PEACE SHOULD REFLECT THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR
04.10.2012
Expert-consultant, Center for Information Studies,
“Noravank” Foundation
American think tanks are one of the main factors influencing
Washington’s foreign policy and they have predetermined the
character of the activity of the US on the international arena. But
analytical centers are given less consideration than confronting
lobbyist groups, inter-partisan disagreements and competition between
the wings of the authorities. Despite their comparative obscurity the
American independent political institutes considerably influence US
foreign policy in five different directions:
1. promoting elaboration of unique ideas and options for policy,
2. providing a stuff of experts for working in the government,
3. organizing big forums for the discussion of the most topical issues
of the foreign policy, 4. elucidating issues of the foreign policy
for the population of the US, 5. rendering assistance to the state
organizations in settling conflicts and mediatory missions1.
Taking into consideration analyses and discussions carried out by
the American analytical centers we distinguish those which refer to
Armenia and global regional issues.
Among them discussion on “Nagorno-Karabakh: Will the Frozen
Conflict Turn Hot?” held by Woodrow Wilson Center on June 5,
2012, in which American experts specializing in the issues of South
Caucasus Wayne Merry (Senior Associate at the American Foreign
Relations Council), Thomas de Waal (Carnegie Foundation), Charles
King (Professor of International Relations at the University of
Georgetown)2 participated.
The speakers expressed concern about frequent violations of the
ceasefire being of the same mind that the next possible war in the
Nagorno-Karabakh zone will have devastating effect. As a result they
came to the conclusion that the super powers have to consolidate
their efforts not to allow the war3.
During the aforementioned discussion W. Merry once more presented his
programs which he had stood for several years. A former diplomat
has come out with rather remarkable publications (on June 26,
2012 the leader of Armenian National Congress L. Ter-Petrosyan
highly appreciating W. Merry’s publication and characterized
it as the deepest analysis on Karabakh conflict carried out by the
American experts), profound analyses4 and interviews5 on settlement
of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict6 to which regional media referred
periodically. Special attention to his works can be explained by
several factors:
1. Wayne Merry hold high positions at the US State Department,
Pentagon, in 1980-1983 and 1991-1994 he worked in Moscow, in 1995 he
was a Regional Director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia at the staff
of the Secretary of Defence which developed and consolidated defence
cooperation with the former USSR republics.
Thereafter he was a Senior Advisor to the US Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe and a bipartisan Congressional-Executive
human rights monitoring body.
2. He represents the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) which
provides information and analytical reports on foreign and defence
policy to members of US Congress, the Executive Branch, and the
US policymaking community, as well as world leaders outside the
US (particularly in the former USSR). In addition, AFPC publishes
strategic reports and other reports monitoring the policy progress of
Russia, China, countries in the Middle East and in Asia. Common topics
include missile defense, arms control, energy security, espionage .
3. Unlike many other “distant” regional experts W. Merry
“taking into consideration concern of Washington’s
informed experts’ opinion”7, visited NKR personally
(in November 2011), met NKR government members and representatives
of the civil sector, visited military units of the Army of Defence
of NKR and “ghost” city Aghdam.
And despite non-official character of the visit he received support
of some official bodies in Washington which can be an indicator of
the expectations of the US ruling circles.
Threats of War
According to the expert when there are ongoing wars in the world it
is easy to overlook brewing wars. It is dangerous especially for the
current US administration which has big plans in foreign policy. In
this context the speaker paid special attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict which contained a real war threat in itself. In his opinion
this possible war, taking into consideration growing military potential
of Azerbaijan and Armenia, will have drastic consequences for both
conflicting parties and for their neigbours and United States which
has its own interests in the region.
In order to prevent development of such a scenario W. Merry believes
that “Moscow and Washington should cast joint preventive
diplomatic pressure”. Thus the policy of Azerbaijan directed
to pumping out unilateral concessions from Armenia bears its
“fruits”. Non-constructive stance of Azerbaijan at the
negotiations, increasing number of military statements, constant
ceasefire violations have become a serious signal of its policy
of force and it looks like it is assessed in an appropriate way
in serious expert circles. But this conclusions can hardly justify
expectations of Azerbaijan and even more, they can initiate harsher
stance of international community towards Baku.
Possible war in the zone of Karabakh conflict will deliver a blow to
the interests of Russia, which has treaties on strategic partnership
with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. According to the agreements within
the framework of the CSTO, Moscow has obligations to protect Armenia
in case of any military incursions and one should not doubt that
there will be such incursions in case of war in Karabakh. In case
of war Russia will face a serious dilemma: if it protects Armenia it
will bring to the deterioration of the relations with Azerbaijan and
Turkey – the relations which Kremlin tries to preserve so carefully,
and if it renders assistance to Azerbaijan it will cause inevitable
disappointment of Yerevan with all the ensuing consequences. Mutual
aspiration to suppress unwilling consequences of possible war may
serve as a ground for combining efforts of Moscow and Washington and
non-admission of war by means of preventive diplomacy.
Issues demanding resolution from the point of view of comprehensive
settlement of the conflict
Besides the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is the
main point of argument, special attention is paid to the necessity
of coming to agreement on two other issues – territories adjoining
Karabakh and issue of the Azerbaijani refugees. The former diplomat
singles out issues which demand solution from all-balancing conflict
settlement and indirectly points out the field of mutual concessions.
His vision of the settlement of the conflict is the continuation of
this logic.
Outline of possible concord and its substantiation and inevitability
According to the speaker the outline of possible concord was obvious
15 years ago and it reflected both the reality of war and necessity of
peace. He offers “to find a solution outside the plane of the
negotiations going around the principles of sovereignty, territorial
integrity and a right of nation to self-determination: peace should
reflect the outcome of the war, as it has always happende. In
consequence de-facto and finally de-jure the international borders
are changed, most of the refugees will be re-populated, peacemaking
forces will be deployed in the region. By this agreement Armenia
would get Karabakh and corridor joining it, and Azerbaijan will get
adjoining territories. It is not either about justice or wrong or
right decisions, it is about necessary and inevitable formula of
peace. Diplomacy cannot change the grounds of realities formed”.
As for the illusions of Azerbaijan that super powers will compel
Armenia to make unilateral concessions the expert said: “There
has been cases in history when super powers combined their efforts to
make the party which won the war renounce its achievements but in this
case such a possibility (that US, Russia, EU (particularly France),
Turkey and possibly Iran are united against Armenia) is equal to
zero”. “Thus, Azerbaijan indulge a vain hope that the
mediators will compel Armenia to renounce its victory.
Azerbaijan will have to accept the bitter truth”.
Possible detrimental consequences for Azerbaijan and forms of
compulsory settlement
“Unfortunately Azerbaijan is inclined to restart the war and
does not want to agree with an unacceptable peace. If it unfolds a
war Azerbaijan will be defeated again and this time the consequences
will be even more drastic and even if it has a favourable outcome the
condition of Azerbaijan will even worsen”. The expert does not
even exclude extinction of Azerbaijan as a state in consequence of
war, which can be implemented by Armenia, Russia and Iran. “An
agreement between Moscow and Washington is necessary. Today they
do not have many common interests but there are people in both
capitals who share the same point of view in regard to Karabakh. If
a new US administration approaches this issue intelligently and
in coordination it will be possible to avoid contradictions and
to succeed in preserving peace in the Caucasus which will become a
history of restoration of cooperation between two super powers”.
In order to draw parallels between the official stance of the Republic
of Armenia and opinion of the member of the American Foreign Policy
Council on the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict we would like
to bring principles which, according to Armenia, should lie in the
root of the settlement of the conflict:
1. Recognition of the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh
to self-determination must be the basis of the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
2. Nagorno-Karabakh must have unbroken land communications with
Armenia which must be under the direct authority of the Armenian
party, 3. Security of the Nagorno-Karabakh should be guaranteed by
the international community.
At the same time Armenia seeks for exclusively peaceful ways of
resolution of the problem. Attempts of Azerbaijan to obtain unilateral
concessions by means of threat of use of force are not only doomed but
still remain the main obstacle on the way of settlement of the issue
by means of compromise. It can be stated that the arguments brought
by W. Merry and conclusions made by him substantiate the correctness
of the postulates of the Armenian policy directed to the provision
of regional stability.
Such conclusions, generated by the American think tanks may even
more consolidate the political component of the deterrence policy of
Armenia and further purposeful actions of the Armenian lobby can make
them more audible for the authorities of the United States.
1 èÁÁÓÓ ò.î., E ÁÍÅÒEËÁÎÓËÁÑ ×ÎÅÛÎÑÑ ÐÏÌEÔEËÁ:
ÔÏÞËÁ ÚÒÅÎEÑ ÐÏÌEÔEËÁ. uÌÅËÔÒÏÎÎÙÊ OÕÒÎÁÌ cÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×ÅÎÎÏCÏ ÄÅÐÁÒÔÁÍÅÎÔÁ
oûa – eJournal USA. ôÏÍ 7, № 3, îÏÑÂÒØ 2002 CÏÄÁ (Richard Nathan
Haass – former American diplomat; he has been a head of the Council
of Foreign Relations since 2003.
2
turn-hot#field_speakers
3
4
5
6 Wayne Merry, Karabakh: ‘frozen’ conflict nears melting point,
7 Words and ideas brought in the quotation marks belong to W. Merry
made in the aforementioned statements.
“Globus
From: Baghdasarian