By Betul Buke Karacin & Namig Abbasov, JTW
Q: Recently, Kazan meeting was held between Azerbaijani and Armenian representatives with the mediation of Russia, achieving nothing at the end over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict just as the other similar meetings did. Since Russia is not interested in the solution of the conflict, most experts stresses that these kinds of meetings are nonsense in the solution of the issue. If so, in your opinion, what are the aims of the holding of these sorts of meetings?
A: First of all, describing this kind of meeting as nonsense is unfair. The meeting between Azerbaijan and Armenia is a Russian led meeting and it is very crucial for Russia, since, Russia is enjoying her dominance in the region. During 1990s the Minsk group was the main actor in terms of the finding solution to Nagorno-Karabakh issue. However, due to the certain drawbacks, Minsk Group has been unsuccessful since its three proposals, Common States, Step by Step and Comprehensive solution, partly have been rejected Armenia and Azerbaijan. This increased the role of Russia in the solution of Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, that particularly was observed in Kochayev’s statement in which it is mentioned that Russia confront with the United States mainly after the Georgian-Russian War. Thus, lately on we observed that Russia has been emerging as the sole dominant actor in terms of finding a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
There are certain implications for the Russian led negotiations. First of all, after the Georgian crisis, the aims, targets and interests of the West were hampered by Russian movement in Georgia. We saw that Russia giving a message that it can organize its “near abroad” and it will not let anybody interfere its business. Actually, considering the dynamics in 2000s, we can say that these kinds of messages from Russia could have been challenged then. However, in 2008, we saw other problems such as economic crisis which forced especially the Western countries to concentrate on mostly domestic affairs particularly a regional aspect of foreign relations. Considering the intervention of the United States to Caucasus is currently impossible, because the United States is dealing with the more urgent issues such as Afghanistan and more recently the Arabian uprisings. In this sense, it was essential to send a message that Russia is the sole dominant actor in the Caucasus, these meetings and negotiations are serving to this emphasis.
Secondly, if there will be a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh process, Russia does not want any solution to the conflict drawn by other external actors such as the United States, France, or even Turkey. In this sense, the Kremlin is trying to orchestrate the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Even though there were some attempts of Minsk Group in the post 2008 period, we saw that these efforts slowly got weakened. In this sense, Russia is trying to enjoy conjectural situation by taking steps forward bringing these actors together.
Finally, why the negotiations are not nonsense and should be continued is that without these negotiations there will not be any success to the conflict. As we saw in 1990, if the negotiation processes stops, current situation for the frozen conflict remains as how it is. So what we are looking for is the continuation of the negotiations and a constructive solution to the problem. However, the problem is that the talks are not pluralist, rather orchestrated by Russia, even if we see that the position of Russia is supported by Minsk Group, hoping that Russia will find a solution to the problem, a long-lasting solution which will not gave a way another Georgian-Russian war in the Caucasus.
Thus, it is hard to say that these negotiations are nonsense. However, it is true that the meetings are nonsense in terms of Western interests. In contrast to the interests of the West, Russia is interested in the holding of this kind of meeting and hoped that the meetings help some ways to find solution of the conflict. The main issue is that whose solution is going to be.
Q: Eugene Chausovsky, an analyst at STRATFOR stressed that the primary actor when considering the prospects for a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is not Azerbaijan or Armenia but, rather, Russia and in reality, Russia is trying to do everything it can to prevent a settlement. How would you evaluate these statements and what do you think of it?
A: Actually it is not a new statement. It was stated by many experts. Nobody says that Russia would sit and watch a solution to emerge in the region, rather it has a great desire to find a solution in line with its interests. Why is that so?
First of all, there is a problem of terrorism and instability in Russia’s backyard. The instability in the Caucasus is threatening the unity and stability within the Russian territory. So considering this fact, any solution that would not be in favor of Russia will make the solution leverage on Russian interests on South Caucasus.
Secondly, after 1990s Russia lost its stance mainly in Eastern Europe and in Central Asia. At the same time, the signals appeared that Russia might lose the Caucasus forever which provoked the great powers to utilize every means to keep the region under its influence. Moreover, Russia got the feelings that it is being contained by the Western actors particularly by the United States, which, in turn, caused previous thoughts like it is being threatened by the West as it occurred during in the Cold War to strengthen. In this sense, it is logical to say that Russia is trying to enhance its position especially in the post-Soviet area by making new alliances or trying to preserve the existing once like in Belarus, Ukraine and Central Asia.
Accordingly, since Russia could not to succeed in creating alliance with Azerbaijan and Georgia, it chose the hard way and military operation in the region. Considering all these facts, Russia will not let any solution to the conflict drawn by the other actors. However, this should not mean that Russia will not find a solution in the region. Especially, we know that Russia has a military base in Gyumri and this base is like a castle of Russia in the Caucasus. With the assistance of this base, Russia has controls Caucasus region, Northern Iran and Caspian Sea Basin.
Meanwhile, it is predicted that Russia will expand her stance in Caucasus, deploying peacekeeping forces especially in Nagorno-Karabakh. It formulates that, if there is going to be a solution, then there is going to be some peacekeeping forces in Nagorno-Karabakh and help for the solution of the conflict. However, as long as we see Azerbaijan and Armenia is not comfortable with this suggestion.
Considering the balances in the region, the increased Russian access will not serve to the regional interests of Azerbaijan and Armenia. In this sense, situation or the negotiations processes seems to be stuck. The main issue is that there are certain violations of the ceasefire, causing bigger problems for the near future.
Q: Reuter news agency stressed the war risks over Nagorno-Karabakh. Do you see any risks of war in the conflict zone?
A: As I mentioned in the second question, there is a problem of certain instability due to Nagorno-Karabakh issue, even though we are talking about ceasefire. The problem is that the parties are not respecting to ceasefire, there are snipers and military forces and we see some exchange of fire between Azerbaijan and Armenian forces which are causing some losses from both parties. Our biggest fear is that these kinds of fires cause snow ball effect and give way to the bigger problem of emergence of another war in the region after 2008.
Secondly, the both sides have increased their military expenditures and try to threaten each other with their muscle power, the situation that was observed in Turkey and Greece relations when the both sides increased their military expenditures that caused huge burden for the budget of both states, despite their both membership in the same military alliance, NATO. Considering the fact that between Azerbaijan and Armenia, there are no enough compromises on the way toward the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, these attacks will cause more problems than they did during1990s periods.
In addition, the last threat I believe is Azerbaijan’s stance. It is certain that in 2010, Azerbaijan ratified her military doctrine in which it is mentioned that Azerbaijan prefer to solve Nagorno-Karabakh issue by diplomatic means, however in the case of the impossibility of the diplomatic means in the solution of the conflict, and if Azerbaijan feels that changing dynamics and conjectures in the region will not help her interests, Azerbaijan will check military instruments in order to restore its territorial integrity. The strategy of Azerbaijan is framed as “wait and see” approach which is based on the belief that Armenia will give Azerbaijani territories back, due to the economic constraints in Armenia resulting from her aggressive relations with Azerbaijan as Azerbaijan is enjoying revenues coming from energy recourses, while Armenia is suffering from economic constrains.
Finally, I believe there is potential for the changing of status quo as we have seen in Georgian war as a result of Azerbaijan’s possible choice of military means. However, it is more unlikely now, because Baku believes that “wait and see” strategy under status quo is the best option. But if Azerbaijan sees that international society leaves her alone and negotiations are not serving for her interests in the long run, then considering internal dynamics of Azerbaijan even though it is unlikely, military instrument can be an alternative policy for the restoration of territorial integrity of the state.
Q: The Russian expert Vladimir Zaxarov stated that United States needs Nagorno-Karabakh in order to attack to Iran due to Azerbaijan’s neutrality in US-Iran conflict after Iran declared that it will respond to any attack coming from Azerbaijan. How could you comment on that issue?
A: I believe it is too absurd to make such an explanation for the foreign policy of the United States in the Caucasus. However, Brzezinski during 1990s stated that Azerbaijan is a pivot country in the region which has potential to control Caspian basin, Iran and Russia. In that sense, the strategic position of Azerbaijan in the region cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, as we try to draw the dynamics of Caucasus, Russia’s position will not let to the access of the United States to the Caucasus. Actually we saw this kind of initiative in Central Asia, but this did not last long because of presence of Russian military bases in Khanabad, Uzbekistan. Moreover, Manas Base in Kyrgyzstan was one of the main concerns of Moscow. Comparing Central Asia with theCaucasus, it can be argued that the latter is more strategic for Russia considering the balances in the region. So I believe this kind of a step has a potential to become one of the main sources of tensions in the region. Thus, it is hard to believe that Russia will be comfortable with American bases in the region in the aftermath of the Reset Policy between two parties.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
