Interview with Zahid Oruj of the Azerbaijani parliament's defence and security committee and deputy head of the Motherland (Ana Vatan) Party.
Q: What do you think is behind the Armenian National Security Council's recent adoption of the State Program for the Development of Military Hardware in 2011-2015?
A: The state program adopted by the Armenian National Security Council does not reflect the real picture and the country's military potential. It is undeniable that Armenia is to a certain extent trying to create the impression of its ability to "protect" itself and Nagorno-Karabakh. But all the same, international experts have already come to the conclusion that it is impossible to compare the potential of Azerbaijan and Armenia, since Azerbaijan's mobilization potential in terms of economic, human, technical and military resources is higher than Armenia's. If the two countries were to clash militarily, Azerbaijan could repeatedly defeat Armenia, as long as the latter did not have foreign support.
Q: What can Armenia count on for its arms program?
A: Armenia’s policy on armaments was in the past based mostly on cooperation with Russia. Although there is cooperation with other countries, Russian hardware constitutes the main supplies to Armenia. For example, Armenia was reported to have purchased arms from Serbia, China and, in separate instances, from a number of Eastern European countries. However, Armenia, as a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, received most of its arms from Russia and sometimes from Belarus. Armenia has managed to place some of the hardware received and purchased in Nagorno-Karabakh. Quotas for conventional weapons for the countries of the region were set at the OSCE summit in Istanbul in 1999. The Azerbaijani side stated in this connection that Armenia placed some of its hardware in the occupied lands in order to conceal that it was exceeding quotas. Azerbaijan demanded that a special mission be sent to the occupied areas. Meanwhile, Armenia’s efforts to increase its military capacity are a fact. Armenia is obliged to take into account Azerbaijan’s increasing of its military capacity. Azerbaijan buys modern types of arms and Armenia hysterically announces in every international meeting that Azerbaijan is rearming. The best way to prevent this is to liberate the occupied lands. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is forced to buy hardware in order to ensure its security.
Q: Is Azerbaijan conducting the right arms policy?
A: Azerbaijan’s policy on building the army over recent years can be divided into several components: first, to increase the number of foreign partners in the military sphere; second, to increase the economic strength of the country; third, to cooperate closely with the military and political leadership of Turkey; fourth, to ensure security in the Caspian Sea; fifth, to purchase hardware to modernize the army and to create its own defence industry; and sixth is non-participation in any military bloc. In this case, it is no less important that Azerbaijan is not represented in either the CSTO or NATO, since Azerbaijan is not a member of the pro-Russian bloc, but at the same time our country cannot be described as an opponent of NATO. Azerbaijan far outstrips Armenia on all these points. In addition, the scandals inside the Armenian army, conflicts between soldiers and officers show the presence of very serious problems in the military there. It is no coincidence that the Armenian president is reported to have asked the Russian president to help to improve the situation in the Armenian army and to improve the social conditions of servicemen. This means the policy conducted by Azerbaijan is right and has created all the conditions for victory in the event of war.
Q: Does this mean that Armenia would not benefit from a new war?
A: In the past Armenia has managed to act to avoid a military solution to the conflict. In particular, Armenia, as a CSTO member, uses this organization as an umbrella. In addition, Armenia is striving to internationalize the upcoming war. This is clear. For example, Armenia creates the opinion that Turkey and Georgia will support Azerbaijan in the event of a new war.
Q: How realistic is a new war if Armenia recognizes the independence of separatist Karabakh?
A: Armenia’s steps in the legal field are mostly aimed at putting pressure on Azerbaijan. Relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia are at a level when the absence or presence of such a document will not change anything. Does the military junta in Karabakh take independent decisions, or are the financial and other resources raised from the Armenian diaspora and international structures used to establish civil society and the development of democracy in Karabakh? Is it realistic to create a state in the Caucasus over an area of 4,138,000 square metres which does not have access to the sea or onshore borders with other countries except Azerbaijan? Even if we suggest theoretically that Karabakh is granted "independence", this entity will have to maintain ties with the external world via the Lachin corridor, i.e. again via Azerbaijan.
When in 1991 Armenia declared state independence, its constitution prohibited it from taking positions contrary to the independence of Karabakh. Has the constitutional norm adopted by Armenia paved the way for the recognition of Karabakh’s "independence" by the world community? On the contrary, it is against Armenia. I think recognition of the "independence" of Karabakh will not cause any changes in the situation. Moreover, Armenia’s threat that in the event of military action it will recognize Karabakh's "independence" cannot change Azerbaijan’s intention to liberate the occupied lands, since in the event of a new war, Azerbaijan will restore its territorial integrity and the recognition of "independence" will lose all meaning.
W.W.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
