TURKISH-ARMENIAN NORMALIZATION AND KARABAKH ARE CONNECTED – EXPERT
Leyla Tagiyeva
news.az
Jan 18 2010
Azerbaijan
Rauf Rajabov News.Az interviews Rauf Rajabov, an Azerbaijani conflict
expert.
Last week Baku sent two notes of protest to the Russian side which
seems unprecedented in bilateral relations. One note concerned
Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovksy’s remarks
that Russia should recognize Nagorno-Karabakh if it declares its
independence. The other note was a response to the Collective Security
Treaty Organization’s accusation that the Azerbaijani ambassador
in Moscow is aggravating the regional situation. What do you think
of this?
I don’t think this is anything unusual or extraordinary. It is normal
practice for a country to send a note when it considers another
country’s statement to be wrong or to exceed international law. It
is normal practice for countries to seek a solution to the problem
not through a smear campaign but through a civilized attitude towards
each other.
May these two notes on statements by Russian representatives on
Karabakh influence Russia’s further mediation on the Karabakh conflict?
No, I don’t think so. Any country develops its position on any issue
in the middle and long term. Expectations of [Turkish Prime Minister]
Erdogan’s visit to Moscow and [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov’s
visit to Yerevan were to some extent disappointed. These talks were
expected to help overcome the deadlock in the negotiating process
and bring some clarity. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Anyway,
I don’t think it was really expedient to present these notes to Russia.
Certainly, it would be positive if Russia understood that the
normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations and the settlement
of the Karabakh conflict, which would mean the resolution of
Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, should happen in a single dialogue
space, through they have a different history and nature. These issues
are different but they are in a single dialogue space and no one can
argue with this. I think it would be positive if this were taken into
account too.
Don’t you see these actions by the Russian side and the attribution
of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia by the Russian Orthodox Church as
anti-Azerbaijani?
I don’t see anything deliberate here but some asymmetry is obvious. It
is clear that Zhirinovsky is not a senior official in the executive
authorities, but he is a senior official in the legislative
authorities. Therefore, his statements should be treated seriously,
especially because he sometimes voices ideas that have some support.
If the Russian Foreign Ministry has its specific strategy, some other
centres of power, for example, the State Duma, have a different vision,
understanding and position. We can see asymmetry here. I think it
is positive when all branches of power in a country have the same
vision. Since Russia is a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, it should
be more pragmatic. Or, let’s take the example of the CSTO’s reaction to
the statement of the Azerbaijani ambassador to Russia. The statement
can be viewed differently, but the form of the CSTO’s reaction to it
causes many questions.
We should not forget that an ambassador is a representative of a
country and in this case the CSTO should have clarified the issue
by sending a request to the Foreign Ministry rather than by making a
statement about the ambassador. I think it was uncivilized to make a
statement in the way it was done. The note from the Azerbaijani side
was professional diplomatic work. As for the Moscow Patriarchate
attributing a church in Nagorno-Karabakh to the Orthodox Church
in Armenia, this is another evidence of a lack of pragmatism on
such a sensitive issue. I do not want to accuse them of a lack of
professionalism or partiality, but I think that a religious person
should be more balanced in their statements. We did not see any
balance in the statement of the Russian church representative.
Don’t you think that all this affects Russia’s image as an impartial
mediator on Karabakh?
Naturally, it brings an element of misunderstanding to relations
between Russia and Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan should continue
to take a balanced position in its actions. We need to remember that
Russia is our neighbour, we shall be neighbours forever and we cannot
do anything about it. Economic relations between our countries have
actively developed over the past year and this is positive. Meanwhile,
it does not mean that Azerbaijan has to be reconciled to current
events. We can see that Azerbaijan is not reconciled to them and this
is proven by the notes of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry. These notes
show that Azerbaijan will conduct a pragmatic and consistent foreign
policy. These instances certainly do cases create some problems for
Russia’s image and, in this regard, our countries should think together
and decide what to do to ensure that these issues do not arise again.
The next round of negotiations between the presidents of Azerbaijan
and Armenia is expected under the mediation of the Russian president
in late January. Before the meeting, the OSCE Minsk Group’s co-chairs
will visit the region. What should we expect from these meetings?
I don’t expect anything extraordinary from the co-chairs’ visit. I
think that whatever can be proposed has already been proposed. The
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are unable to suggest anything new, because
the basic principles of settlement have repeatedly been presented as
improved, overhauled and updated. However, the order of the figures
does not affect the sum. They remain unchanged. Therefore, I don’t
expect anything new. I only expect the process to continue, which is
positive in itself. As for a trilateral meeting of the presidents,
then something interesting can be expected from it. The Moscow
declaration was signed and there were other interesting meetings under
Medvedev’s mediation in 2008. In addition, telephone calls were held
after Erdogan’s visit to Moscow and Lavrov’s visit to Yerevan. This
proves that some serious negotiations on Karabakh are under way.
Certainly, I would like the issue to be clarified. I think the
presidential meeting in late January might bring some clarity in
this sense. It would be very said if it did not, because it would
show the ineffectiveness of the very intensive negotiation process
involving Russia and Turkey. I hope Ankara, Moscow, Paris, Washington,
Baku and Yerevan understand this.