HistoryofTruth.com - Armenian Allegations

Q: How do you estimate the current situation on security in the South Caucasus? Which threats do you see here?

A: First of all, I appreciate your interview request. "Green" and unbiased future to your news service! 

Coming to your question, there are several security threats in South Caucasus. The more challenging thing is that the insecurity is not only in the agenda for politicians, for obvious political manipulations, but also in people's minds. The best and obvious fact – the recent TV program aired in Georgia and subsequent reaction of people. This is to show that the insecurity is a comprehensive challenge for the region. For those, who do not want to see new wars and bloody clashes, the basic "hope" is upon those great powers and TNCs involved in the region. You know, that the common saying is "They will not let us to slip into war". The August War of 2008 showed how easily wars are done in our explosive region.  

Now, for the good for all, to settle all disputes in the region, this, of course, will not happen in the near future. Blame it on the often contradicting interests of regional states, as well as great power rivalry that no one has ever cancelled after the end of Cold War. But the happy news is that all those great powers have at least one consensus developed since summer 2008: Armenian-Turkish border should be opened. Of course, each of them – United States, Russia, EU – has different plans for that in aftermath, but still all of them jointly advocate for border opening. And perhaps, today we should acknowledge that this is totally capable to soften the solution of other issues in the agenda in the perspective. At one point in January this year, regrettably, Azerbaijan and Turkey remained in a "brilliant isolation" with their developing denialitic approach to this particular issue. 

Well, as far as everyone now perfectly understands where and what are the security risks, it's better to concentrate upon solutions, not the problems. A great solution could be to develop Turkish-Russian initiative of the security platform, to create a forum for empathic discussion of all available issues that are at stake now. Though this is not a new idea for South Caucasus – still in late 1990's former presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan – Robert Kocharian and Heydar Aliyev, agreed with Russians to create the security pact, but that was not realized because of the known reservations made by Georgian leadership, which did not trust Russians even back then. An organization, that I am proud to be affiliated with in Armenia, developed a concept on this, and so it's quite a realistic thing to elaborate more. Perhaps, the security platform/pact (or whatever the name) proposal will be discussed in a wider range in upcoming OSCE Summit this year (the idea being pushed by Kazakhstan very actively).

More on solutions. I believe the recent initiative coming from Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan should be developed, too. But again, regretfully, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry rejected it almost immediately. 

Q: How real is opinion that Nagorno-Karabakh conflict may be resolved till the end of this year? And what does it depends on?

A: I would not be that optimistic, even though I am an optimist in Armenian-Turkish rapprochement issue. We all have been hearing such prognosis since the ceasefire managed in 1994. The conflict is too complicated to be settled in one year, as you mentioned the timeframe. Moreover, the leaderships of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh should prepare their own populations for peace, if they really negotiate it now. But they fail to do this obviously.

Considering the military rhetoric from Baku, and it is very important to realize now, Armenian authorities are being exhausted its internal resources to a peaceful settlement either. After president Sargsyan suggested the treaty on non-use of force (while negotiations are there), and its subsequent refusal, all this staff do not contribute to peace at all. I mean, all these developments can invoke the hard-liners in Yerevan and Stepanakert (Khankendi – in Azerbaijani) to jump out from the process for itself, giving the floor for direct negotiations to the leadership of Nagorno Karabakh. I know, this sounds utmost unrealistic and even strange to say this now, since sides officially announced to be agreed on so-called Madrid principles… But still, I can remind you about a dozen of principles that has been negotiated so far, and nothing became real….

Q: Recently the Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan stated that his country had begun intermediary mission in settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Do you believe in success of this mission?

A: I do not have that statement at hand, haven’t heard it, so I cannot comment on this comprehensively. But, please, keep in mind the first Iranian experience back in 90s. And now the entire environment around Iran getting tougher, it will be even more difficult to become a successful mediator. Although, I suppose, we should acknowledge the balanced stance of Iran in the conflict, which contributes to the peace so much. 

Instead, I have in mind the statement by the Iranian ambassador to Yerevan, where he mentioned about having direct borders with Nagorno Karabakh, and thus being worried about the path that the current negotiations lead. This is also a point to keep in mind.

Q: How could you characterize the situation on normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations?

A: The common language of all insiders argues that we are in an impasse. No doubt, the recent remarks by Turkish PM R.T. Erdogan to BBC had a shocking effect to all those involved in the talks. 
Recently I have been thinking that the "zero problems with neighbors" policy, coined by FM Davudoglu, now turning into “zero-sum policy” instead. Just pay attention to the developments with Kurdish opening, Cyprus issue and the protocols…. 

All in all, I see 3 very different go-ahead strategies looming over the process. First one is ratification and the follow-up as subscribed in the protocols – becoming extremely unlikely. The alternative of this is a small-scale political-military clash in Nagorno Karabakh, an extremely unwanted either for regional stability or for major players in region. Perhaps the smell of the war in the air pushed president Sargsyan to appeal to Azerbaijani leadership for signing a "an agreement not to use force", which was immediately rejected by a foreign ministry official Elhan Poluhov in Baku. 

While the sides now evidently failing to accomplish what had been agreed and signed in Win/Win documents, the third way, which sounds more likely at the moment, is to establish diplomatic relations beyond the protocols and by April 24, institutionalizing the discussion between states, and leaving aside the active international mediation. By the way, this was also the suggestion of FM Davudoglu in a recent statement made in Sofia, Bulgaria. Thus, Turkey could silence the criticism of the international community, and Armenian president will ensure the support of his fellow allies domestically. 

In the end, the reasons why Armenia and Turkey publicized the negotiations and are now engaged in public debates – are still valid. Turkey wants “zero problems”, regional weight and European image. For Armenia, ironically, Turkey is a best way towards Europe.  

Q: Armenia says about normalization of relations with Turkey and at the same time it doesn't refuse from the attempts to get recognition of genocide in 1915. Don't you see contradiction in this issue?

A: I suppose this question has been answered by numerous other interviewees and I cannot invent anything new to satisfy your needs. Just get through the archives and you will get the answer. 
In short, there is no contradiction there, since no one in Armenia, even the ultra-nationalists, accuses Republic of Turkey for the genocide, but they see it being happened at the hand Ottoman Turkey and particularly by the gang of Unionist government (Ittihatçılar, in Turkish). Under this, the recent statement by PM Erdogan played on wrong grounds, invoking the opposite effect all over the world, perhaps even damaging the "denialist" policy of modern Turkey.

Q: Do you expect that president Obama will call the event of 1915 in Ottoman Turkey as genocide against Armenian people in his speech on April 24?

A: Nowadays some analysts tend to forget last Obama's presidential statement on April 24, where he did utter the G-word in his message, and perhaps he did it in a better way, introducing the new label of “Meds Yeghern” – which is the common definition of 1915 in Armenian. And note, that nothing extraordinary happened, nothing changed in American policy. These G-word expectations now have become an extremely technical thing, which does not worth to comment. Just note, that even those on March 4 that voted "nay" in US House Committee – did not deny the genocide happened, they just reasonably pointed at the specific timing of such a measure to undertake.

News.Az