YUGOSLAVIA, IRAQ, LIBYA, SYRIA, THEN KARABAKH
PRAVDA, Russia
Sept 12 2013
12.09.2013
Sergei Vasilenkov
The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh started over 25 years ago. A truce
has been signed, but the root cause of the conflict has not been
resolved. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that it involved
not only Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also other influential countries
in the region, each pursuing its own goals. The United States decided
to assist in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Azerbaijan and Armenia have been conflicting over the Nagorno-Karabakh
since February of 1988. It was then that the Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region has decided to withdraw from the Azerbaijani SSR. In
September of 1991 in the center of Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic (NKR) was formed. Baku considered it illegal and abolished
the autonomy of Karabakh that existed in the Soviet years.
An armed conflict broke out that lasted until May of 1994 when the
parties have signed a ceasefire agreement. This has led to a loss
of control over Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan and, partially or
completely, seven surrounding areas.
Since that time, negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the
conflict have been ongoing. Azerbaijan seeks to preserve its
territorial integrity and protects the interests of Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh. However, in addition to these countries, other,
more powerful forces, are taking part in the conflict, with the main
ones being Russia and the United States. These players have opposing
views on the resolution of the conflict.
Print version Font Size Send to friend
Barack Obama believes that now it is the best time to establish
peace in the region “in the compromise that was reached during the
negotiations.” This message was sent to Azerbaijani President Aliyev by
a new co-chair of the Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh from the United
States, James Warlick. Warlick is currently in Baku with a visit.
Obama stressed that he supported James Warlick. He said that his
recent appointment was a strong indicator of the unique and strong
commitment of the U.S. to promote a peaceful settlement of the conflict
in Nagorno-Karabakh. He also believes that Warlick’s vast diplomatic
experience coupled with the desire of the Government of Azerbaijan
to achieve progress in the settlement will give new stimulus to the
work of the co-chairs.
Obama’s message stated that the co-chairs shall conduct a direct
dialogue with Armenia to find a way out of the current impasse in
the negotiations. The United States along with France and Russia
are co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group that performs mediation in the
settlement of this conflict.
Political scientist Rasim Musabekov, deputy of Milli ME~Yclis,
National Assembly of Azerbaijan, and Andrey Kazantsev, director of
the Institute of International Studies, MGIMO, saw two major reasons
for Obama’s decisive words about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Musabekov believes that in this way the United States is signaling
that they plan to divert the Russian initiative in the negotiation
process. “The negotiations have been stalled for over two years,
they have been almost non-existent. This situation causes concern
in the United States, and the U.S. officials have repeatedly talked
about this, and the Americans are even frustrated with Russia in
this regard. This is understandable, because for the last five years
Russia has been the main player in this process. At the initiative of
the then Russian President Medvedev meetings of presidents were held,
but then the progress has stalled,” Musabekov stressed.
“The United States stepped back a little and gave the first role to
the Russian Federation, but there have been no specific results. It
is not ruled out that the U.S. could significantly step up its role
in the co-chairmanship. This may be precisely the reason behind the
American president’s message, but we would be able to speak more
about the reasons only on the basis of further steps of the U.S. and
the new co-chair,” said Musabekov.
Kazantsev suggested that this way the United States is trying to
put pressure on Armenia that last week turned its integration vector
towards Russia. “I did not see anything new in Obama’s message. The
U.S. position within the Minsk Group has always boiled down to a
peaceful settlement and promotion of a dialogue. However, it has always
remained at the level of big statements. The U.S. did not want to
spend real resources on this dialogue, for example, provide financial
assistance to refugees or arrange meetings. The Russian side has been
always doing it. Perhaps Obama will try doing it, too,” Kazantsev said.
“The West faced an unexpected situation with Armenia. Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan outplayed everyone by deciding to enter the
Customs Union. This fact has shocked the EU that was planning to sign
the Association Agreement with Armenia. Now the U.S. has decided to
indirectly influence the situation,” Kazantsev explained.
It would seem that the United States and Karabakh are very far apart.
Why do the Americans need this unrecognized republic and stalled
conflict? But things are not that simple, and in global politics a
small region at the right moment can play a very important role for
the global players. The United States has plans for the territory
of Karabakh.
The Committee on Foreign Appropriations of the United States in July
of this year approved the provision of aid to Nagorno-Karabakh in
2014. Earlier the committee suggested the government to significantly
reduce the external assistance expenses in 2014. The amount of aid has
been reduced for many countries, but not Nagorno-Karabakh. According
to the Committee’s Executive Director Aram Hamparian, the U.S.
financial aid contributes to “promoting the interests of the United
States in the strategic region.”
The question arises – why are the Americans funding the
Nagorno-Karabakh but have always refused to take any serious action
to resolve the conflict in the region?
The answer was provided by the director of the Institute of Social
and Political Studies of the Black Sea and Caspian Region Vladimir
Zakharov. He believes that the U.S. is not going to settle the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict because they want to use the territory of
the unrecognized republic in an attack on Iran.
“The United States cannot give up the idea of launching a war with
Iran. To do that, the Americans need to have territories in close
proximity to Iran reachable by the American aircraft,” said Zakharov.
Azerbaijan, according to Zakharov, is not suitable for the role
of a springboard for U.S. aircraft because Tehran warned of the
possibility of retaliation against the republic if it provides active
military aid to the U.S.” The Americans need to keep its satellite
intact. Karabakh is a great temporary strip for commencing military
action,” said Zakharov.
He noted that the United States once again has a policy of double
standards. It is allegedly trying to resolve the conflict in
Nagorno-Karabakh, but at the same time pursues its own selfish goals.
Zakharov is convinced that the “American” theme is precisely the
obstacle to the resumption of the negotiation process.
His assumption is confirmed by the fact that the U.S. has requested
the UN’s agreement on the deployment of U.S. peacekeepers in
Nagorno-Karabakh for the second time. So far the UN has not given a
positive response.
Deployment of the American peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh is an
integral part of the plan to invade Iran. U.S. troops withdrawn
from Afghanistan will be stationed in Azerbaijan. A U.S. war with
Iran could start with large-scale operations of Azerbaijan troops
in Nagorno-Karabakh. After that the U.S. forces will enter the
Nagorno-Karabakh with a peacekeeping mission. Then these “peacekeepers”
will take part in the military campaign against Iran.
No one in the United States is going to really solve the conflict in
Nagorno-Karabakh, because all they need is a territory for a military
base. It is a simple but at the same time cunning plan.
Pravda.Ru
From: A. Papazian
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/12-09-2013/125639-Nagorno_Karabakh-0/