Azerbaijani political expert: Serious progress may be achieved in resolving Nagorno-Karabakh conflict till April

In your opinion, it is possible to say that the changes to the Madrid principles, submitted by co-chairs of OSCE Minsk Group to the conflicting sides, were merely technical in nature?

The Madrid principles are well developed mechanism which contain a lot of reasonable compromise on settlement of the Karabakh conflict. The thing which the parties lack is the goodwill of Armenia which the OSCE Minsk Group cannot guarantee. This is the most acceptable solution to the conflict among those proposed so far and both sides have recognized these principles as a basis for the conflict settlement.

Azerbaijan's position is that Armenia must withdraw from all occupied areas adjacent to the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, which have no relation to the region that seeks and claims independence. Once this goal is achieved, intermediate status may be granted to Nagorno-Karabakh and negotiations on granting independece to Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan may begin already without Yerevan’s participation. The world should finally understand to what dead end is has been driven due to inadequacies in the principles of territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination. I think the amendment to the Madrid principles may be associated with this.
 
Armenia insists, above all, on holding a referendum in Karabakh. But Azerbaijan can not agree to this, firstly because there is no the Azerbaijani community there. Secondly, this is the most important because Azerbaijan’s Constitution does ot have a norm which allows holding such  expression of will. Holding such a referendum would require to amend the Constitution which Azerbaijan will never do.

I do not rule out possibility of renewing the Madrid principles. Things may take place as follows: granting interim status to Nagorno-Karabakh which would decide fate of the region in direct negotiations with Baku without Yerevan’s interference. Also, I think that international experts may be involved to solve conflict issues. Finally, one can wait for the reaction of the OSCE to the Russia-sponsored project to prevent development and outbreak of new conflicts on the territory of the OSCE member states.

The experts note significance of securing progress in resolving the Karabakh conflict till April 2009. In your opinion, to what extent is it possible?

I think that resolving such conflicts should not be tied to any dates or events. Armenians  step up campaign aimed at recognizing the so-called “Armenian genocide” around the world, in particular, in the U.S in April each year. Nevertheless, I believe that the U.S. will not recognize it this year. Development of the geopolitical situation in our region takes place under such a scenario in which Washington's adoption of the related document would mean losing Ankara as a strategic partner which the White House cannot afford. On the other hand, recognizing  the "Armenian genocide" by such an influential power as the United States would mean loss of sense of the Armenian-Turkish talks.

As to the Karabakh issue, I believe that serious progress can be achieved before April, which in future could lead to real progress in resolving the Karabakh conflict.

What are your views on the Armenian Constitutional Court’s adopting the Turkey-Armenia protocols with reservations?

I would not say that such a move is unprecedented in world practice, since history has witnessed much more worst breaches of international law. The main point is that whether Armenia respects its signature which was put by Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian on behalf of the State. This is contrary to international law. Although the document has yet to undergo procedure of ratification in the Armenian parliament, I think that no international court will recognize the validity of the document, which was unilaterally amended and  injected reservations after signing the agreement.

Is the latest map on the Armenian president’s Web site which included all occupied areas of Azerbaijan shows that Armenia officially recognize itself as a party of the Karabakh conflict?

This is a very positive fact for Azerbaijan. Yerevan itself proved what Baku could not prove to the international community. Armenia itself admitted that it is a party to the conflict with Azerbaijan not only de facto but also de jure. On the other hand, Armenia has made it clear that it wishes no independence to Karabakh. Armenia just want to annex these territories, and those occupied areas which it calls a "buffer security zone". This fact reveals essence of "peaceful" policy of Armenia on the Nagorno Karabakh issue and essence of Yerevan’s policy of aggression.

Z. Ahmadov