Interview with Sahib Aliyev, member of the Azerbaijani Parliament, the Milli Majlis, political expert.
Q: Are the claims that the initiative to make new proposals and organize meetings between Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents has rotated from Russia to France as OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries?
A: I believe that a country which can exert greatest pressure on Armenia and has more control over this state should be the broker among the co-chairs of the Minsk Group. It is clear that only Russia possesses these qualities. Russia is the only country which has a military base in Armenia, the borders of which are also protected by Russian soldiers.
At the same time, I want to note that if countries act as brokers just to show that the talks are under way, it does not matter which country undertakes this function. In this case of this approach, any country, even Zimbabwe, can act as a broker. But from the viewpoint of progress in negotiating process and a sincere willingness to achieve peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Russia takes a more advantageous stance in comparison with other OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.
As to rotation of a function of a broker from Russia to France, this is happening not for the first time. There is a rotation of a role of broker among OSCE Minsk Group countries from time to time. We can see that France has this role at the moment.
Azerbaijan has not forgotten the outcomes of French mediation. Azerbaijan has not forgotten that at a Rambouillet meeting with Azerbaijani President brokered by France then Armenian President Robert Kocharian repeatedly consulted with Russia on the phone and ran off from negotiations.
This shows that constructive conduct of the Armenian side, in the first place, is dependent on Russia. Progress in the Karabakh settlement can be achieved if only Russia really wants it.
Q: Can the West impact Russia's stance on Karabakh conflict resolution at current stage?
A: If the U.S. and EU demonstrate a unified and principled stance on some issue, Russia will have to agree with their approach to the problem. At least, we witnessed this in case of processes in the Middle East. In the meantime, achieving breakthrough in the Karabakh conflict resolution via Russian mediation would be the best option both for Russia and countries in the region.
I don’t say that Russian mediation is able to settle the conflict fully. But Russian pressure can make Armenia to pull its troops out of some occupied districts of Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, Russia missed this chance in recent years.
Q: French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the five-day Russo-Georgian war in August 2008 played a role in reducing tension between the two countries. Given this, does Sarkozy have enough political weight to bring positive elements to negotiating process on the Karabakh conflict?
A: The situation in August 2008 differs from the situation around Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement. I do not think Sarkozy was able to accomplish the mission entrusted to him. Also, I do not believe that the agreement brokered by Sarkozy has been implemented. On the contrary, after this Russia recognized "independence" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Some articles of the same agreement still remain unfulfilled. However, I note that France is one of the leading countries in Europe, and of course, Sarkozy is a respected politician who has sufficient political rating. But real willingness of all three OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries can impact the conflict resolution. I don’t believe that any country including France led by its President Sarkozy can resolve Karabakh conflict except for Russia. Nevertheless, the unified stance of the U.S. and EU can contribute to the conflict settlement.
Q: To what degree is an informal brokerage in the institute of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmanship appropriate in terms of benefiting the process of settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
A: It should be noted that there is an opinion in public and community of experts that OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries aim not to solve the problem, but maintain a status quo in the conflict and broker a solution in turns to prevent a war. In other words, the talks are held just for the sake of talks. Naturally, such a state of affairs causes discontent in Azerbaijan.
Co-chairing countries are required only to change their approach to the problem, namely, to reject a balanced approach to the conflicting parties to change this situation as the parties to the conflict are not in an equal situation. One of the sides was subjected to aggression while the other - had occupied the land. In other words, a single principle is applied both towards the aggressor and party that suffers from aggression despite this is unprincipled in reality.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
