Interview with Bernhard Clasen, former co-chair of the International Work Group on release of captives and search of missing people in Karabakh.
Q: At the meeting on 5 March in Sochi, like last year, in Astrakhan, the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia under the Russian president’s support agreed about the soonest exchange of war prisoners by the Karabakh conflict parties. How can you assess this agreement?
A: I have a positive attitude to this agreement. It is one more attempt to avoid the forced solution to the Karabakh conflict. The parties speak about the forced settlement of the conflict so much, that I am happy to hear their peaceful words every time. Meanwhile, their statements in Sochi were exceptionally peaceful, since their staked exclusively on the negotiation process. I support the direct contacts between Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities very much.
However, there are three ‘no’s.
If the parties agreed on the so-called ‘exchange’ of war prisoners in Astrakhan in October last year, why should they again agree about the exchange of war prisoners? Unfortunately, the answer to this can be the only one: no intentions were taken after Astrakhan to execute the Astrakhan agreements. And I fear that this time not enough will be taken to liberate all.
Second, it is inadmissible to use the word ‘exchange’ in this context. The parties have no right to hold war prisoners, they are obliged to liberate them without any ‘if’, that is without any prerequisites. When we speak about ‘exchange’, we recognize that these prisoners are hostages, kept by the parties just to use them as the ‘exchange material’ in the further negotiations. This approach is inhumane. Therefore, I will not speak about ‘exchange’, I demand the unilateral release of all Karabakh conflict hostages without any prerequisites.
Third:
The parties agreed “the striving to settle all disputable issues by peaceful means”. Why did they agree ‘to strive’ to settle the disputable issues by peaceful means though they could agree to solve debatable issues by peaceful means? By using the word “to strive”, the sides make it clear that they can strive but are not sure that their strivings will be positive.
Q: Do you believe in the success of the Russian peacekeeping mission?
A: I think only sensational decisions are not always needed for the political settlement of the Karabakh conflict. The negotiation process of the authorities of the parties and people’s diplomacy is needed to attain reliable peace. As for the negotiation process, I assess the meeting in Sochi as positive, all the same the meeting was not sensations in peace settlement and not a breakthrough.
Russia, as all the rest states, has the state interests as the first priority. Certainly, it would be more sympathetic to hold talks with ICRC or other human rights organizations. But if you want to avoid war, you have to talk to the forces, for whom peace and human rights are not on the first place on their priority list. The fact that the meeting was in Sochi proves something, since Sochi will soon host Olympic Games and Russia cannot be interested in war in the Caucasus. The war in the South Caucasus does not meet Russia’s interests.
Q: Which role does the exchange of war prisoners play in improving a dialogue between the Karabakh conflict parties? Can this process be considered one of the confidence measures?
A: I do not want to speak about exchange of war prisoners, I demand the unconditional release of all hostages. This release is the main measure of trust.
Q: Several Azerbaijan are still held in Armenian captivity and several Armenians in Azerbaijani captivity. What do you think is the reason of transformation of these people into the object of speculation, trading between the conflict parties for attainment of definite political goals?
A: The parties have no right to use captives as the object of speculation and trading. For this reason, they must liberate all captives, without prerequisites and in the unilateral manner.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
