Interview with political scientist Vitaliy Zhuravlev, an expert at the Institute of the Russian Diaspora.
Q: Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said at at a CIS conference in Dushanbe recently that the people of Karabakh had earned their right to independence. What prompted this statement? It should be noted that the Azerbaijani president was not at the conference.
A: In principle, alongside the development of relations with the Armenian diaspora, the so-called "independence" of Nagorno-Karabakh serves as a basis for Armenia's foreign policy which is laid down in the following formula: Armenia, Karabakh and the Diaspora. So, I see nothing new in the position of the Armenian president. It is another matter that they usually try to avoid statements that could complicate a multilateral meeting, for example, at the CIS summit. In this case, Serzh Sargsyan seized the opportunity to express his point of view as Ilham Aliyev was not present in Dushanbe. I don't think any far-reaching conclusions should be drawn from this with regard to the CIS or Russia's position on Nagorno-Karabakh.
Q: There has been little movement in talks on the Karabakh conflict for some time. Is there a sense that the mediators are preparing something or just that the main negotiators have nothing to offer?
A: Actually, contacts do take place. The Azerbaijani and Russian presidents met in Sochi on 9 August. Earlier, a trilateral meeting on the Karabakh conflict resolution took place in Kazan. Russia and Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia are known to be developing bilateral relations in the economy, culture and other areas. However, as to rapprochement of the positions of Armenia and Azerbaijan on a resolution of the Karabakh conflict, there is no progress here. The narrow corridor for compromise by the parties makes itself felt here. This, of course, complicates the task of the mediators: how to feed the wolves and keep the sheep safe. There are no creative ideas either. Therefore, the format of talks is more for show. But the work will still go on, some suggestions will emerge, meetings will be held...
Q: How long can the break in the negotiations last? How may it end?
A: Meetings will apparently be held more or less regularly, at least in order to keep abreast of developments.
Another issue is that summits should logically end in the signing of important documents. They should be discussed in advance and developed at the level of the foreign ministries and experts.
This practice is not enough yet. There may also be force majeure circumstances, related to aggravation of the conflict or the general situation in the region. In this case, contacts will be more intense and meaningful.
Q: Can the internal socio-economic situation in Armenia influence resolution of the Karabakh conflict? That is, will the Armenian people, tired of poor living conditions, finally realize that their real salvation lies in the opening of borders through the establishment of diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey?
A: Of course, the people and economy of Armenia would benefit from the opening of borders, since the economic blockade, particularly in terms of transport, is detrimental to the socio-economic development of Armenia. But the principled position of the Armenian leadership is not to bind ratification of the relevant protocols to the issue of recognition of the so-called “genocide” of Armenians of 1915 and especially with determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Although, in my opinion, the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border is not so unrealistic a scenario. It all depends on the specific political situation and the interests of regional actors, such as the US, Russia, the EU and Turkey itself.
Q: Armenia does not hide its joy at the deterioration in relations between Turkey and Israel, believing that Israel will now completely turn away from Turkey on the issue of the "genocide" and on the Karabakh issue from Azerbaijan. Israel is known to have serious weight in world politics. Is it possible?
A: This is an interesting and important issue. It all depends on how severe this aggravation is and how it will end. If it is only a cooling of relations, perhaps, Armenia and Israel will find more points for interaction against this background. But if it is a serious conflict that could escalate into large-scale military action, what may this lead to? To Armenia, as an ally, waging war with Turkey, while Israel may be willing to use nuclear weapons against Turkey and those Arab states that also intervene in the conflict? And what next? So, the worsening situation in the Middle East, including between Turkey and Israel, is actually quite alarming.
Hamid Hamidov (Moscow, Russia)
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
