Interview with Dr.Yevgeny Volk, Deputy Director, The Yeltsin Foundation (Moscow).
Q: Is it possible to consider the recent tourney of US Secretary of State Clinton over the post-Soviet area the proof of US intention not to give away its positions in this region?
A: Whatever is said, under Obama’s administration the United States has reduced its attention to the post-Soviet area and even rejected most of its plans that existed under Bush’s administration. Primarily, I mean the accelerated expansion of NATO through inclusion of a number of former USSR states. In this respect, I think the events in Georgia have had a serious impact on US policy. Very serious conclusions were made in this respect. And in the light of that comprehensive threat created for the United States in the southern perimeter (certainly, this is primarily Afghanistan with the continued instability there, Iran with its nuclear program and, finally, Iran which still creates a problem for America). The United States has decided to get Moscow’s support in exchange for the disavowal of its quite ambitious plans in the post-Soviety area.
You see, the plans of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s NATO membership were put off and this issue has almost been removed from the agenda. In this context, I would view Clinton’s visit the preserved attention of the United States to this region rather than the US reduced activeness in this area. Nevertheless, Clinton’s visit has not demonstrated any practical results. That is, no real progress has been reached in this respect both from the viewpoint of the US agenda of foreign policy tactical direction in this region and the interests of these countries of the region.
Q: Meanwhile, during the visit to Baku and Yerevan, the secretary of state said the United States is not satisfied with the status quo in the Karabakh conflict settlement in connection with which Washington will strengthen its mediation…
A: Certainly, such declarations are very good and it is correct. But frankly speaking I do not see the real tools that the United States has for this solution in conditions when the US influence in the post-Soviet area has weakened and the levers of pressure on Baku, Yerevan and Moscow are far weaker than they were several years ago.
It is possible to say that such strong US ally in the region as Turkey has recently demonstrated a greater independence of the United States. In the main, Ankara’s positions go contrary to the US vision of the situation in the region and in Middle East. Therefore, I think Washington does not have such levers to accelerate the Karabakh conflict settlement.
Q: And what about Moscow?
A: I think Moscow has more levers. Here we can recall Medvedev’s meetings with both Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan. This shows that Moscow can be even more active and shows a great interest to this problem. But again there are so many unsettled problems on the bilateral basis, I mean Azerbaijan and Armenia, that today even such foreign influential powers cannot promote this great layer of differences from the spot.
Q: Can Moscow’s possible resentment over the growing competition with Azerbaijan for energy markets of other countries, including Turkey, Belarus and others play a role here?
A: There are always annoying factors but the Russian position, I think, is that Moscow finds it important to strengthen its influence in Central, Eastern and Western Europe. The importance of Belarus in these positions is, certainly, maximally high, since this is a direction of transit. There is an opinion that Russia’s foreign policy is a foreign policy of Gazprom. One can agree or disagree on this, but to certain extent it is backed by real things. On the whole, it should be taken into account that in some spheres Azerbaijan is Russia’s partner and in some spheres their interests are differing which, I think, is the objective reality of today.
Q: And at last, we would like to hear your opinion regarding the meetings of the Azerbaijani and Armenian FMs in Almaty. Can it promote the process considering the statements of the United States, Russia and Kazakhstan about the intention to assist the solution?
A: I won’t exaggerate the importance of all these formal moments. Certainly, the process is moving forth. Naturally, it involves most powers which does not mean, however, that external factors in these events may reach any breakthrough in the problem which has deep historical roots, a serious political motivation, related to current realities and the balance of powers in the South Caucasus, as well as in Middle East and the world.
Certainly, such meetings are important in terms of clarification of positions and possible rapprochement. But I won’t exaggerate their important in terms of reaching any final result. It is quite obvious that the Karabakh conflict settlement is an extremely complicated, lasting process like any resolution is. You know that the process of Middle Eastern settlement has been lasting for decades, there are some achievements and some regress, though the participation of USSR, and now Russia in the Middle Eastern conflict settlement also took place along with Americans.
Here, most depends directly on the real situation on the line of contacts between Yerevan and Baku. I think here no serious breakthrough is expected despite mediation efforts of Moscow, Washington, Astana and so on.
U.U.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
