News.Az interviews Richard Giragosian, director of the Armenian Centre for National and International Studies.
The Turkish side constantly links the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border with the normalization of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. This was also confirmed during the Erdogan-Obama meeting. Will Armenia’s position change after the Turkish prime minister’s remarks in the White House?
The Armenian position on the course of its diplomacy with Turkey remains unchanged. The Armenian government is committed to the terms outlined in the two diplomatic protocols that were signed between Armenia and Turkey on 10 October. There was no reference to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the protocols in any way and, at this stage, it is not acceptable for any side to try to
In this way, Turkey’s engagement of Armenia, with no formal requirement for any concession over Karabakh, reflects a Turkish attempt to correct what has become a failed policy. And during the recent White House meeting, this is why the American position is to remind Turkey that there cannot be any preconditions at this stage and the US is demanding that Turkey fulfil the protocols “within a reasonable timeframe”. But as recently as 8 December, Armenian parliamentarian Naira Zohrabyan said that Armenia would wait until March 2010 for Turkey to move on the protocols, but warned that “if, by that time, Turkey remains uncertain about ratifying the protocols, Armenia will undertake relevant steps.” Thus, the real test is coming early next year, and by March 2010, the final outcome will become apparent for all sides. Yet this is a chance that Turkey may lose, and if it fails to adopt the protocols, Turkey will be in danger of being seen as an unreliable and insincere partner. That danger will only be bolstered by the shared expectations of the Americans, Europeans and even the Russians, who on this issue, are all in agreement and seek a deal between Armenia and Turkey.
What do you think of the more frequent visits to the region of the
Clearly, the OSCE Minsk Group has accelerated its diplomatic mediation and is seeking to leverage the new momentum from Armenian-Turkish diplomacy. Yet although the Minsk Group has now reactivated and reinvigorated its efforts, any real breakthrough on Karabakh seems unlikely, especially as the two sides are simply too far apart. In addition, the Armenian-Turkish issue actually makes any concession on Karabakh even more difficult, especially for the Armenian side, which would be politically vulnerable if it attempted to deliver any real concession on Karabakh too soon after the risky diplomatic engagement with Turkey.
You have described Edward Nalbandian as the worst foreign minister in the history of Armenia. Do you think Armenia’s current situation is the result of his policy?
The performance of Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian should be rated according to the structural dynamics of Armenian foreign policy, which now are firmly controlled and led by the Armenian president. Although Foreign Minister Nalbandian has not demonstrated any real success, he is “hostage to the system” and seems powerless to institute any real initiative in Armenian foreign policy. But the real issue, in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, is that the institutions and not simply the individuals that are most important for the formulation of responsible and modern foreign policy are not functioning well.
Having said that, Armenia’s unresolved domestic problems, including a lack of legitimacy and deficiencies in democratic reform, pose serious obstacles and suggest that without deeper democracy in Armenia, there can be no real expectations for any resolution to the Karabakh conflict in the near term. But Azerbaijan is equally weakened by its own lack of legitimacy and absence of democracy, in addition to Baku’s rather unrealistic maximal demands on Karabakh, which, at least in my opinion, cannot be expected to be returned to Azerbaijani control.
The OSCE foreign ministers welcomed the positive dynamic in the Karabakh peace process after the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Minsk Group foreign ministers met in Athens. What do you think caused the positive dynamic at this particular juncture?
Again, the OSCE seeks to leverage the momentum in Armenian-Turkish diplomacy, but also seeks to work with Russia in pressuring all sides to make some sort of breakthrough. But a central obstacle remains the absence of any negotiators from Nagorno-Karabakh itself, which is also a fundamental problem.
What do you think is the solution to the 20-year-old conflict?
The real key to resolving the Karabakh conflict may be something that has not been addressed or emphasized enough — the need for true democracy in Armenia and Azerbaijan prior to any real peace deal over Karabakh. Perhaps the Karabakh conflict should remain “frozen” and efforts should focus on building durable and deeper democracy in the states themselves first; only then perhaps can a true peace deal be reached. For this reason, the Karabakh situation seems likely to remain locked in the same status for the next five to ten years, despite the best efforts of the OSCE mediators. But at the same time, although Azerbaijani officials may not like to recognize the reality of the situation, it is impossible and destabilizing for Karabakh realistically to ever be returned to Azerbaijan. Any forcible attempt to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan may actually trigger the war that Azerbaijani leaders have been threatening for so long.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
