Expert praises Azeri-NATO cooperation
Day.az website, Baku
12 Jul 07
A political expert with the Baku-based Institute for Peace and Democracy has
praised Azerbaijan’s cooperation with NATO. He believes Azerbaijan has done
more than Georgia to this effect. Commenting on the Russian proposal to the
USA on joint use of the Qabala radar facility, Yunus said he is confident
that the USA will not agree to the proposal. In an interview with Day.az
website, the expert also played down statements that the Azerbaijani-Russian
relations were of strategic nature. He thinks that "the Azerbaijani-Russian
relations can be considered as cooperation based on suspicion and distrust".
The following is an excerpt of his interview with Day.az entitled: "Arif
Yunus: The Azerbaijani-Russian relations can be considered as cooperation
based on suspicion and distrust", published on the Day.az website on 12
July; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
A Day.az interview with prominent Azerbaijani political expert Arif Yunus.
Diplomatic rhetoric
[Correspondent] The joint exploitation of the Qabala radar station is the
most discussed topic worldwide now. Do you think the USA will agree to the
joint use of this facility?
[Yunus] I do not even think of this. And I am more than convinced that
Americans will not agree to this proposal.
[Passage omitted: reference to statements by top US officials]
[Correspondent] Nevertheless, in an interview with Azerbaijani reporters,
[Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs and US Minsk
Group co-chair] Matthew Bryza all the same did not rule out discussing the
Qabala radar station. How would you interpret his statements?
[Yunus] Over the recent years Matthew Bryza has said so many interesting
things both on the Karabakh settlement and on other issues that seems he
himself became entangled in his statements. For this reason, I treat his
statements carefully as what he speaks about takes place rarely.
[Correspondent] After all he is an official person and expresses position of
his state.
[Yunus] Statements of officials should often be assessed as diplomatic
rhetoric. For example, our authorities have more than once stated that they
would go to war against Armenia but this does not happen for some reason.
Therefore, two things should be separated. First, they are statements which
are calculated on the diplomatic rhetoric, second it is when statements are
backed by specific actions. In this instance, I do not see concrete actions
after Matthew Bryza’s statements. Simply, he has been assigned this task and
he is performing it.
Azeri-Russian relations based on suspicion and distrust
[Correspondent] Let us talk about the Azerbaijani-Russian relations. What is
your assessment of them?
[Yunus] On this occasion, we again witness to the diplomatic rhetoric. On
the one hand, our government maintains that strategic relations have been
established between Russia and Azerbaijan; on the other hand, they have not
been backed by any specific actions. That is to say, the Azerbaijani-Russian
relations can be considered as cooperation based on suspicion and distrust.
All started when Russia proposed gas to Azerbaijan at higher prices and
toughened migration rules. After all, it is an open secret that the new
migration rules were directed first of all against Azerbaijanis. There is
every reason to believe in this as the Russian authorities first started to
apply the new rules for migrants working at the markets. Where do
Azerbaijanis work most of all in Russia? At markets. Now draw a conclusion
as to who the new migration rules were against.
The time has come for Azerbaijan now to respond to Russia. From this follows
the closure of Russian TV channels and a proposal to purchase Azerbaijani
gas at outrageous prices. After all these, it is at least ingenuous to speak
about the strategic partnership between the two states.
Baku outpace Tbilisi in cooperation with NATO
[Correspondent] If that’s the case, why does Azerbaijan fear to firmly
declare about joining NATO?
[Yunus] Azerbaijan is not taking this step for some reasons. Except for
Russia, Azerbaijan has another neighbour – Iran. And Baku, knowing
beforehand that such a step would cause discontent both in Moscow and
Tehran, so far avoids taking concrete steps in this direction. Joining NATO
is a serious action and at this point, both Russia and Iran would respond
without fail. Although unlike Georgia which speaks a lot and thus irritates
Moscow, Azerbaijan is doing more in this direction. Let us see, the USA has
not installed its radars in Georgia but did it in Azerbaijan. That is to
say, Azerbaijan, as the saying goes, without any fanfares, is moving in this
direction quietly and tacitly.
[Correspondent] The Karabakh separatist regime is again making preparations
for the presidential election [on 19 July]. We would like to know what the
separatists count on knowing beforehand that the election will not be
recognized by anyone in the world?
[Yunus] This is simply the next phase in the attempts of the self-styled
Nagornyy Karabakh authorities to legalize their power. It mainly bears a
propaganda nature in order to again claim that the election is a
manifestation of democracy and expression of the will of the people.
Actually, a handful of people want to take advantage of this election in
order to realize their ambitious aims for all that understanding well that
no-one will recognize them in the world. Therefore, I consider that it is
not worth paying serious attention to the election.
Karabakh visit of Azeri intellectuals hailed
[Correspondent] What is your reaction to the visit of the intelligentsia
representatives to Nagornyy Karabakh?
[Yunus] If you want to learn my opinion, I am positive about the visit.
However, judging by the reaction of the Azerbaijani public, the visit was
apprehended ambiguously. Consequently, I think such visits will continue.
The policy of people’s diplomacy contemplates openness but this visit was
covered with mystery. The whole atmosphere of the visit was so much
contradictory that it was doomed to failure from the outset. Moreover, it
took place against the backdrop of the president’s belligerent statements.
Therefore, there cropped up many questions regarding the visit. The whole
trouble of our society is that we have not yet determined our position in
the Karabakh issue. Whether we want to go to war or want peace. However,
judging by the mood, our society want neither war no peace. That is to say,
it has not yet decided on this issue. Therefore, with this uncertainty it
would be hard to find an option for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict.
[Correspondent] But both in the West and in Russia, they consider that the
sole option for the resolution of this problem is peace talks. And sometimes
some diplomats point to the example of Russia and Germany that they managed
to reach an agreement after the WWII which claimed millions of lives. Do you
share this opinion?
[Yunus] Of course not as the Karabakh conflict differs cardinally from many
other conflicts. If Russia and Germany were involved in a global conflict
such as the Second World War was, then in our case, we and Armenia are
involved in a local conflict. Such conflicts are many worldwide. Take the
problems of Cyprus, the Middle East, the Kashmir which last for years and
the Karabakh conflict is from the same series. Therefore, it requires time
and generations that will be tied of conflicts.
The Russians did not also become reconciled with Germans immediately. This
happened after many years, after several generations were replaced. Even now
one can meet people treating one another with enmity both in Russia and
Germany. And so I am not a supporter of such comparisons. I think that we
and Armenians can find a common language easier than Russians and Germans.
Nevertheless, the reconciliation is not the key point; the main point is to
find a political solution to the conflict. In order this conflict be
resolved; first of all, the peoples of the conflicting parties should
recognize that the current situation has reached an impasse. After all, in
fact, the problem is that the sides do not trust each other. None of the
sides want to yield to one another. The Armenians should finally understand
that the occupation of other’s territory in the current civilized world is
unacceptable. And we should understand that if we consider Karabakh our land
and those living there our citizens, then we should stop threatening and
frightening them. We shall break an impasse quickly if the sides find
strength to back down from their positions.