Interview with Russian political scientist Alexander Karavayev, head of the political forecasting service at the Centre for Post-Soviet Studies.
Q: What do you expect from the meeting of Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan in Sochi, considering that the Armenian foreign minister has said that progress in the conflict resolution is highly unlikely in 2010?
A: No forecasts are possible in such conflicts. We can only state the available facts and observe the public scene, which allows us to draw some conclusions about the process. What is obvious is the high speed of events in January. It is logical to expect a result from so many meetings - Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Moscow, the parallel visit of the Russian foreign minister to Armenia, the meeting between the defence ministers of Armenia and Russia and now the latest trilateral meeting between Medvedev, Aliyev and Sargsyan. The meetings must have substance and not be just for show. This meeting is happening at a time when the presidents are not under threat of losing their reputation at home.
Most people concerned in Armenia and Azerbaijan do not expect much from the negotiations while their presidents are taking part only to uphold the principles of diplomacy and as part of the Minsk Group negotiation format. The only thing that allows us to judge about the real content is an emerging new initiative, such as the Turkish proposals to Armenia. Russia is clearly active in this.
Q: We should not forget that the main source of “news” in this conflict is Armenia.
A: Liberation of part of the occupied land, which is spoken of as the main theme of the negotiations, cannot occur after the two telephone conversations between the Armenian president and Karabakh, and the Defence Ministry. Most agencies, including Armenian ministries and the local Karabakh administration, will be involved, but there are no signs of any preparation for this eventuality by Armenian officials. However, it is clear from local sources that complicated processes are under way within the Armenian elite. It is unclear whether they will find a consensus at this stage, even one imposed by external circumstances. It is likelier that there will be no radical changes at this stage of negotiations.
Q: Russian Prime Minister Putin said at a news conference with his Turkish counterpart on 13 January that the Karabakh conflict and Armenian-Turkish relations are not interconnected and it is wrong to bind them together. Meanwhile, Baku and Ankara have the opposite opinion. Do you think the settlement of these two problems is possible in parallel or will each of them have to be settled separately?
A: This issue should be treated as political scholasticism caused by the need for compromise. A different understanding of the compatibility of the two processes could be seen at the earlier stage of public discussions which reflected the difference between the outlooks on Armenian-Turkish rapprochement at the highest level in Ankara and Yerevan. Ankara may have raised the issue of the occupied land from the very beginning and the formula to view them as two independent but synchronous processes emerged as a compromise. The problem of public interpretation has arisen here. The interdependence is quite natural and logical for Baku and Ankara, while it is radical and forced for Yerevan. Putin’s statements contain the intention to balance the Azerbaijani-Turkish vision for Armenia which is important for Russia’s influence in Armenia. He is right in the sense that the current Armenian-Turkish interaction, against the background of the whole history of their relations, is only partially associated with the post-Soviet Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. There is the problem of dialogue on issues of history and their ideological interpretation. There is the problem of Azerbaijani land and the status of Karabakh. It is clear that these are different issues. But, tactically, the process of the normalization of Turkish-Armenian and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations is compatible at this stage.
Q: Is Moscow’s increased activity on Karabakh an attempt to seize the initiative from the other mediators – the United States and France?
A: France has distanced itself from this issue. The situation has turned in Russia’s favour thanks to Turkey’s activity after the Russian-Georgian conflict in August 2008. By supporting Ankara’s intention to organize a new dialogue in the South Caucasus, Moscow has found quite a pragmatic ally without the complicated Euroatlantic formulas that are often inadmissible for Moscow.
Q: May the United States act to oppose Russia's peacekeeping work or try to subvert Moscow’s growing influence in the South Caucasus?
A: The United States is currently not hampering this process. This complies with the new paradigm of Russian-American relations aimed at reducing antagonism. In fact, Obama’s new foreign policy doctrine relies on the principle of encouraging any positive achievements in regional conflicts.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
