Interview with Saadat Kadyrova, journalist, member of the expert council of the committee on issues of nationalities of the Russian State Duma.
Q: How do you assess the results of the presidential meeting in Sochi?
A: It depends on the viewpoint they are assessed. The glass is either half-empty, or half-full. As for the global changes in Karabakh issue, nothing has changed. This is the next meeting of the heads of Azerbaijan and Armenia under Russian mediation, which is also important. As for the accumulative process, I tend to believe that such meetings are needed. You know, as they say water damages not by scales, but by breaking frequency. Such meetings are anyway accumulative and naturally are positive for Azerbaijan. First, because Azerbaijani lands were occupied and Azerbaijan wants to return them through peaceful talks.
This process from the side of Azerbaijan is a specific demonstration of loyalty and ability to play by the rules of a civilized society. Second, Azerbaijan complicates its presence in the region, third, there are chances to persuade Russia. I know that there are persons, inclined not to persuade anyone, using the terms: “Let’s not persuade Russia, we know that we are right”. But these are emotions, while the president’s police demonstrates the lack of emotions and rational approach. I often hear such statements that it is enough it hold talks, it is necessary to settle the issue by way of war…I agree to this emotionally but not professionally.
Q: It is already the second Russia-mediated meeting, which results in an agreement on exchange of war prisoners. Some consider this agreement to be unserious in terms of the conflict settlement and Russia’s attempt to point at its success as a mediator. What do you think about it?
A: You know, the fact that it occurs under Russian mediation proves that it cannot be otherwise yet. Why not? Such agreements are steps and stages, in addition I consider the process of their execution to be more important since the Armenian side often does not fulfill its promises.
Q: Can Russia’s sole activeness be more productive for settling the problem than the involvement of US and France, far from the South Caucasus, to this activity?
A: On the whole, such questions are dangerous, since they lead to worsening ties, regardless of my response. I will try to answer you the way to make my position clear at least indirectly. When you fail to win or if want to win over your enemy or a partner, you need to make friends with him. The question whether to involve US or France to the process is situational. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I have already said that the conduct of these countries mostly depends on the successful work of the lobby structures, loyal to Azerbaijani interests since these are countries where the process of lobbying interests is also transparent and actual like in any other country, connected with foreign policy. I believe that it is necessary to fight in different regions in different ways.
Q: What do you think about the opinion that the ‘keys to Karabakh settlement are in Moscow’?
A: I would like to believe that if it was so easy to define where they are, Azerbaijan would have enough power, energy, finances and reason to get them. Twenty years have passed since the start of the conflict and differentiation of the ways to solve and participants will hardly be effective. It seems that there several keys and they are in different places
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
