UKRAINIAN ANALYST: ARMENIA’S POSSIBLE REFUSAL TO RATIFY THE PROTOCOLS IS A LOSING POSITION
Today
Dec 28 2009
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with senior consultant at Ukraine-based National
Institute for International Security Studies Elena Kotelyanets.
Do you believe the intensified negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict will have a real impact on speedy resolution of the conflict?
Intensification of the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations was consequence
of new geopolitical realities in the South Caucasus that emerged
in aftermath of the war in August 2008. The possibility of another
war in the Caucasus due to the unresolved issue of Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict pushed the region as well as external players (EU and the
U.S.) to correct security system in the subregion, including a more
active search for a peaceful solution to the Karabakh conflict.
Moreover, a desire to achieve dominance in the South Caucasus
encourages members of the Minsk Group as well as Turkey to compete for
an initiative to organize Armenian-Azerbaijani high-level meetings
on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Over the past year,
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan held six round of talks, the
outcome of which remains unknown.
However, this activity by the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides and
foreign players’ open interest in intensification of settlement
process most likely will accelerate a search for compromise solutions
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or at least create preconditions for
a consensus between the parties in the most pressing issues. Also,
it is hoped that this process will facilitate creation of effective
mechanisms to prevent new armed clashes in the South Caucasus.
Armenia may waive the Turkish-Armenian protocols in case of their
delayed ratification by the Turkish Parliament. How will the leading
world powers respond this ? What is your opinion about this possible
move by Armenia?
Taking a step towards normalization of relations, Armenia and Turkey
are very conscious that the old nature of bilateral ties do not meet
requirements of the current situation in the region and neither
did it correspond global and regional political trends, and most
importantly – the national interests of those states. Unresolved
questions – a relationship with Azerbaijan, in the context of solving
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for Turkey and dissident part of society
inside the country and the diaspora – for Armenia serve as pitfalls
on a way to final settlement of the Armenian-Turkish relations.
Regarding Armenia’s possible refusal to ratify the protocols, this
step will bring rather great losses to Yerevan than dividends.
Reopening of borders with Turkey is very important for Armenia for
the following reasons: this is a way out of years of isolation, a
productive way to address the dire economic situation that was deepened
by the global financial crisis, an effective integration into the
regional economy as well as increased geopolitical position as a whole.
The leadership of both countries will make every effort to ratify the
protocols in their parliaments as a huge work done and also national
interests of both countries stand behind this. Moreover, world’s
leading states are interested in normalization of Armenian-Turkish
relations and will make maximum efforts to ensure successful completion
of this process.
Iran intends to begin implementing simplified visa system with
Azerbaijan next year. Moreover, Azerbaijan and Iran recently signed
an agreement to supply gas to Iran. Do you think that these actions
point to certain rapprochement between the countries? Does it somehow
impact the Armenian-Iranian relations?
Iran’s decision to unilaterally abolish visa regime with Azerbaijan
fully meets Iranian regional interests. This step by Tehran can
be viewed as a timely and sensible thing to do. It is mainly due
to the process of normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. The
prospect of normalization of interstate relations between Armenia and
Turkey and a possibility of Turkey’s gaining position in the South
Caucasus compelled Iran to become more assertive. Cancelling visa
regime means Iran’s willingness to fight with Turkey for Azerbaijan
not on political, diplomatic or military arenas, but in demographic,
cultural and religious areas.
Azerbaijan’s quite restrained reaction to Iran’s actions may indicate
an awareness of possible risks from simplification of visa regime
between the countries. Primarily, it concerns an uncontrolled flow
of refugees (Iranian Azerbaijanis) to the territory of Azerbaijan as
a result of possible military action against Iran. Such a situation
can lead to inevitable humanitarian crisis in Azerbaijan. Internal
destabilization involving ethnic problems provoked by external forces
is also dangerous for Azerbaijan.
Thus, establishment of relations between Iran and Azerbaijan can be
explained by a desire of both countries to control the possible risks
to their safety, regardless of alignment of forces and developments in
the region. Concerning the development of Armenian-Iranian relations
in connection with normalization Azerbaijan-Iran relations between,
we should not expect them to deteriorate. Teheran has been an ally of
Yerevan throughout the history of Armenia’s independence. Moreover,
given virtuosity of Iranian diplomacy, we should expect a flexible
policy by Iran towards both Azerbaijan and Armenia.
During his U.S. trip, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan criticized
the OSCE Minsk Group, urging them to show will to resolve the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In your opinion, what can really make the
OSCE Minsk Group to accelerate the process of resolving the conflict?
Velocity of settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will largely depend
on fate of the Armenian-Turkish protocols. Their ratification in near
future may give impetus to solution of the Karabakh problem whereas
further delay will be an obstacle for future Armenian-Azerbaijani
negotiations on this issue. Not the Minsk Group, but flexibility of the
conflicting positions, as well as interested parties to the conflict
can speed up the settlement process. There is no unanimity concerning
various components of settlement of the Karabakh conflict while is
a consensus among the major global players about opening of borders
and establishing diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey.
How can you comment on U.S. Congress efforts to allocate $8 million
in assistance to the break-away Nagorno-Karabakh in 2010? Do you
think it is right to provide direct assistance to Karabakh separatists?
Providing direct financial assistance to separatist republics is
misconduct, and this applies not only to the U.S. actions in relation
to the Nagorno-Karabakh. Until recently, financing separatist republics
has been raised repeatedly and criticized by international community
in connection with Russia’s financial assistance to Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Such actions by the United States and Russia can be seen by
other countries as a norm of international politics, a fact of open
support of separatism and quite a dangerous precedent for formation
of an area of stability and security in the multinational regions,
particularly in the South Caucasus.
The U.S. financial assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh population shows
a strong Armenian lobby in the U.S. Congress. Despite reduction of
expenditures on foreign policy programs, as well as Barack Obama’s
suggestions to cuts in next year’s aid to Armenia by 38 percent,
it will remain the same – $ 48 million and the amount of aid to
Nagorno-Karabakh will increase up to $10 million compared with the
last year’s amount.