized. For
    the past 15 years no state has recognized the 1991 referendum. The
    internationally community is not going to recognize the referendum
    now. Instead if Nagorno-Karabakh wants to receive international
    recognition, and be accepted as an equal amongst other states, it must
    hold a referendum, which meets international standards and is observed
    by international organizations, first and foremost by the OSCE.

    "NT": Second: Many in Armenia express concern that withdrawal from the
    territories around the former NKAO may disrupt the existing balance
    (I do not speak about those who prefer to use the term "liberated"
    rather than "occupied" for these territories).

    S.F.: The Armenian side has a stark choice -- to withdraw from the
    occupied territories around Nagorno-Karabakh or to remain stationed
    on land, which does not belong to it. If it chooses the latter,
    Azerbaijan is much more likely to resort to the use of military force
    to try to retake control of its land.

    Should that happen the international community is unlikely to react
    very strongly as UN Security Council Resolutions urge the withdrawal of
    occupied territories. Today control of the land is NK's only security
    guarantee. We are proposing that it replaces this guarantee with
    much stronger ones: a renunciation of the threat of the use of force
    to settle disputes by Azerbaijan, the deployment of international
    peacekeeping troops, and the creation of a joint commission including
    Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh to address security problems. According
    to this formula Azerbaijan will be more much constrained and will
    have little ability to strike Nagorno-Karabakh. If it does choose to
    do so it will become an international pariah state.

    "NT": Third: Peacekeeping forces (if any) in the Karabakh region
    may present a threat to Iran, hence, Teheran will oppose their
    installation.

    S.F: If the sides -- including the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries
    -- agree to the deployment of international peacekeepers I don't think
    that Iran will have much political weight to oppose them. Of course it
    will be important to talk to Iran to explain to them the mission and
    mandate of any peacekeepers. But I do not think that Iran's political
    concerns should override a compromise decision made by Russia, the US,
    the EU, the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides, to deploy peacekeepers.

    "NT": According to your proposals, an intermediate status for
    Nagorno Karabakh is to be established before is the final status is
    defined. What elements this status can involve?

    S.F.: An interim status for NK would provide NK with an internationally
    recognized status -- not as a state but as an interim entity. It
    would be allowed to hold elections, which would be internationally
    supervised. Based on this elected officials would be recognized
    as representing the people of NK. Other interim measures could be
    envisioned such as the granting of the right to have representatives
    in international organizations, the right to trade, to issue travel
    documents, receive international assistance etc...

    After NK obtains interim status it should also accept the return
    of displaced Azeris who should have the right to participate in all
    elements of political, economic, social and cultural life.

    "NT": This question may look naive, but can you indicate a most
    important factor hindering the progress in the settlement of the
    Karabakh conflict?

    S.F.: Distrust -- between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and
    the people of the two countries. Once there is confidence and trust, as
    I believe there is between the Foreign Ministers of the two countries,
    it is much easier to come to a compromise. The other lacking factor
    is absence of understanding for the need to accept compromises. The
    sides maintain a maximalist approach. They rather demand all but get
    no deal, then demand a bit less but come to an agreement.

    "NT": What future actions can your organization undertake in the
    observable future concerning the Nagorno Karabakh conflict?

    S.F.: We will continue monitoring and reporting on Nagorno-Karabakh. I
    personally will be travelling to Washington DC and New York in
    the coming months to meet with decision-makers and make public
    presentations on Nagorno-Karabakh.

    "NT": Is the ICG involved in the settlement efforts of other conflicts
    in the South Caucasus?

    S.F.: Yes, we are also working closely on the South Ossetian and
    Abkhaz conflicts.
Working...
X