ARMENIA HAS ‘LESS ROOM FOR MANOEUVRE’
news.az
June 20 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews journalist Saadat Kadyrova, a member of the expert
council of the Russian Duma’s nationalities committee.
Do you share the mediators’ optimism about the upcoming Kazan meeting
of the presidents of Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia?
I have repeatedly spoken about this issue and my position has not
yet changed. It is that any meetings in any case are favourable to
Azerbaijan if the conflict settlement process is viewed in the longer
term and global perspective. These meetings are anyway accumulative:
for Baku they have the nature of rapprochement between Moscow and
Baku, while for Armenia they are a desperate step, since they have
less room for manoeuvre.
If we leave aside all the formalities and details of the situation
inside Azerbaijan and Armenia, we can say that Azerbaijan is chipping
away at a stone and doing it correctly, but we should understand that
today Baku can afford this strategy, while Armenia cannot.
But I have to say that not everything is so good, since a new
generation has grown up in Nagorno-Karabakh and they are not used to
sharing land with Azerbaijanis. Additionally, this new generation
is absolutely sure that Azerbaijanis are enemies. History shows us
the example of Turkey, which is still an enemy in the eyes of any
Armenian. This is an evil tool, since Turkey is obliged to waste
energy to prove what is clear to everyone anyway. A man of wisdom
will never make the mistakes that a clever man can easily correct.
Azerbaijan must do everything to be wise.
Is it possible to say that Russia, as a Caucasian state, will find
it easier to find a common denominator for the conflict parties now
that the United States and France seem to be distancing themselves
from the mediation?
You have already answered your question: they just seem to be distant.
Regardless of the subjective decision of any politician, there is no
place for coincidence in major politics. I mean that if France and the
United States seem to be distancing themselves, this does not mean
they have no time for Karabakh, it is just that sometimes you need
to pretend not to see something in order not to be associated with
future developments or to have the trump card to justify or accuse
someone else, depending on the situation. As for whether it would be
easier for Russia, on the one hand Russia certainly has leverage to
influence Armenia, but on the other hand this leverage is so indirect
that it would be impossible to settle the issue under the prompt from
above to “return Karabakh”.
I think today Russia itself is unhappy with this protracted negotiation
process. Today the Armenians would be happy to settle this problem,
but they have done so much that is negative that the situation now
resembles the principle: entry 1 cent, exit 2 cents.
Opinions vary about the sincerity of Russia’s interest in solving
the Karabakh conflict. What do you think about it?
I have no grounds to doubt Russia’s sincerity and I am going to
explain why. You see, there are stereotypes, intuition, premonition
and there are also facts. I base my opinion on facts. Today Russia is
doing its utmost to settle the conflict; Moscow is quite sincere in
the rhetoric with Baku; there are no outstanding issues between our
countries, while it is already a subjective view to say that Moscow
would not benefit from settling the conflict and is being insincere.
This is not politics but personal insinuation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said recently that the countries
of the former USSR have no need to choose between cooperation with
Europe and integration in the post-Soviet area. Does the integration
of the CIS countries with European countries cause no fears in
Moscow, since economic interests are also at issue here alongside
the political?
As far as I know, this statement was targeted particularly at Ukraine.
I think it does not imply Azerbaijan, although the processes
of integration with Europe and inside the CIS are two mutually
complementing algorithms. I would never oppose these two ways of
economic development. Additionally, the issue here is that world
processes in the CIS countries were neglected after the USSR collapse
and though some may like it and others may be annoyed, little can be
done. Russia is the only way.
It has to develop a competitive environment and raise the level of
business culture. I can tell you that practice shows that for some
more decades CIS citizens will travel to Russia through inertia,
though it may not be so attractive to have a business there than
in Europe. The visa-free regime, the Russian language, which most
visitors speak, the mentality and so on play in Russia’s favour.
Leyla Tagiyeva News.Az
From: Baghdasarian