Interview with Azerbaijani MP, political expert Mubariz Gurbanli.
Q: Paris has unofficially announced that Jacques Faure will be appointed a new French co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. Do personalities of co-chairs play any role in terms of reaching progress in negotiating process on Karabakh conflict?
A: The replacement of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs can not play a decisive role in resolving the problem since the countries co-chairing the Minsk Group play mediation role in negotiations within the OSCE mandate, and diplomats working in this group act in compliance with the instructions received from their countries and also in compliance with the schedule set by the OSCE Chairman-in-Office.
Of course, the experience of the diplomat, a good knowledge of region's problems can have a positive impact the negotiating process.
But, in general, it is important that OSCE recognized Armenia as an aggressor. However, the countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group have not demonstrated a similar position. In other words, OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs- the U.S., France and Russia deal with the Karabakh conflict on the basis of their interests.
Therefore, I believe that replacement of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs will not have a serious impact on negotiating process on the Karabakh conflict settlement. It is possible that appointment of new diplomats as co-chair of OSCE Minsk Group can give a certain impetus to negotiations and intensify shuttle diplomacy. But overall, I do not predict replacement of co-chairs will have an impact on the negotiating process.
Q: To what extent Azerbaijan’s election as non-permanent member of the UN Security Council reflects the policies pursued by the country in past years?
A: Certainly, offensive diplomacy pursued by the President of Azerbaijan yields fruits. If we look at the anatomy of the foreign policy pursued by Azerbaijan, it becomes clear that country's election as non-permanent member of UN Security Council is an outcome of this offensive diplomacy. The fact that 155 countries voted for Azerbaijan is a success of Azerbaijan’s diplomacy.
This became possible due to offensive diplomacy pursued by Azerbaijan in relation to Armenia and this is an obvious indicator of a change in balance of power in international arena in favor of Baku. Of course, Azerbaijan’s status of a non-permanent member of UN Security Council offers superiority for the country.
Q: Would it be appropriate for Azerbaijan to raise the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh with the UN as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council?
A: Azerbaijan, as a nonpermanent member of UN Security Council, can not include the issues that are directly related to the Karabakh problem to the UN agenda. This can be done by other countries. But Azerbaijan’s status as a non-permanent member of UN Security Council will give Baku an opportunity to use UN platform to expose Armenia aggressive policies.
Q: The parties to the Karabakh conflict have stressed the need to change format of OSCE Minsk Group lately. How appropriate it would be to change format of the mediators at a current stage?
A: The OSCE has become similar to a swamp. Processes related to the Karabakh conflict settlement create a swamp syndrome in the OSCE. In this regard, there may be attempts to remove the Karabakh process from the OSCE mandate.
As you know, UN Security Council is an authoritative organization across the world dealing with peace issues. Only decisions made by this structure are binding. Other international organizations issue only declarative statements.
The reality is that all three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are permanent members of UN Security Council. Therefore, one should not expect that replacement of a veto-wielding UN Security Council member in the OSCE by a secondary state will expedite the peace process. In this case, there is only one way out of the situation prevailing around the Karabakh conflict settlement. This is taking Karabakh issue back to the UN Security Council.
This organization, in turn, must adopt the next - fifth resolution in compliance with the four UN Security Council resolutions adopted previously, and the UN Secretary-General, on his part, must appoint a special envoy on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
Direct subordination of UN Secretary-General special envoy on the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict to the Security Council of this international organization and to its General Assembly would help increase diplomatic pressure on the aggressor. Otherwise, a change in format of OSCE Minsk Group will not signify the changing situation in terms of geopolitical interests. On the contrary, arrival of the new influential countries to the OSCE Minsk Group will lead to further confrontation of interests of states in the region.
Let me remind you that the UN Secretary-General undertook mediating mission in the Iran-Iraq war. Therefore, given complexity of the situation a well-known diplomat can be appointed as a UN Secretary General envoy on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. In short, one can cause more severe diplomatic blows to Armenia by appointing a UN special envoy on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and bringing Karabakh issue for discussions in the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly.
Azerbaijan has already reached a diplomatic success in the UN General Assembly. As we know, General Assembly has already adopted decisions on the Karabakh conflict. During the discussions held in the UN, the Armenian side ended up in a deadlock while the Azerbaijani diplomacy succeeded. Therefore, I believe that appointment of UN Secretary-General special envoy on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict can become one of the ways out of the current situation around Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
