“AZERBAIJAN’S ATTEMPT TO RETURN ITS SEPARATIST TERRITORIES IS INEVITABLE”: NK PRESS DIGEST
Regnum, Russia
May 3 2006
Where is the limit of compromise?
The last 4-5-months growing activity in the Karabakh peace process is
related not only to the Karabakh conflict itself but also to the world
processes, Director of the Analytical Center for Globalization and
Regional Cooperation Stepan Grigoryan says in an interview to Noyan
Tapan. Even the Rambouillet failure has failed to sober up the US and
some European countries from their zeal to solve the problem as soon
as possible. They do have a point. The role of the South Caucasus is
growing with every day: key gas and oil arteries, growing problems
of neighboring Iraq, looming possibility of war against Iran. On the
other hand, Armenia and Azerbaijan are showing no agreement and no
political will for mutual concessions; their peoples are not ready
for reconciliation and compromise.
The key argument against early solution is that Karabakh is not,
to date, a party in the negotiation process, unlike Abkhazia,
Transdnestr or Northern Cyprus. Grigoryan notes that all this
shows that the sides are not ready to solve the problem and their
presidents will not sign any document during their next meeting. That
is, they will act like they did before – they will hold a number of
meetings that will bear no results. Grigoryan is worried lest such
processes may result in the sides’ accepting the “Dayton scenario” –
a forced peace, when decisions are made by great powers rather than
conflicting parties. Grigoryan says that the present pressure in the
Karabakh peace process may well lead to such an outcome.
Director of the Baku office of IWPR (UK) Shahin Rzayev says in Zerkalo
that given President Bush’s obstinacy in 2006 Baku and Yerevan may face
a new “Dayton”: “Simply, Azerbaijan and Armenia will be given an offer
they will not be able to refuse.” In his “The Limit of Compromise”
article Rzayev suggests several real models for talks to see how much
compromise the Azeri society can “digest.”
1. “Postponed referendum” – Rzayev believes that postponed referendum
means that Karabakh’s independence will be recognized after some
time: “There already are such precedents in the world – East Timor
or Eritrea. I don’t think that our authorities will agree to this
model, but if they agree to a referendum in some 15-20 years, they
will thereby mean to say: “we don’t care what will be after us.” This
model will lead to “the syndrome of Versailles” – “a syndrome that
led to Fascism in Germany and to an even worse war.”
2. “High degree of autonomy” – Rzayev says that until now the Azeri
authorities have not specified what “pig in a poke” they mean by
this term. “None of the effective autonomy models in the world, be
it Greenland or Aland Islands, can be applied to our conflict. But
why don’t they invent a kind of South Caucasian model of autonomy
and apply it to the Karabakh, Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts?
However, let’s assume the Karabakh Armenians have agreed to this
model. Is our society – heavily pressed, to date, by the state
anti-Armenian propaganda – ready to suddenly change its attitude to
calmly receive Armenian deputies coming from Nagorno Karabakh to speak
in our parliament or on our TV? Are we ready to see a representation
of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Republic (no more ‘so-called’) in
Baku with a Nagorno-Karabakh flag flying in front of it (and NKAR will
certainly have a flag, emblem and anthem – why not, if even football
clubs have ones)? We are, certainly, not, but we should get ready –
and seriously – if we actually want this model to be applied.”
3. “Taiwan model” – “A huge super power like China – the first in
population and the fourth in economy – is still unable to solve its
by far less acute territorial problem with separatists from Taiwan
(but they are one nation). This is a good example that we should stop
deluding ourselves that as soon as oil dollars come pouring on us, we
will just “buy” Nagorno Karabakh. Why can’t China do that? First, it
has a very authoritarian regime. The Karabakh Armenians keep saying:
“Compare our elections with the elections in Azerbaijan, we don’t
want to live in an authoritarian country.” Rzayev says that this is
demagogy, but still admits that “if we are seriously resolved to
integrate with the Karabakh Armenians, we must take serious steps
to democratize our country and to be ready to adopt laws that will
protect their rights.” At the same time, Rzayev says that the Taiwan
model of frozen conflict is the most real today. “This may even be
for the better,” says Rzayev.
Karabakh problem putting on Iranian yashmak
Azeri Defense Minister Safar Abiyev has urged Iran to help Azerbaijan
to resolve the Karabakh conflict, reports Noyan Tapan. In response,
Iranian Defense Minister Mustafa Mohammad Najjar said that
“Azerbaijan’s security is Iran’s security.” “Our defense capacity
is your defense capacity. We have always supported and will support
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity,” Najjar said during his meeting
with Abiyev in Baku.
“US anti-Iranian intelligence groups are acting in Azerbaijan,”
Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran Ali
Larijani said in an interview to Al Ahram weekly (Egypt). He said
that the territories of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are being used
by US special services against Iran. He noted that in case of war,
Iran will strike the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The Iranian
missiles can hit the US and European oil facilities in the Caspian
Sea. Commenting on Larijani’s statements, the head of the press
and information policy department of the Azeri Foreign Ministry Tair
Tagizade said that one should not take this seriously. “Azerbaijan and
Iran are good neighbors, and such statements are aimed at worsening
our bilateral relations and escalating tensions,” he said.
(525th Daily)
The anti-Azeri statements made by the Iranian authorities on the eve
of Azeri President Ilham Aliyev’s visit to the US were an attempt of
pressure, political scientist Vafa Guluzade says as a comment on the
statements of Iranian National Security Secretary Ali Larijani. In
his turn, political scientist Ilgar Mamedov says that this is due to
growing propaganda war. “That’s why the sides are making increasingly
sharp statements. The Iranian DM’s visit to Baku was followed by
anti-Azeri threats from Iran – exactly now when President Aliyev is
going to the US. Iran is a dangerous neighbor, that’s why it made such
statements before Aliyev’s visit,” Mamedov said. “The start of military
actions will put Azerbaijan in a hard situation. If in exchange for
involvement in the anti-Iranian coalition, the US promises support in
the Karabakh problem, the Azeri authorities will be forced to take
this step, otherwise, the public will reproach them. But this will
make Azerbaijan an enemy to a dangerous neighbor, Iran. If Azerbaijan
supports Iran, it will become an arena of military actions. If it stays
neural, both sides will start actively pressuring it into decision,”
says Mamedov. (PanARMENIAN.Net)
Many in the South Caucasus are worried lest the American-Iranian
tensions may affect the region and directly impact the Karabakh
conflict, Karabakh political expert David Babayan says in an
interview to ArmInfo. They in Azerbaijan are especially interested
in American-Iranian relations. Many fear that in case of war Iran
will use force against Azerbaijan – if it takes the US’ side. And
Azerbaijan will most probably do this. “Still it would be wrong
to think that Azerbaijan will do this exclusively for ideological
reasons or just because it shares the America’s stance.” “Azerbaijan
has its own geo-political interests: it wants a crisis in Iran and
hopes to use the US to achieve its own goals.” “Paradoxical as this
may seem but Azerbaijan may well be interested in Iranian attacks on
its territory. This will give Baku a number of ‘trumps’. First, it
will pose as a victim and as compensation will materialize one of its
ethnic myths – unification of ‘Northern’ and ‘Southern’ Azerbaijans.
At the first stage – if the anti-Iranian coalition succeeds –
Azerbaijan may get responsibility over Iran’s borderline regions. If
this happens, Ilham Aliyev will go down in history as the unifier
and founder of ‘Great Azerbaijan’ – quite a tempting scenario for
a corrupt clan regime faced with many serious problems. Second,
if actively involved in the anti-Iranian coalition, Azerbaijan
will also be able to ask for a profitable solution to the Karabakh
problem. In this case, Baku may expect that after the war the West
will take Azerbaijan’s stance in the Karabakh peace process to show
that its campaign against Iran were not a campaign against Islam. Thus,
feigning ‘a victim,’ Azerbaijan will try to use other’s teeth to bite
off as much of the neighbor’s flesh as possible,” concludes Babayan.
Even though Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan assures that
the problem of Iran’s nuclear program can’t affect the Karabakh peace
process, it is obvious that the Karabakh problems is gradually going
into the framework of the Iranian factor, Zhamanak daily (Los Angeles)
says in its article “Karabakh Problems Putting on Iranian Yashmak.” The
US and Iran are pressing Azerbaijan into quick a specific decision:
in case of war against Iran the US wants to use the Azeri territories
as a springboard for deploying its troops in Northern Iran, while Iran
wants to know for sure that Azerbaijan will not join the anti-Iranian
coalition and will not yield to the US’ ambitions. In this light,
if Azerbaijan refuses to become the Americans’ springboard, it will
have to find something to offer in exchange, or, at least, to demand
compensation – the US’ changing its position on Karabakh. That’s
probably why Baku is saying that it has not yet received any
new settlement proposals from the US. Meanwhile, Oskanyan is sure
that the US will not enter into such a primitive haggle. That’s why
Armenia is showing tranquility and even indifference in the matter,
says the daily.
Washington is making the Karabakh conflict a tool in its plans against
Iran by implicating Baku in a process that may prove disastrous
for the whole region, says Novoye Vremya (Baku). The international
mediators in the Karabakh problem are as active as never before. And
the US is the most active of all. Many analysts and political experts
say that this is due to its plans against Iran: the US wants to
quickly resolve the Karabakh conflict to secure its rears before
its attack on Iran. The director of the Caucasian project of the
International Crisis Group Sabine Freizer, known to be on close
terms with the US political (and not only) circles, says that if
the US wants to protect its security and energy interests, it should
focus its attention on the Karabakh conflict. The US is interested in
the resolution of the Karabakh conflict as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline run just 30
km far from the frontline… The US will openly say to President
Aliyev that the Karabakh conflict cannot be resolved by war. Along
with pressuring Armenia, the US should urge Azerbaijan to sign a
comprehensive peace agreement. As the first step President Aliyev will
have to create conditions for normal relations between the Azeri and
Armenians peoples…, says Fraser. If the US wants Azerbaijan to show
long-term support for its Iranian policy, it should ensure peace in
Karabakh. For as long as the Karabakh problem is pending, Azerbaijan
is not interested in spoiling its developing relations with Iran,
and vice versa, if Azerbaijan decides to use military force against
Karabakh, a region situated very close to Iran’s northern borders,
it may damage the US’ energy and security interests and face the
stoppage of foreign inflows in its economy. These issues and also the
urgent problem of the Iranian nuclear threat should be discussed with
President Aliyev, says Fraser.
As we can see the Karabakh problem is linked with the Iranian nuclear
threat, says the daily. Washington may certainly pressure Yerevan
but instead it wants Baku to concede in the Iranian issue, an issue
that can plunge our country into an even more serious disaster than
the Karabakh conflict. Washington wants Baku to choose: either to
sign a capitulatory agreement on Karabakh, or to take part in the
anti-Iranian military adventure. (New Time)
Forecast by American analytical center
In its analytical article on Azerbaijan, Stratfor (Strategic
Forecasting) center speaks about the possibility of a new war in
Karabakh. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will be launched in some two
months to pump oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea.
This pipe and other energy projects will give Azerbaijan $800 mln
by late 2006. Even though this money will go mostly into the budget
of Ilham Aliyev and his clan, the military budget will also make use
of it.
Stratfor says that the present situation on the Armenian-Azeri
contact line is tensed. The fragile cease fire there has been
occasionally broken since 1994. The last meeting of the Armenian and
Azeri presidents in France has brought their countries no closer to
peace. If Azerbaijan gets big cash, it may well buy arms and hardware
from France, the US or former Warsaw Treaty countries, while its
personnel may get consultations from the US. Armenia’s small military
budget has to date been counterbalanced by weak Azeri army and strong
Armenian nationalism. But now unequal financing may change this
balance. In 2005 Armenia’s budget was $930 mln, while Azerbaijan’s
budget was $2.986 bln. In 2005 Azerbaijan’s military budget was
$300 mln. However, Ilham Aliyev says that the military budget of his
country will soon be equal to the whole budget of Armenia. Last year
Armenia’s military budget was $100 mln, this year it will be $160 mln.
Now BTC is being filled with fuel. The Azeri and Georgian sections
are already full, the Turkish section is almost full. In 2007 the oil
production will significantly grow. In 2008 the pipeline will work at
full capacity – 1 mln barrels a day. This will give Azerbaijan big
profits. Even though Azerbaijan’s attempt to return its separatist
territories seems inevitable, there are a number of factors that can
cushion its aggressive steps. One factor is numerous international
corporations carrying out energy projects in Azerbaijan. These people
will be displeased to see their money jeopardized. Stratfor says
that being close to Nagorno Karabakh and the separatist regions of
Georgia, the BTC will be very much vulnerable to possible sabotage
despite strong security measures. All the region’s separatists are
backed by Russia. The BTC bypasses that country, and so it may well
sanction acts of sabotage against the pipeline.
Stratfor says that the Armenians have shown that they are ready to
fight. They are quite strong politically. There are more Armenians
in the US than in Armenia, and the US Armenian community has an
influential lobby in Washington. There is a fragile balance between
the US’ alliance with Azerbaijan and its assistance of Armenia. In
order to keep this balance, the US will do its best to prevent a new
war. But nothing can prevent the growing deadly enmity in the region,
where history is everything, and any clash may spur a new bloodshed.
The conflict is ripening slowly but steadily. But this time Azerbaijan
will be better prepared, better armed and better financed and will
pull the balance to its side, concludes Stratfor. (Real Azerbaijan)