Interview with Ruslan Kharabua, expert of the Caucasus Department of the CIS Institute.
Q: What do you think is the reason of the OSCE summit failure in Astana? Why cannot peace come to an agreement on frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet area, in particular, on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict? It is possible to say that on this issue the OSCE summit showed its obvious failure…
A: You were right to say that the summit in Astana failed and the failure is natural. It seems to me that no one had illusions regarding the OSCE summit in Astana. And the failure of the summit is primarily connected with the positions of the parties which took part in it. The positions are extremely polar on some issues. The absence of the consensus in the case with preparation of a final, just a declarative document, is obviously the indicator, ‘the barometer’, of the state of the international community. At this stage, the world is unable to agree in the issue of frozen conflicts.
Could Russia and Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan coordinate their positions? At this stage, I think they could not. The question ‘why cannot the world agree on frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet area?’ is so wide that it does not seem possible to answer it within the framework of one interview. Anyway, I will try to express my vision in brief. This may seem quite strange that some basic international principles require review, probably corrections and additions and this is primarily related to the principle of territorial integrity and the right of nation for self-determination. We fail to coordinate these principles for some reason. Probably, some time ago the principles of territorial integrity and rights of nations for self-determination, basic principles of international law, along with other principles of international law, supplemented each other and allowed to regulate international relations, however, at that time the world was bipolar and such issues, as ‘frozen conflicts’ were not of a special concern.
Currently, the organization responding for security and stability in Europe, faced very serious problems and whether it wishes or not, It will have to clarify some regulations of the Helsinki agreement of 1974 and bring them in compliance with the current international situation. Today, I think, they have become mutually exclusive principles and they do not allow the world community settle ‘frozen’ conflicts. Probably, this is one of the reasons of the summit failure. Most countries of the organizations, even if they support the principle of territorial integrity, demonstrate the absence of logic in their actions, by recognizing Kosovo and refusing to recognize others. Or by violating the territorial integrity of some states, they are determined in defending this principle in other cases, including Karabakh. The OSCE summit showed its inconsistency not only on the Karabakh issue. Other problems of the same kind are left and unless the agreement is reached in this issue, it will be senseless to discuss the reconciliation issue. In addition, there are other no less important reasons, which do not allow settling the conflicts, and I think this is an issue related to geopolitics. And could the OSCE summit showed its consistency in this and other cases? Hardly and on the other hand, do not forget that there are definite preferences within the organization and in different European countries, most give preference to any side in this case, in any conflicts and on different stages and act considering their own interests and it is difficult to reject this. I have already listed Kosovo’s example. Who will explain why this way and not another? Which part of the mechanism of international law was used and how it was used in this case? There are many issues. How to reach an agreement if the principle of double, triple and other standards is prevailing?
Does the OSCE need it in such a format, if it only serves to confirm or fixing these or those, correct or untrue decisions? Is it not the time of its profound transformation? We should admit that the Russian president was true speaking of ‘reformation and modernization’ of the structure in his report. The summit has demonstrated the deptj of existing differences within the OSCE and could not be successful if all these years the members of the organization have not taken any serious actions on its reorganization. There is already not the system under which the system of European Security emerged and it should be admitted, otherwise, we may face negative implications.
Q: When analyzing the recent OSCE summit, the experts again called this organization ineffective, and having no levers of influence in the world. In fact, they are right. Do you think that today there is an alternative to the OSCE Minsk Group in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict?
A: I think I have already answered this question in part. Indeed, after the recent summit it is difficult to say that the organization has a strong character. A structure, which is lagging far behind the world political processes, including in Europe, cannot have any levers of pressure.
As for the alternative, it always exists. However, the matter is about the parties’ readiness to accept another structure which is ready to offer it service. Today I think the format, proposed in 1994, satisfied everyone, including representatives of de-facto Nagorno Karabakh. Certainly, the parties can voice their resentment with the OSCE Minsk Group, but at the same time, I think they are not ready to refuse its services. Probably, the OSCE Minsk Group exhausted its potential but I doubt that someone new in this situation will be able to do something more. And hardly any international structure will want to deal with the obviously losing affair, if certainly other resources are not included, for example, the mechanism of forcing one or both sides to agreement. And who has such powers? UN. But I have never heard anywhere that UN is eager to get involved in the direct resolution of the conflict. And what is the use of it? However, I think in the nearest future the OSCE Minsk Group which is already criticized by the majority will probably bring some dynamics in the resolution process, otherwise, the issue of reviewing its functions and actions might be raised. Probably, the format of the negotiation process will also be reviewed.
Certainly, the issue of involvement of some neighbor countries ready to join the resolution issue to the settlement, can also be viewed, but I think this plan lacks prospects, the conflict parties themselves are not especially eager to involve the third parties to the negotiations. It is not ruled out that Baku and Yerevan also view such issues, it is not ruled out that they have taken such attempts, buy this does not mean that the opposite party is ready to accept the enemy’s choice.
The question is difficult and it is not as simple to answer it. We will hope that the OSCE Minsk Group will anyway find the key to the problem solution at least in the farther prospective if not soon.
Q: The parliamentary majority of Armenia has rejected voting on the draft law, presented by Heritage opposition faction about recognizing independence of Nagorno Karabakh. Why does official Yerevan fear to recognize Nagorno Karabakh, considering the fact that the armed forces of Armenia support the occupation of Azerbaijani lands?
A: The only explanation to this is the fear of new war. In addition, official Yerevan does not want to have troubles with the international community. Whatever the external support to Armenia , for example from a part of the world community. Yerevan will not put peace at stake, though it, like Baku, has an intention to settle the Karabakh issue in its favor. And then, why should Yerevan recognize Karabakh itself, if for all these years Armenia has never concealed its attitude to Karabakh. Other countries must recognize while nothing will change from recognition of Nagorno Karabakh by Yerevan. All the same, let’s not forget that the suggestion to recognition independence of Nagorno Karabakh came from representatives of the Heritage opposition faction and as you know, the ruling political power almost never perceives opposition, especially that this action of the opposition representatives is more like a PR. Opposition faction offering to vote on the draft law probably though that this project will not be considered in the parliament. This should also be taken into account.
Q: Vice speaker of the Azerbaijani parliament Ziyafet Asgarov said Azerbaijan’s economy must shift to military regime. Is the new war in Karabakh possible? If yes, what can be the implications for the conflict parties?
A: I would not exclude the variant of a new war. However, the statement of the vice speaker is not enough to state with confidence that the military actions are close. If I am not mistaken, earlier the Azerbaijani president also made such statements.
It seems that while saying Azerbaijani economy must shift to military rails, Ziyafet Asgarov probably implied that by starting the arms race, Armenia will also raise its military potential, probably, the leadership of Azerbaijan believed that such arms face will influence the economic potential of the enemy, whose capacities, I think, are much lower. Today if Azerbaijan, for example, can purchase the same S-300 missile complex, the financial capacities of Yerevan are restricted for a number of objective reasons, since they have no oil or gas. And today gas and oil mostly dictate their provisions. I think, on the other hand, oil and gas are serious obstacles for the start of military actions, on the other hand oil and gas allow making such statements, according to which, you start to think about the correctness of Ziyafat Asgarov’s words. However, the statement about the shift to military rails can also be addressed to the world community, which, according to the Azerbaijani leadership, does not take due efforts to return Azerbaijani lands and therefore, I think there is an element of blackmail here. As for implications in case of a new war I can say for sure that they may be unpredictable. This will be not the war like the one in the end of the 1980’s and beginning of 1990’s and in this case I would say briefly that the parties will not have any good result. On the whole, I do not want to speak about the proposed war, the issue is not pleasant.
Q: What do you think will happen in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict in 2011? Will there be a breakthrough in the negotiation process or everything will remain changeless?
A: Certainly, I want to believe that 2011 will be the year of the final resolution of the Karabakh conflict. However, I think, we should hardly expect a breakthrough in the negotiation process, the next and the coming years will not be the years of the peaceful settlement of the conflict. It seems that the world community, primarily, the OSCE Minsk Group, facing the hindrance in the nearest perspective, despite different principles, including Madrid principles, as well as the Meindorf declaration and numerous bilateral meetings with mediators will further fail to make the final solution closer. Unfortunately, this is my unfavorable forecast.
B.A
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
