Tigran Torosyan: "Even if it is necessary for the United States to "put pressure" on Turkey, the resolution on the recognition of Armenian genocide in the US congress will hardly be applied as a mechanism"

- The time, which passed from the moment of election of Serzh Sargsyan as the President of Armenia allows to draw some conclusions. How do you assess his activity on the post of the head of the state? Do you consider the internal and external policy of the Armenian President to be successful?

- The general assessment of the activity of the new Armenian President will be complete in March-April of 2009.

- Naturally, the Moscow declaration, signed by Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan under participation of Dmitri Medvedev, is perceived through the prism of its own interests by each of the conflict parties. What can you say about the adoption of this declaration? Which way of the Karabakh conflict resolution can be spoken of today? If Moscow is sincere in its actions, what caused the Kremlin's hurried steps to settle this conflict?

- Certainly, Moscow is sincere, as the steps of the Russian side base on the interests of their country. Moreover, though paradoxical, the declaration bears no direct attitude to the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. This document is a result of the situation, established around Russia through the past months. In spring of this year, despite the desparate resistance and even the protest of Russia, the United States and influential European countries recognized independence of Kosovo, though in the result of the Ossetian war Russia showed force and unlimited influence in the South Caucasus region, recognized independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia after war but lost Georgia as a partner and was criticized by western countries and mass medias due to the tough military operations. For Russia it would have been a good opportunity to strengthen at least demonstrative partner relations with two other countries of the region - Armenia and Azerbaijan, as a proof that it take a dominating position. On the other hand, it must be proven urgently that Russia settles the task not only with application of force but also by way of talks and signing documents. That was a good chance to settle all these tasks/

Moreover, "side" effects also have a positive sign for Russia: President Medvedev made a step, which Putin failed to do through many years. Russia takes the initiative in the Karabakh conflict immediately after the presidential elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenia and Azerbaijan sign the first document on Karabakh conflict for the first time through 14 years and so on. Thus, nothing can be better than it.

A small detail is absent - the document is by no way closer to the conflict resolution.

It is still possible to speak of two equal opportunities for the resolution of the conflict - forced (military way - Russia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia or softer variant - United States, Kosovo) or the negotiation process. The first is applied when the center of powers prefers one of the conflict parties. There is another paradoxical hypothesis. The geopolitical importance of the Russian-Georgian war has an interesting projection on the Karabakh conflict, almost defining the further development of the settlement process. After the complete orientation of Georgia to the West the clear preference or Armenia or Azerbaijani interests becomes dangerous for Russia, as appearance of one more "Georgia" in the region will almost exclude Russia from the "Big South-Caucasus game".

Certainly, Armenia and Azerbaijan can successfully use this situation for the settlement of definite issues in the area of bilateral relations. Yet, Russia's position will be stable in the issue of the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, as in the geopolitical sense the Karabakh conflict is becoming a critical factor. Thus, talks will continue long without any significant results, unless the geopolitical correlation of powers changes. If, certainly, President Aliyev will not follow Saakashvili's logics: by freeing oneself from conflicts, it is possible to get rid of Russia. Though there is a more reasonable, but less real variant: in the framework of international law Azerbaijan recognizes the right of Karabakh people for self-determination, sets normal relations between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh and thus reduce to minimum the influence of "big players".

- The rejection to apply force, guarantees of political dialogue, commitments to fix peaceful agreements between the parties, which had been at war for over 20 years are the results of the  meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents in Moscow, fixed in the declaration. Does it mean that Moscow has demonstrated its capacities in the region to the whole world? Does it mean that keys from the conflict resolution are really in Moscow? Will it want to apply them?

- You are exaggerating the results of the declaration signing. It is just soothing for Russia. The loss of Georgia is a sensitive issue for Russia, which had no rivals in the region for about two centuries. No, keys from the conflict are not in Moscow. They had been in Moscow before the 1990s. Later the keys were lost and doors can only open from inside. This will happen when Azerbaijan will understand the secret of modern keys and accept minimal, fair conditions of Nagorno Karabakh in the framework of the international law.

The real  potential of Russia in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict is creation of a platform for peace talks, in particular, between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. The decisive talks will start only when Russia and Azerbaijan will realize that participation of Nagorno Karabakh in the negotiation process is even more important than Armenia's. The talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan are important in a different sense.

- The fourth paragraph of the Moscow declaration, which speaks of the need to settle the Karabakh conflict by way of direct talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia, in fact defines a new format of the conflict parties, Thus, hasn't the declaration completely buried Karabakh Armenians' intention to become the third and complete party of the conflict?

- No, it has not. First of all, Nagorno Karabakh was recognized the full party of the conflict both in the OSCE documents and the signed agreement on suspension of military actions, concluded by the Defense Ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan and commander of Nagorno Karabakh army. Second, rejection of the facts does not mean absence of these facts. It just means that those who state it have serious vision problems. Third, the fourth paragraph speaks of the subject of agreements between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. You will hardly find in the text of declaration a formulation, fixed in your question and even more, the content of the declaration proves that the meeting of the three presidents does not replace the process of negotiations in the framework of the Minsk Group, while the declaration states the sense of the discussed issues. And the most important is that the right for self-determination as the highest legal force in the framework of international law. Russia, Azerbaijan or Armenia can not restrict this right. No declaration or agreement can have such a force.

About declaration. It is seen from the declaration that it fixes vague formulations, even making references to confidential ( in the sense of the discussed project on the resolution principles) meeting in Madrid. Not because the Foreign Ministry of Russia lacks experienced and highly qualified specialists but because for the Russian side it was important to sign the document, while its content was not so important. Any definite formulation, any principal idea would not threaten with signing. The careful reading of the declaration shows that it lacks an insignificant idea on the absence of an alternative for the peaceful resolution of the conflict: the political resolution is not equal to the peaceful resolution.

The attack of the Azerbaijani armed forces to the positions of the Karabakh army on November 15 and absence of the due reaction from the side of the co-chairs and president of Russia, signing the declaration, or his representative.

- There are rumors that Moscow attempts to settle the Karabakh conflict so that to place a military base in Nagorno Karabakh under the auspices of the peacekeeping mission. Thus, Moscow will strengthen its military presence in the South Caucasus...

- In the sense of dislocation of Russian military bases Azerbaijan and Armenia are more attractive than Nagorno Karabakh. As previously noted Nagorno Karabakh is of great importance in the sense of geopolitical developments as an influential factor on the orientation of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as a main factor of provision of Russia's presence in the South Caucasus. By the way, the situation much resembles that of the 1920s in the region,  though the "Georgian orientation" now exceeds the rates.

- If we take the South Caucasus region as an area of clash of intetrests of Russia and the United States, how will the situation further develop, considering that Barak Obama has become the head of the Washington Administration? It is not by accident that Russia demonstrated its mediation in signing a declaration in the threshold of presidential elections in the United States - isn't it a hidden sign to Barak Obama that he should not interfere with the Caucasus issues. Considering the pre-electoral platform of the newly elected US president, this country intends to reject claims on most regions of the world. Will the united States leave the South Caucasus on a goodwill basis?

- The personality of a president is important in state policy in Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, however, not in the United States, Germany or France. Therefore, though there is a great difference between Bush and Obama, changes in the US policy towards the South Caucasus region can hardly be expected for two reasons. First, new president is a good cause for changes, primarily, politics in global directions. For example, in the failing issue of democratization of Iraw by the help of the US army. Second, why the United States leave our region, when one of the most successful US projects has been implemented here? On the contrary, the United states will intensify efforts as after the success in Georgia there appears a chance for execution of its South Caucasus ambitions. Certainly, it will hardly lead to a new war, but fight will be fierce. Game is worth candles, which is proven by the statements about billions of investments.

- Is it possible that a resolution on the "Armenian genocide" by the US congress will be adopted as it was promised by newly elected president of the United States Barak Obama during his election campaign?

- We got used that these issues in the United States are settled only on the basis of political expediency. Changes in Turkey's role in the region after a five day August war is a separate theme. Yet these events reduce possibility of adoption of the resolution in the US congress on the recognition of Armenians genocide. Even if it will be necessary for the United States to "put pressure" on Turkey, the resolution on the recognition of Armenian genocide in the US congress will hardly be applied as a mechanism. At least, contacts between the Presidents of Armenia and Tirkey will continue. Turkey has skilfully used and will further use this factor.

Yet there is a more important component of this issue. Any country, adopting such a resolution, makes a statement on moral basis of its state and public and not a courtesy towards Armenia or Armenian people. This is related both to the United States and Turkey.

/Day.Az/