Interview with Rasim Musabayov, political expert.
Q: The process of international recognition of a new state – Southern Sudan began later last week. Should Azerbaijan also follow this example or it should refrain as in this case we are talking about the right of peoples to self-determination?
A: From what should we refrain? This decision was adopted with the consent of the central government, unfortunately, after a long war that killed nearly 2 million people. In general, the decision has been made, and I do not think that Azerbaijan should distance itself from this in some form.
Q: How do you comment on excitement among Armenian experts who see realization of population’s right to self-determination in Southern Sudan as further proof of the same "rights" of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh?
A: We are talking about 8-9 million people in Sudan. In Kosovo, it was about 2 million people. This is a nation. And in general, there is place for these states on the political map of the world. But autonomy was created for 100,000 Armenians as national minorities so that they can feel comfortable unlike 150,000 Armenians in Javakhatia who have no autonomy or 300,000 Azerbaijanis in Georgia, who also do not have autonomy, or 200,000 Azerbaijanis who lived in Armenia had an no autonomous status.
However, Armenians of Karabakh were granted autonomy. And if in matters of autonomy we will erase the line between those forms that are given to national minorities, there will be no national minorities left on the map of the world.
They all should either be expelled or made independent. This is absurd. And it is illogical, absurd world view of Armenians, which sooner or later will lead to national disaster.
By the way, once the Armenian government, commenting on this position you voiced consonant with the position of Baku, mockingly reminded of the expression concerning the relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey - "One nation - two states", and already more seriously stated that existence of two Armenian states is possible just as Arabs have many state today.
Yes, they exist. It there were 2 million Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, perhaps, this issue would have some sense. But when 100,000 people with autonomy considers this an unacceptable form and insists on independence, tearing apart from the state, what are then "ethnic minority" and their rights within other states? Therefore, "size does matter" in this case.
Q: Contrary to forecasts of pessimists, Russian President Medvedev has not renounced personal active mediation in Karabakh process despite failure of the Kazan summit. This is evidenced by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s visit to Baku and Yerevan last week during which he presented Medvedev’s latest proposals on Karabakh to the parties. Do you believe in the success of this mediation?
A: Apparently, the Kazan meeting really failed. In general, one can actually say that the five-year negotiating round ends in complete failure. Taking into account that Russia was a soloist in this negotiation round for the last two years, it will also be considered as a failure of Russian mediation.
I believe that to negate this view, the Russian diplomatic service and the Russian president are making the last attempt to get at least some result, to sign something that could be evaluated as progress in resolving the conflict.
How are they going to do it? I do not exclude that it would totally meet both Russian and Armenian interests to maintain the status quo by imposing an obligation not to use force on Azerbaijan in one form or another. But I think they realize that it is almost impossible to impose this on Azerbaijan on the backdrop ongoing occupation.
Therefore, most likely, they want factor out a controversial issue associated with the status of Nagorno-Karabakh (I mean, in what form an interim status can be determined or referendum will be held or not) and sign a document, which will reflect Armenians’ commitment to withdraw its troops from the territory of Azerbaijan in the future along with Azerbaijan's undertaking to resolve the issue peacefully.
There are risks for Azerbaijan. They lie in the fact that Armenia will some time in future (that is, on unspecified date) withdraw its forces from the Azerbaijani territory while Baku’s commitment not to use force will actually go into effect as soon as we take this commitment.
Q: Unlike his predecessor and current rival in 2012 elections Vladimir Putin, Medvedev is more active in Karabakh conflict resolution. May Russia’s efforts in this regard reduce once Putin wins elections next year?
A: I believe even if Medvedev remains in power and negotiating process fails to reach any result in its current format, the situation will mean a point because, in fact, the problem is that the parties have different approaches.
It is impossible to combine them. It means there is a need to put pressure on someone. It is impossible to put pressure on Azerbaijan. Neither Americans, nor French and Russians can do it. On the contrary, they have great deal of requests to Azerbaijan. But they do not want to put pressure on Armenians.
It is clear that Medvedev is in some sense interested to go to new elections with some serious foreign policy success. He needs this. I think not only personal interest is involved here. Russia’s true interest is to maintain status quo which is impossible. The fact that any negative scenario will affect Russia’s interests badly makes them move towards resolution of the conflict.
After all, Putin also took some steps to move the negotiating process forward. If not Medvedev, then Putin will do this. Things will not be worse for Azerbaijan. It will worse for Armenia hereafter.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
