Interview with Dmitry Gorenburg, Harvard University, Executive Director American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS).
Q: How do you assess the current situation in the South Caucasus, in particular, in the conflict area through the prism of US and Russian interests? Do you think these two countries benefit from the current status of the unsettled conflict around Nagorno Karabakh and it will not be settled for long? If yes, why do they benefit from such a state?
A: The reverberations of the 2008 war between Georgia and Russia are still being felt in the region. The unsettled conflict in Karabakh benefits Russia to some extent but is harmful for US interests. US efforts to partially resolve regional tensions by focusing on improving Armenian-Turkish relations have backfired because of on one side, resistance in Armenia to de-emphasizing the recognition of the 1915 events as a genocide, and on the other side, Turkish hesitance to open borders while the Karabakh conflict remains unresolved. Thus it seems that despite recent US efforts to resolve regional conflicts in piecemeal fashion, the only real hope for a solution will come from a global solution that includes the Karabakh conflict, the genocide question, and the border in one settlement. While the current state of Russian-US relations is much improved in comparison to 1-2 years ago, there are still some traces of zero-sum thinking on both sides. To the extent that US-Azerbaijani and US-Turkish relations have been damaged by the stalled effort to improve Armenian-Turkish ties, some Russian leaders will see this as a benefit to Russia and will act to being Azerbaijan closer to Russia.
Q: The Azerbaijani government is not satisfied with the US activity within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group. In particular, official Baku considers that in this issue some US circles influenced by the Armenian lobby lose their neutrality and openly support Armenia, especially in the issue of the Turkish-Armenian relations thus influencing Azerbaijan? How do you think why the United States that positions itself as a country advocating high political and democratic values conducts an unconstructive policy supporting the aggressor country? Why is the United States so unjust toward Azerbaijan?
A: This is a politically loaded question. Armenians consider Azerbaijan the aggressor country, so I don't think this sort of language is helpful in working toward a solution of the conflict. I don't think it's a question of justice, though. The United States government has certain interests. As I spelled out above, in the economic and security spheres, these interests are more favorable toward Azerbaijan, because of the importance of Azerbaijan's energy reserves and the strategic importance of the Caspian. At the same time, there is a very politically significant Armenian diaspora community in the US and any democratic government has to take domestic constituencies into account in making policy decisions. For this reason, the US has tried to maintain a balanced posture in the region -- which has at various points in time made both sides unhappy.
Q: What can you say about Washington’s initiative regarding normalization of the Turkish-Armenian interstate relations? How do you assess the recent meetings of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan with the prime minister of Turkey, US president, heads of the Armenian diaspora in the United States? Don’t you think that the “Turkish-Armenian case” has been stalled mixing everything including genocide, Karabakh, Caucasus, border, peace and security, while the conflict around Karabakh and normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations are as parallel as the rails of the same railroad? Don’t you think that the Turkish-Armenian normalization and the resolution of the Karabakh conflict settlement as the same path?
A: See my answer to the first question.
Q: Which party will Russia and US side support in case of hostilities in the area of the Karabakh conflict, in your opinion and how can they support the party in this case?
A: I think recent events have shown that the US is not going to get directly involved in conflicts in the Caucasus. If the US didn't help Georgia, which at the time was trumpeted as one of its closest allies in the world, it certainly will not get too involved in Karabakh. Furthermore, US leaders will be torn between the economic and security interests, which would lead them to support Azerbaijan, and the influence of the Armenian diaspora in the US, which will push them to support Armenia. It seems to me that the likeliest outcome would be that the US would not support either side, but would do everything in its power to bring any military hostilities to a quick conclusion. Russia would be in somewhat the same position. It wants to have good relations with both states, so would want to make sure any hostilities ended quickly.
Q: Can you predict the further script in the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh conflict in terms of the recent events in the region? How long do you think this negotiation process will last?
A: I don't see a quick resolution, and recent events have not increased my hope that one is coming. I don't think I can put a number on it, but we're certainly talking in terms of several years.
B.A
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
