KARABAKH: OSCE CATCHES REGION OFF GUARD
Robert Parsons
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL
EurasiaNet, NY
July 1 2006
In an interview with RFE/RL on June 22, the US official tasked with
mediating peace talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave indicated he
and fellow diplomats had done as much as they could to foster a peace
agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Matthew Bryza, who serves
together with French and Russian co-chairs to the OSCE Minsk Group,
disclosed details about the framework agreement on the table and said
it was time for the countries’ leadership to summon the “political
will” necessary to achieve a resolution. Bryza may have hoped his
comments would push both sides toward breaking the deadlock. But the
two sides seem no closer to an agreement.
It wasn’t what Matthew Bryza said that caught Yerevan and Baku off
balance.
The surprise was that the OSCE had gone public.
Principles at Stake
Bryza’s comments revealed the outline of the core principles under
discussion. They also revealed the Minsk Group’s deepening frustration
at the failure of the two sides to make concessions more than a decade
after negotiations began.
There may have been hope Bryza’s statement and a Minsk Group statement
issued the same day would provoke a more open debate in Armenia and
Azerbaijan on the future of Nagorno-Karabakh.
If so, the OSCE mediators may have been disappointed by the initial
flurry of mutual recrimination and blame between the two sides —
including a bellicose statement from Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev, who said international efforts on the talks were “hopeless”
and raised the possibility of a military solution.
In a follow-up interview on June 28, RFE/RL asked Bryza if he was
surprised by Aliyev’s statement.
“Those statements have been more commonplace than they ought to be,
and I’d stand by what I said last Thursday, on June 22, that talk about
recapturing Karabakh by force, or any use of force by any party, is
simply not helpful,” Bryza said. “It’s not necessary, because there
is a viable framework on the table that just requires a little bit
more political courage on both sides to forge a compromise. Though
I stand by what I said — it’s not helpful.”
Not helpful — and surely not even a viable option for Azerbaijan,
whose oil-based economic recovery is dependent on stability in
the region.
Meek Group No More
The Minsk Group, which in the past has played a quietly supportive
background role, has a blunt new message: It’s time for all parties
to the dispute to take responsibility for finding a solution.
As mediators, Bryza says, the co-chairs feel they have done all that
they can do.
“What we’re saying in the statement is that there is no more room
for diplomatic creativity to make this piece of metal shine a little
bit more brightly,” Bryza said. “It’s honed and you have to decide
whether you want it or not. The trade-offs that would have to be made
are so significant politically that it requires the head of state to
make the trade-off. So we’re saying OK, it’s yours now.”
But is anyone listening? The ball may be in Baku and Yerevan’s court,
but neither side appears interested in concession.
One of the main points of dispute is over the terms of a referendum
to determine the final status of the enclave.
Azerbaijan says the form of the referendum has yet to be decided.
But Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian stirred controversy this
week when he claimed Bryza said the status of the enclave would be
determined by its current population — which overwhelmingly comprises
ethnic Armenians.
This is not a conclusion supported by the Minsk Group statement.
Tom de Waal, an English expert on the region, says many crucial
questions remain about a potential referendum.
“Is this going to be a referendum just of the current population
of Karabakh, which is 99 percent Armenian? Is it going to be a
referendum of the prewar population of Karabakh, which was 25
percent Azerbaijani? Or is this going to be a referendum for the
whole population of Azerbaijan?” De Waal asked. “So I think this idea
of a referendum was possibly good to begin with, but people are now
beginning to ask much more difficult questions about the details.”
Road to Peace
The Minsk Group says its has adopted a slow-but-steady approach aimed
and building trust on the way to a lasting peace.
But none of this will be possible, they say, while the two sides
continue to present the issues in mutually exclusive black-and-white
terms rather than preparing their publics for the concessions inherent
in a peaceful settlement.
For now, however, de Waal says he sees very little robust discussion
of the issue.
“I don’t really see much discussion at all when I travel to the
region,” De Waal said. “I don’t see anyone in public in Azerbaijan
saying the most important thing is to solve this thing peacefully even
if this means very painful compromise. And I don’t see that on the
Armenian side, either. When they say they want agreement, what they
are really saying is that they want victory. And of course you don’t
get complete victory in a peace process — you get half a victory,
you get a compromise.”
Official Ambition
The issue is also complicated by the fact that Karabakh officials
themselves are eager to play a greater role in the negotiations.
Speaking this week in Washington, the speaker of the Nagorno-Karabakh
parliament, Ashot Ghulian, said including enclave officials as a party
in the peace process would “restore the correct format of negotiations
and neutralize accusations of Armenia as an aggressor and [diminish]
the tendency in regional policy to isolate Armenia.”
For all parties involved, time for a quick breakthrough is running
out. The window of opportunity in 2006 brought by the current pause
in electoral activity in Armenia and Azerbaijan is rapidly closing.
The next election-free year would come only in 2009.

CONDUCTOR SAHBAII TO DISCUSS MOZART WORKS
Mehr News Agency, Iran
July 1 2006
TEHRAN, July 1 (MNA) – Iranian conductor Manuchehr Sahbaii is to
discuss the style of Austrian composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s
works at the Mozart Music Festival here Sunday.
The workshop is held at the University of Tehran’s Avini Hall.
Parsian band conducted by Maziar Zahireddini will give a performance
in the morning and a piano concert by guest musicians from Armenia
and Tajikistan will be held in the afternoon.
Pardis Music Band from University of Tehran’s Fine Arts Faculty with
the cooperation of the University of Music and Dramatic Arts in Graz
(KUG) is holding Mozart Music Festival from July 1-8.
Over 100 young musicians are to compete at the event.
The selected musicians will have performances with the University of
Tehran Orchestra. They will also give performances in the country’s
universities.

DEPUTY FM OF AZERBAIJAN MEETS WITH HIS EGYPTIAN COUNTERPART
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
July 1 2006
Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Khalaf Khalafov met with Deputy
Foreign Minister of the Arab Republic of Egypt Mrs. Fatma al-Zakhra
on June 30.
Azerbaijani diplomat said this meeting is of great importance for
continuing the political dialogue between the two countries.
Deputy FM of Egypt Fatma Al-Zakhra said Egypt is poised to develop
relations with Azerbaijan in all spheres. According to her, the
major objective of her visit to Azerbaijan is to continue political
consultations started in Cairo, strengthen bilateral relations and
discuss proposals for development of cooperation.
At the meeting, the discussions revolved around the cooperation between
the two countries within international organizations such as UN, OIC as
well as the international and regional issues. The sides touched upon
the negotiations over Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It
was noted during the meeting that Armenia did not give up the policy
of occupation and remains committed to its non-constructive stance,
which does not allow settling the problem.
The sides highlighted the need for developing economic, trade,
scientific, cultural, tourism, health, educational relations and
launching the direct flight between Cairo and Baku. Deputy Foreign
Ministers also discussed the prospects for cooperation within the
framework of the TRACECA project and issue of cooperation with the
European Union.
The meeting also focused on the issue of conducting the meeting of the
joint Egypt-Azerbaijan joint commission slated for early 2007 in Baku.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ALIYEV GETTING READY FOR WAR? NAGORNO-KARABAKH PRESS DIGEST
Regnum, Russia
July 1 2006
The model of Tatarstan does not suit Karabakh
The key difficulty in the Karabakh peace talks is to determine the
future status of that territory, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov told journalists. He noted that the sides are showing
no much of agreement yet, but if they agree on this issue, they will
ensure real progress in the talks. 525th Daily reports Mammadyarov as
saying that Azerbaijan is ready to provide Karabakh with the highest
autonomy status possible within its territorial integrity. He gave
the example of Tatarstan, a very wide autonomy within the Russian
Federation, whose constitution allows it to build relations with
foreign countries and to open representations abroad.
The daily notes that the model of Tatarstan was discussed as early as
September 1993 by then acting Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev
and Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossyan during their Moscow
meeting organized by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Later, former
state advisor Vafa Guluzade, who was present at the meeting, said
that Armenia rejected this proposal, while the Russian side showed
no specific approach to it. In the spring 2001, during the talks in
Paris and Key-West, the model of Tatarstan was again on agenda. The
head of the Azeri delegation to PACE Ilham Aliyev suggested applying
this model as a way to resolve the Karabakh conflict, but the
Armenian side kept objecting to any proposals for keeping Karabakh
within Azerbaijan. In this light, Baku’s return to the Tatarstan
model is quite noteworthy. “There are several ways to determine
the status of disputed territories in the world: highest level of
autonomy, condominium (joint government), territorial swap, special
agreement. Until now the Armenian side has been rejecting the proposals
for Karabakh’s autonomy within Azerbaijan and territorial swap.”
Joint government in Karabakh is contrary to the interests of the
Azerbaijani statehood as it means that Azerbaijan will lose its
sovereignty over that territory. Special agreement has a big potential
for attaining mutual understanding and is used mostly for resolving
conflicts with separatist regions. In this case, a central government
and a region conclude an agreement on coordinating sovereignty. For
example, in Russia Tatarstan decides on its own in all spheres except
foreign policy, defense and security.”
The idea of giving Karabakh “wide” autonomy is taking specific shape,
says KarabakhOpen.com: “The Azerbaijani Foreign Minister has finally
outlined this idea and said that autonomy may be similar to the
status of Tatarstan within the Russian Federation.” The daily quotes
experts as saying that the new ideas of the Azerbaijani FM are just
“agony,” the last try to preserve nominal authority over Karabakh –
no coincidence, they are beginning to talk about this now that the
independence of Montenegro has been recognized.
The leader of the Fatherland faction of the Nagorno-Karabakh parliament
Araik Haroutyunyan says that NKR will not discuss any of Azerbaijan’s
proposals going beyond its independence. “As regards Mammadyarov’s
idea, I would advise him to first consider providing autonomy to
Azerbaijani Talish and Kurdish minorities,” says Haroutyunyan.
The representative of the ARF Dashnaktsoutyun to NKR Artur Mossiyan
notes that this is not the first time the Azerbaijani authorities
are making such a statement. “The Azeri authorities have always said
that they are ready to provide Karabakh with the ‘widest’ autonomy
existing in the world. Perhaps, for Mammadyarov Tatarstan’s autonomy
is the widest, but the Karabakh people and authorities and our party
have always confirmed their will to have an independent state and
have always rejected any scenarios implying Karabakh’s submission to
Azerbaijan,” says Mossiyan.
The chairman of the parliamentary commission on defense and security
Rudik Martirossyan says that the situation in Karabakh is drastically
different from the situation in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdnestr or
even Tatarstan. Quite different analogues are applicable to Karabakh –
“as we have never been part of independent Azerbaijan.”
“This statement is just one more impracticable proposal as no nation
who has once gained independence through a referendum can be submitted
by another nation. The proposal of the Azeri side is unacceptable to
Karabakh,” says Martirossyan.
Commenting on Mammadyarov’s statement, Nagorno Karabakh FM Georgy
Petrosyan says: “This statement – unless it is just one more
propaganda move – means that Azerbaijan is ready to federalize its
state. So, I hope they will give this autonomy to the Lezgin, Talish
and other minorities living in their country. As regards NKR – with
whom Azerbaijan avoids to contact – I would like to note that the
Azerbaijani authorities cannot give one or another status to Nagorno
Karabakh as this is outside their competence. The status of Nagorno
Karabakh has been legally determined by its people.” (The information
portal of the Nagorno Karabakh FM) Is Aliyev getting ready for war?
525th daily reports Azerbajani President Ilham Aliyev to say during
the 33rd meeting of the FMs of the Organization for the Islamic
Conference that Azerbaijan hopes for peaceful resolution of the
Karabakh conflict but must consider other scenarios too. He said
that this problem is an obstacle to cooperation in the whole region:
“We are trying to solve this problem by peaceful means but we cannot
put up with the present reality. Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity
is recognized in the whole world. The Armenian side defies the 4 UN
resolutions urging it to withdraw its troops from Azerbaijani lands.”
“Azerbaijan has never agreed to the violation of its territorial
integrity. The talks will lead to peace only when Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity is restored,” Aliyev said.
The Azerbaijani army can liberate the territories occupied by
Armenia at any moment, Azerbaijani Defense Minister Safar Abiyev told
journalists on June 22. Day.Az reports him as noting that, in fact,
Azerbaijan is still at war with Armenia. As a result, the situation
on the frontline is constantly unstable, the lives of Azeri soldiers
are constantly in danger, but the Azerbaijani army can rebuff any
attack by the enemy at any moment.
“Should we continue the talks, at all, if nothing is coming of them?
This has long become just an attempt to follow fashion – in fact,
humiliation of the Azerbaijani people. We better stop dreaming we may
benefit from this gathering. We all remember how Kocharyan shamelessly
said at PACE that he is proud that he took part in ‘the liberation of
Karabakh’! What talks can we have with this terrorist who is proud
of his Fascist ideology – an ideology that is agonizing the whole
region?! While Azerbaijan is gradually losing ground at the talks,
the Armenians are getting increasingly confident of their strength and
impunity. While our rich are just thinking how to fill their purses
and pockets, the Armenians are gaining ground by availing themselves
of the incompetence, egoism and pathological greed of the Azerbaijani
political ‘elite’… Kocharyan, Oskanyan, Ghoukassyan and the like
are encouraged by the impotence of the Azerbaijani authorities who
just keep saying ‘We will never put up with the loss of Karabakh!’ –
a phrase that has long set our teeth on edge,” says Zerkalo daily.No
war by Azerbaijan, to date, does not mean they fear that anybody
will censure them, political scientist Hrazdan Madoyan says to
PanARMENIAN.Net. On the one hand, if they in Baku were at least
50 percent sure they would win, they would not look at the US or
NATO. On the other hand, the selfsame US and NATO have put a rigid
veto on war. This veto may imply the toughest possible sanctions –
up to “division of the country and dethronement of Aliyev.”

PRESENTING A FRIENDLIER FACE FOR AMERICA IN IRAQ
By Richard H. Humke
Special to The Courier-Journal
Louisville Courier-Journal, KY
July 2 2006
Iran has been off-limits for most Americans for the last 27 years,
since the beginning of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the taking
of hostages at the American embassy in Tehran shortly thereafter.
Iranian-Americans and their families have continued to travel there
to visit, of course, but few other Americans have done so.
When the opportunity arose to visit Iran for 12 days, seven
Louisvillians eagerly joined 16 other persons from around the United
States and Britain to do so; I was pleased to be a part of that
group. The visit was sponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation,
an international peace-making group now approaching its 100th
anniversary. The Fellowship is experienced in sending groups of
visitors to places like Iran, where tensions between the United States
and that country are particularly great.
Before we left, we were questioned repeatedly by friends and family
about our sanity, and the question most often asked us was, “Aren’t
you afraid?” Of course, we weren’t afraid, or we probably wouldn’t
have gone. But the question did plant some seeds of apprehension in
us nonetheless. What we found in Iran was a welcoming hospitality,
tinged with surprise, everywhere we went. “Thank you for coming.” “I
can’t believe you’re Americans.” “Did they really give you a visa?”
And most surprising of all: “I’ve never talked to an American.”
Making a difference Such expressions of surprise helped us to realize
that we were accomplishing one of our goals: to present a friendly
face of America without the shrill rhetoric that so often accompanies
relations between our governments. We had no misapprehensions that we
could accomplish great things or change the direction of international
relations, but we did believe that each one of us could make the
difference that an individual can make.
We were not blind to the problems that we knew existed in Iran:
persecution of members of the Baha’i religion; zero tolerance for
homosexuals that could result in execution; political oppression
of opposition voices; widespread use of capital punishment and
restrictions on women. Nor did we think we could affect any of those
serious matters. We went to see and to listen and to learn.
We visited some of the many beautiful and ancient sites to be found
in Iran. Iran is not a country whose boundaries have been cobbled
together by Western powers, as Iraq was 75 years ago. It is an ancient
nation with a rich culture and history of which its people are rightly
very proud. Persepolis, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom — these places are not
very familiar to most Americans, but like Florence or Delphi, they
are rich in architectural and historical interest. I considered our
visiting them as more than going to tourist destinations. Our visits
were also acts of affirmation for our Iranian hosts.
There are religious minorities in Iran, which is 98 percent Muslim.
Twenty-five thousand Jews still call Iran home, a remnant of what was
once a large and thriving ancient community. We visited a synagogue in
Tehran and listened to its president talk about Jewish life in Iran
today. We would have liked to ask him about Israel, and particularly
about the Iranian president’s inflammatory remarks about Israel,
but we knew that to do so would place him and our Iranian hosts in
a very difficult position.
We also visited an Armenian cathedral and its precincts, the Armenians
being the largest of a number of Christian groups in Iran totaling
as many as 250,000. Accepting the reality of living in an Islamic
republic, Christians, too, seemed to have a freedom to practice
their faith.
The Zoroastrians are the ancient, pre-Islamic religion of Iran, and
a visit to one of their centers and a talk (through an interpreter)
by one of their priests gave us further understanding of this very old
religion. They, too, appeared to be free to exercise their religious
faith within their own community.
It was only by accident that we were in Iran at a particularly tense
time, shortly after Seymour Hersh alleged in The New Yorker that our
government was considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran’s
underground uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz. We visited the
village of Natanz and on the way passed that nuclear facility.
Our destination in Natanz, however, was a home for girls who for
various reasons were no longer able to live with their parents. The
home had been begun by a gentle-faced mullah who joined us and the
girls for a sumptuous Iranian lunch which they served us as we sat
on lovely carpets spread on the floor. As these beautiful and very
intelligent young women, enveloped in their chadors, spoke to us
about their hopes and dreams for their lives, I could not get out of
my mind the specter of those nuclear weapons which the United States
might possibly use. Because, of course, there would be no need for
those beautiful girls to have plans for the future. There would be
no future for them.
War ‘cannot be the answer’ I came back more convinced than I had
ever been that war cannot be the answer to our difficulties with
Iran. We must learn to talk together and to negotiate in good faith
— and so must they, of course — without the threat of destroying
one another. This great country of ours surely can take the lead in
doing that.
The Rev. Richard H. Humke is a retired Episcopal priest who lives in
Louisville. For many years, he was rector of St. Matthews Episcopal
Church.

POLISH PARLIAMENT CHAIRMAN DUE IN TURKEY NEXT WEEK
By Cihan News Agency
Zaman Online, Turkey
July 2 2006
Marek Jurek, the chairman of Polish Parliament’s lower house, is due
in Ankara next week as part of an official visit to Turkey.
This will be the first official visit to Ankara of the Speaker of
Sejm, the lower chamber of the Polish parliament, after the relations
between Turkey and Poland worsened after the Polish Sejm adopted a
resolution on the so-called Armenian Genocide on April 16, 2005.
Turkish Parliament Speaker Arinc had, therefore cancelled his scheduled
visit to Poland.
Jurek is expected to voice support to Ankara’s position on the
allegations of Armenian genocide.
In April of this year, the former Polish FM Stefan Meller visited
Ankara and supported the Turkish thesis, which says the historians
should examine the claims, not politicians.
PM Erdogan had suggested to the Armenian PM Kocharian the setting up
of a joint commission of Armenian and Turkish historians, stating
that Turkish archives were open to all scientists for detailed
researches. However, his Armenian counterpart did not respond to
the proposals.
The fate of the Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during WW1 and
after is still a sensitive issue in Turkey. Armenians claim that 1.5
million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire were killed as part of
an intentional and systematic campaign of genocide during World War I.
Turkey denies the allegations claiming that 200,000 Armenians died
during forced migrations due to cold weather and poor transportation
conditions.

MESSAGE TO EU: OPENING TURKISH PORTS TO GREEKS CYPRUS WILL BRING THE GOVERNMENT DOWN
Zaman Online, Turkey
July 2 2006
The European Union (EU) Council Enlargement Collaboration Group
discussed Turkey’s membership process during a visit to the Turkish
Parliament (TBMM).
Greek representatives in the delegation brought up the issue of opening
Turkish ports to Greeks and the extension of Greece’s territorial
waters in the Aegean Sea, which they regard as “act of war.”
Gathering with the EU Accordance Commission members on Friday, one
of the Greek representatives revealed they expected Turkey to open
it ports to Greeks and Southern Cyprus demands the establishing air
service between Larnaka and Istanbul.
Chairman of the Turkish Parliament EU Accordance Commission Yasar Yakis
firmly responded, saying that Turkey will never open its ports to Greek
vessels as long as commercial isolation of Turkish Cyprus continues.
Onur Ovmen, member of the main opposition CHP, said, “No government
can open Turkish ports for Greeks; if it did, it would dissolve in
an hour.”
Ovmen reproaching the Greeks remarked it is injustice for Turkey
to continuously bring to the agenda the Cyprus, Aegean and Armenian
issues in an effort to hinder Turkey’s membership.
He also underlined no government in Turkey will recognize the
unilateral Greek governments in Cyprus.
Surprised by Ovmen’s statement, the Greeks then brought the “act of
war” issue into the agenda.
Yakis first responded to the Greeks, declaring that Greece extended
the limit of its territorial waters 12 miles including Turkey’s ports
violating international law, and reminded, “If we were to accept it,
our harbors in Aegean Sea would have to be included within Greek
territorial waters.”

NAGORNO KARABAKH TO JOIN THE ASSOCIATION “FOR DEMOCRACY AND NATIONS’ RIGHTS”
Regnum, Russia
July 2 2006
“The Nagorno Karabakh Republic intends to join the Association ‘For
democracy and nations’ rights’ established by presidents of Abkhazia,
South Ossetia, and Transdnestr.” The decision was declared by the
president of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity at a meeting with the Java
district administration, REGNUM informs.
On June 14, presidents of Abkhazia, Transdnestr, and South Ossetia
Sergey Bagapsh, Igor Smirnov, and Eduard Kokoity had an official
meeting in Sukhumi where they discussed, in particular, security issues
in the Black Sea and Caucasian region. The parties also discussed the
problem of joint cooperation in confronting external challenges, the
course and the prospects of political conflicts’ settlement. Following
the meeting, the presidents signed a joint declaration which proclaimed
the creation of the Association “For democracy and nations’ rights,”
as well as the joint resolution on peacekeeping activities.
Among the Association’s key objectives are: reaching common goals by
exclusively peaceful means and political methods, based on the mutually
profitable and equal cooperation, the supremacy of the people’s will at
taking nation-wide decisions, and the indispensability of principles of
sovereignty and independence at conducting negotiations on political
conflicts’ settlement. The parties also expressed conviction that
“the peaceful initiatives and the striving for peace will positively
influence the dynamics of today’s international and regional processes
and will receive widest support.”

MINORITIES STABBED OVER WEEKEND
The Moscow Times, Russia
July 3 2006
Assailants stabbed two ethnic Armenian students, a Kazakh student
and two Uzbeks in three separate incidents in Moscow over the weekend.
It was unclear whether any of the attacks would be classified as hate
crimes or were at all connected. But they all occurred amid growing
fears of racism and xenophobia and a sharp uptick in skinhead activity
in Russia.
Two Armenian teenagers were stabbed during a fight on the platform
of the Kuznetsky Most metro station around 5 p.m. Saturday, Interfax
reported. The two were hospitalized with various stab wounds; the
attackers fled the scene.
The attack was being investigated as hooliganism, city prosecutors’
spokesman Sergei Marchenko said.
Meanwhile, a Kazakh man studying at Moscow’s Military Engineering
Academy was attacked by a group of 10 teenagers, including four women,
Interfax said. He was also hospitalized and was reportedly in stable
condition.
Also Saturday, two Uzbek citizens were hospitalized with multiple stab
wounds after being attacked in southwestern Moscow, Interfax said. The
two were hospitalized in serious condition, police officials said.

“RUSSIA STARTED ACTIVE FLIRTING WITH GEORGIA”: YURI DZITSOITY INTERVIEW
Regnum, Russia
July 3 2006
REGNUM introduces interview with South Ossetian vice Speaker, head of
the Committee on Foreign Policy, Defense, and Security Yuri Dzitsoity.
REGNUM: Mr. Dzitsoity, Georgia has repeatedly claimed that the
Georgian-Ossetian conflict can be solved not between Georgian and
South Ossetia but between Tbilisi and Moscow. How would you today
describe both countries’ positions on the issue? Could any changes
in the process of South Ossetian issue settlement be expected,
taking into account results of the Putin-Saakashvili meeting in
St. Petersburg?
First of all, I would like to say that the very fact of the meeting
is interesting. Reportedly, Putin and Saakashvili had not intended
to meet, and the initiative of holding a session of the Russian and
Georgian presidents belonged to the U.S. I believe that Russia had
been pressed upon in this regard. In fact, they are trying to solve our
issue through Moscow and Washington, i.e., behind our back. It is hard
to say how far Russia allowed Georgia to advance in solving its task,
since we do not know what Putin and Saakashvili talked about vis-a-vis.
However, judging by statements made by Kamynin and Kosachev, people
who have enough power to know what is going on in Kremlin lobbies,
one could tell that Russia today started to actively flirt with
Georgia. Kosachev, for example, said that Russia is not going to
and never was going to consider appeals of South Ossetia and Georgia
on recognizing their independence and entering Russia. On the other
hand, the same Kosachev says that Russia has always been standing on
the territorial integrity of Georgia, she simply does not accept the
means suggested by Georgia, i.e., when she suggests a forced, not a
negotiation solution… Whereas the goal is defined, the rest is of no
importance. This is why I think that today Russia is actively flirting
with Georgia, counting on Georgia’s proposed change of attitude towards
Russia, counting on Georgia’s loyalty, which envisions, first of all,
Georgia’s giving up accessing NATO structures.
REGNUM: On July 5, the South Ossetian and Abkhaz issues will be
among the subjects discussed at a Washington meeting of Bush and
Saakashvili. What could be expected from the meeting?
We should not forget that the meeting will be held on the verge
of the G8 summit, that is why they will again attempt to exercise
pressure on Moscow. The Bush-Saakashvili meeting is another step in
this direction. The task has been defined already: settling separatist
conflicts in the framework of united Georgia. That is, the final goal
has been already defined, and nothing meaningful remains to discuss.
REGNUM: Do you suppose that an unfavorable situation is being
formed for the unrecognized states? After all, they have the Kosovo
precedent handy as a trump, not to mention the right of nations for
self-determination…
The thing is that the Kosovo precedent has not been created yet.
President Kastunica declared a few days ago that Kosovo will be part of
Serbia. I think that the West is scared with the Kosovo precedent and
is very likely to stop advancing in the direction. It can be projected
that the western countries and, first of all, the U.S., will attempt to
first “settle” conflicts in the post-Soviet space, roughly speaking,
to push South Ossetia and Abkhazia into Georgia, Transdnestr into
Moldavia, to take care of Nagorno Karabakh, and then come back to
solving the Kosovo issue, when nobody already needs the precedent.
REGNUM: And Russia?
By accepting Georgia’s ultimate goal, Russia loses. Georgia indulges
in doing whatever she chooses.
REGNUM: Could this be Kremlin’s diplomatic move?
It could be a diplomatic move, but Georgia is very successfully
using statements of Russian politicians on united Georgia. Of
course, Russia simultaneously speaks of the right of nations for
self-determination. But there is a room for arguing here that a nation
can determine herself within a unified state.
REGNUM: Could it be true that Georgia’s access to NATO is such a
big problem for Russia that it uses all the diplomatic game means,
up to the denial of South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
NATO at Russia’s south boundaries is the main problem, a key issue.
If Georgia becomes part of Russia, all the doctrine changes: defense,
external; the power layout in the North Caucasus changes. Here we
will be able of definitely speaking of not only Chechen separatism,
but also of separatist tendencies in the North Caucasus in general.
REGNUM: But is not seeing Georgia part of NATO projected for the
not-so-foreseeable future?
We thought exactly so when Georgia was accessing the European Union.
Don’t you see that more developed countries like Turkey are being
given conditions, including political ones? For example, Turkey has
the issue of North Cyprus and the Kurdish issue. As for Georgia, it
was admitted so hastily that one could only wonder. One could say for
sure that Georgia was given a very different role by the West. And the
role is no less important than that of Ukraine. Georgia and Ukraine
are the two regions that the U.S. got a stranglehold on.