"Baku makes it clear, that use of force is an option in Karabakh conflict settlement"

It is argued that the United States has paid much attention to relations with Azerbaijan lately. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Azerbaijan recently and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going to trip to Azerbaijan in early July. In your opinion, what is the aim behind these high-level visits?

I think that Clinton will speak about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict both in Baku and Yerevan. However, I suggest that Americans have no recipe which would uniquely solve the conflict. In this conflict Americans face the same difficulties as all other mediators because no one can find solution acceptable to both sides. We know that the United States is home to very active Armenian lobby, which neither Clinton nor Obama can ignore. Obviously, Americans have stepped up efforts as of late. They just want to ensure at least three zones of priority influence.

Firstly, this is an alternative delivery of energy resources from Central Asia along the the South Caucasus corridor and further to the west. Projects with pipelines have both economic and political importance for the United States. First, to implement projects, bypassing Iran and Russia, and, secondly, try to include leadership of transit countries in the zone of influence.

Secondly, squeeze Turkey and Russia out from the South Caucasus. Thirdly, to fix the axis they are trying to stretch from Afghanistan to Iraq and beyond. Iran hinders them in this regard. But Azerbaijan has borders with the country.

In a period prior to Dmitry Medvedev’s trip to Yerevan, Armenian media reported that he will submit a new plan to bring an earliest resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to the Armenian leadership. The plan allegedly calls for liberation of three occupied regions of Azerbaijan at an early stage. What are your views on this plan?

Well, there are quite a lot rumors. On my part, I have heard that Russian and Turkish troops, but not Russian and American troops will be deployed on the liberated areas. Deployment of American peacekeepers is generally an unrealistic option, as it will anger Russia and Iran. After all, if Americans troops are deployed on the border with Iran, it will only complicate situation in the region. And yet it is not clear whether such an option is beneficial for Armenia and Azerbaijan, for which Iran is a neighboring state.

In general, it is difficult to say how true are these rumors. I think Armenians will not accept deployment of Turkish peacekeepers. However, it seems to me all the options swirling around one thing - Armenia liberates seven occupied regions around Nagorno-Karabakh, and the discussion of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is delayed for several years, for example, 10 to 15 years. Who can become a guarantor of such a decision? Certainly, the external forces. Can this decision be made in the format of peacekeepers?

First of all, it depends on Baku. Such a scenario of events is possible if Azerbaijan is ready to do so. If not, then the aforementioned option is doomed to failure. I believe today Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be solved in a military way or it freezes. Or if we are talking about compromise, it could be solved through the ways i just mentioned.

The option you suggest envisages return of Azerbaijani refugees to Nagorno-Karabakh while discussions over its status are frozen?

I think this is also another item for discussion.

Following latest round of trilateral talks, Russian president’s press office reported that Karabakh conflict parties have brought positions on the Madrid principles closer. It is known that Azerbaijan adopted these principles several months ago while Armenia has delayed the answer.  Then what does the statement by the Russian presidential press office mean?

Such statements are made regularly. In fact, we can see no real steps. I no longer trust such statements. What does the word ‘closer’ mean? It is not clear. If earlier they were closer, now such convergence would be followed by concrete steps that we would be able to compare with.

Armenia is critical of Azerbaijan’s recently adopted Military Doctrine claiming that it will pave a way for resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by force…  

I think Azerbaijan’s newly adopted Military Doctrine is quite obvious message to Yerevan. Baku makes it clear that does not exclude solution to the Karabakh problem by use of force since now it is already enshrined in the military doctrine.


/Day.Az/